THE U.S. POWER STRUCTURE
Frank’s Morrow’s specialty is the U.S. power structure. He gained his PhD from the University of Texas in 1984 and his 600+ page thesis was on the subject. He produced almost 600 segments of the two-decade run of the best political TV show in history, Alternative Views.
This in-depth interview with Jeff Archer (pseudonym Malcom Lagauche) covers much ground and makes it clear that what we see in the U.S. political scene is not real. Frank goes into detail about how we have come to live in a unipolar world that is controlled by people who may not have names that are recognizable to the general public.
IN THE BEGINNING
ML: Frank, explain who benefits from all the dirty tricks we see pulled today by U.S. policies.
FM: A lot of people benefit, but the more important question is "who has the power?" Bill Gates benefits from the system, and is immensely rich, but he doesn’t have the power that people will less money have. For that, you have to go back and see if there is an American ruling class, and, if so, who are they and what do they do.
We can go back and look at the Constitutional Convention and see how our system was set up to provide fences so that the common people could not exert their influence over the government. This has been going on ever since.
One reason I got interested in who controls things and who runs things is that growing up while in high school and college, I notice that, over the years, no matter who was president, the working class always got it in the neck. I asked how there could be continuous power against the workers if we have a democracy where people can get their interests taken care of.
ML: Take us back to the beginning.
FM: The Declaration of Independence was written to express the discontent of the American radicals and people who wanted to break away from England. They were using that as a document on the basis and justification for their breaking away.
Let’s talk about the Constitution. I will say Constitutions. By the way, this is something that I’ve finally become aware of and you’re the first person I’ve talked with about it.
The Constitutional Convention came about because the elite wanted a government that they could control, not only for economic interests, but also for political interests. There was an established national government spelled out in the Articles of Confederation. In those articles, it said they could be amended, but they had to have unanimous consent of all states. The states seemed to be okay with that.
Then, certain people (sometimes referred to as the Founding Fathers) got together in Philadelphia and sealed themselves up in secrecy during the summer. It was certainly understandable they would seal themselves up because they were planning a coup. They proclaimed that a new Constitution was necessary and it would go into effect once nine out of 13 states ratified it. This was a coup because they illegally overthrew the existing government.
There are two important books that go into detail of these times. One was published in 1913 and written by Charles Beard: An Economic Interpretation of the Constitution. That was a bombshell that people have been arguing about ever since. His main thesis was that these people in Philadelphia were not the highbrow individuals who are highly intellectual. People who wanted to do good for the country because they loved democracy. It was just the opposite.
A more recent book is To Form a More Perfect Union. It was written by Robert McGuire, a statistics expert. He confirmed much of what Beard was saying.
ML: We have been led to believe that the Founding Fathers held wisdom, intelligence and foresight far above those traits of mortal men. Have we been conned?
FM: Definitely. Let me explain how the founders usurped power.
The people in the convention, Madison in particular, said the country is divided into two groups: people who have power and property and people who don’t. The people who don’t have it will try to take it away from the people who do have it unless we come up with a system that will prevent them from doing this. As Madison said, in some of this writings, including the Federalist Papers, we have to come up with a system with enough flaws in it so it appears to be democratic, but there are enough flaws so the common people can not coalesce and get their needs taken care of. The country will be run by the elite.
John Jay, one of the writers of the Federalist Papers, as well as the first Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, and all those people at the convention, with the exception of maybe one, agreed that the people who own the country ought to run it. If you look at what the people were saying, it came out much more democratic in appearance than what they really wanted. Many wanted a king or a tightly-controlled aristocracy. In the propaganda we were taught while growing up, they say, "They have all these different things. The three branches of government and voting which doesn’t occur all at once and the judges are elected for life. During the convention, there was fear that the people would all get together and vote in some strongman who could articulate what the people wanted. The founders had to set up a structure that would prevent that, and they did.
History books say that if there would have been free and fair elections, the Constitution never would have passed. There were all kinds of shenanigans that went on. As a matter of fact, there were four or five states that did not support the Constitution, but approved it only if there would be a subsequent open convention or if there was a Bill of Rights.
The framers of the Constitution in Philadelphia did not want a Bill of Rights. There were Bills of Rights in some constitutions of the states, but they did not want a national Bill of Rights. However, in December 1791, the Congress passed the first Ten Amendments, the Bill of Rights. It was forced on the founders.
You really have two Constitutions that have come down all these years: one for the people and the other for the wealthy and powerful. Of course, the governments were still controlled by the wealthy and powerful, so that any time there were conflicts, any time there were dangers to the Constitution, there was always the Bill of Rights. It wasn’t the basic Constitution. That started with John Adams and then Lincoln and it came right down. They still don’t mess with the basic Constitution.
They’ve now destroyed the Bill of Rights. They just ignore them, or they’ve made executive orders to circumvent the Bill of Rights and the Supreme Court has upheld all this stuff. During the Reagan presidency, a lot of people in the administration, including himself, for a period of time were saying, "We really don’t need these pesky amendments. All we need is the basic Constitution." That didn’t gain much popular traction, but you can tell here is this continuity of control, and it was designed into the system.
— In Part Two: Enter the Private Organizations
Who Really Runs The World!
Who Really Runs The World!
Last edited by Biryani on Sun Jul 05, 2009 6:44 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Part Two
ML: What made the ruling class come so closely together?
FM: Before World War I, the United States was a debtor country. The economy was controlled mainly by England. But, after WWI, the United States had wealth. The other countries were laid low by the war, so the U.S. had all this power. The Brits and their sympathizers from the U.S. came up with an organization called the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR). That’s still the bedrock of the U.S. power structure.
The power is based on control of institutions: the big corporations, the financial institutions, and the media and then with that, they can control the political system.
ML: When you read about the CFR, you always see that the group prides itself on the diversity of its members. Is this an illusion?
FM: You got Democrats. You got Republicans. It sounds like a diversity of thought processes. That’s part of the propaganda that we get: that everybody is represented. But, in reality, there is the A team and the B team. They’re all part of the team. It doesn’t make any difference. Anybody who’s outside of that either gets ignored or attacked, or maybe put in jail, to maintain this control. As David Rockefeller said, if somebody is invited to be a member of the CFR, all philosophical questions have already been answered.
But, the CFR does some important things. First of all, it has the study groups of lead people from various walks of life, particularly the elite universities and think-tanks. They get together and come up with ways to control the system and they make recommendations. They call up their buddies in Congress who are on the CFR and, lo and behold, these things are passed and put into law.
The second thing they do is to massage people and see which ones they want to either run for high office or have high positions, such as deputies or assistants in the Department of State or the Pentagon. These people are approved, sheep-dipped I guess you might say, in the CFR.
The CFR is a small organization, about 2,100 people or something like that. Yet, they have people who are in big corporations, the important military positions, banks, any organization or institution of significance. In all these, you’ll find people who are members of the CFR.
ML: Has the CFR spawned similar organizations?
FM: As the world became more international and integrated, the elite from Europe became wealthy again. They wanted to make sure that the U.S. didn’t get everything to themselves. They came up with another bedrock organization, the Bilderbergers. It came from the name of the hotel where they first met in 1954 in Oosterbeek in The Netherlands. They let you know about the meetings today, which are held at various venues, but they won’t let you anywhere near the place. They fire everybody in the building and bring in new staff. They have armed helicopters. When they meet overseas, they have machine gun nests and tanks to protect these guys. They know the people in the world hate them, but they get together and let their hair down with each other.
The Bilderbergers look at the system as a whole and a lot of things they recommend gradually come into being. They were the first to talk about the North American Union. Once again, the people are massaged through the Bilderbergers if they are going to be allowed to run for the U.S. presidency or even vice president. You’ll see them going through there first.
There is a tremendous overlap of membership in the CFR and the Bilderbergers. In fact, David Rockefeller was the head person of the CFR and the Bilderbergers for years. There is a tremendous interlocking in all these things. And, these people who are interlocked will also sit on the board of directors of big banks, or their buddies will. Everything is tightly controlled.
ML: How about the minor candidates, such as Ralph Nader and others. Are they ignored because they are not part of the club? Also, those in the Democratic and Republican parties who are better than their colleagues, yet get little of the vote, such as Ron Paul, Dennis Kucinich and Mike Gravel? And, is Obama now being groomed since it looks like he may win the nomination, or has he been co-opted already? Two years ago, his views weren't that bad, but today he is just as much a warmonger and capitalist as the rest. Do you think he was approached?
FM: They are outsiders, but they are allowed to run for the nomination for a while in order to give the illusion that we are having a democratic process. However, these candidates don't stand a chance. They will be able to attract little money, and the media will ignore them or give them less coverage and less time during debates. If they start to become too successful, as with Jesse Jackson, the media will viciously attack him.
In the case of Ron Paul, there were occasions where pre and post-election polls showed that he either might win or could have won or came close. The votes apparently were simply stolen. Meanwhile, in places where he was competitive and a threat to the establishment candidates, the media ignored it completely. Paul amazed everyone by attracting large amounts of grassroots money. The Republican Party itself tried to freeze him out. The American people have been so brainwashed, they don't respond to a more populist message.
Democrats always talk more to the left during the nominations, but then they swing to the right for the general election. The Obama phenomenon seems to be more of a power struggle between two dominant groups in the Democratic Party and those people in the ruling class. That traditionally has indicated the range of disagreement within the ruling class. This range is reflected, not only in the candidates, but also in the activity in Congress and what is discussible in the media. This range has narrowed considerably since the Reagan counter-revolution.
Obama obviously was approached by the Brzezinski group in the party. He is unusual in that he hasn't been massaged by the elite organizations we've been talking about. However, his steady swing to the right has been engineered by his handlers. He has been smart enough to go along with his carefully-crafted presentation of himself.
ML: Isn’t there a more recent organization that has come on board to supplement the CFR and the Bilderbergers?
FM: There was a problem in the early 1970s when Japan became powerful. They decided they had to bring Japan into the consensus because they didn’t want some rogue country out there that was powerful and doing its own thing. So, they brought Japan into it and called it the Trilateral Commission, consisting of Japan, Europe and North America. You have those three main organizations.
ML: Do other groups come under the watchful eyes of the three main players?
FM: Now, there are other organizations that they use for control, such as the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank, and of course, all the central banks are interlocked. That’s where the Federal Reserve comes in.
The U.S. economy is controlled by an organization that’s privately held by banks, and yet that’s where our economic policy is determined. People think about the Federal Reserve, "Oh well. That’s government," when it’s not.
They control the money supply and who gets bailed out, as they’re doing right now. They control the interest rates. It’s remarkable, but they did this themselves. Some bankers got together and came up with this, I believe in 1910, on Jekyll Island off the coast of Georgia. A congressman got legislation introduced and when Congress began to pass the law, many banks said, "Oh no. Don’t do it. You’ll kill us. That’s terrible." The congress people said, "See, they’re against it, so it must be good."
People have told me, "You’re paranoid." If it’s real, you’re not paranoid. I found that if I don’t trust my "paranoia," I’m wrong. Things happen all the time behind closed doors. They try to keep people from finding out how the system really works by saying, "You’re a conspiracy theorist."
ML: How many people are calling the shots now? A couple of thousand?
FM: Well, that always comes up. That isn’t as important as the institutions themselves. Because over the years, you’ll have different people running things. People can be replaced. David Rockefeller was so powerful, but he’s getting so old and senile now that other people have taken on this role.
There’s kind of a ladder. The names can be interchangeable over the years, but the organizations are not. Henry Kissinger has been extremely powerful, but he was put into position by the Rockefellers. Every U.S. president, except the fool we have now, who was allowed to run because he is a fool, and all the people with significant jobs, particularly in the executive department, come from the CFR or maybe the Trilateral Commission. But, the people above them, the Bilderbergers, wield power in the world. I am fascinated to see the continuation of power from the old kings and queens.
ML: Aren’t there a lot of subgroups or organizations with benign-sounding names that make people think they are objective organizations, when in essence they are not?
FM: That’s true. They’ll set up these organizations when they perceive there is a need to evaluate a problem and try to get popular support. But, they’re all under the watchful eye of the primary organizations. They probably will have one or two people who are also members of the CFR sitting on the boards. These people take active interest and control. Here’s a good example. When LBJ was running the Vietnam War, periodically you would see in newspapers that Lyndon consulted with the 10 Wise Men, or the 15 Wise Men. He had this outfit he would consult with every so often called the "Wise Men." I’ll be darned, all but about two of them were from the CFR. The CFR supported the Vietnam War, but as the war went on, there became opposition from within the CFR. Finally, the opposition grew to the point where the CFR held discussions on whether to continue to support the war. The doves won and Johnson was called in by the Wise Men and told, "We need to talk."
The night before, LBJ had given one of his bellicose speeches and the Wise Men said, "Lyndon, it’s all over. We’re going to pull out." They said that Lyndon turned white. Within a week, LBJ gave his famous speech on TV saying that he would not run for president.
People said there was a change in power and we had a new president. There was no change in power. It was just a new puppet sitting in the seat.
— In Part Three: Bringing the Power Structure Up To Date
ML: What made the ruling class come so closely together?
FM: Before World War I, the United States was a debtor country. The economy was controlled mainly by England. But, after WWI, the United States had wealth. The other countries were laid low by the war, so the U.S. had all this power. The Brits and their sympathizers from the U.S. came up with an organization called the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR). That’s still the bedrock of the U.S. power structure.
The power is based on control of institutions: the big corporations, the financial institutions, and the media and then with that, they can control the political system.
ML: When you read about the CFR, you always see that the group prides itself on the diversity of its members. Is this an illusion?
FM: You got Democrats. You got Republicans. It sounds like a diversity of thought processes. That’s part of the propaganda that we get: that everybody is represented. But, in reality, there is the A team and the B team. They’re all part of the team. It doesn’t make any difference. Anybody who’s outside of that either gets ignored or attacked, or maybe put in jail, to maintain this control. As David Rockefeller said, if somebody is invited to be a member of the CFR, all philosophical questions have already been answered.
But, the CFR does some important things. First of all, it has the study groups of lead people from various walks of life, particularly the elite universities and think-tanks. They get together and come up with ways to control the system and they make recommendations. They call up their buddies in Congress who are on the CFR and, lo and behold, these things are passed and put into law.
The second thing they do is to massage people and see which ones they want to either run for high office or have high positions, such as deputies or assistants in the Department of State or the Pentagon. These people are approved, sheep-dipped I guess you might say, in the CFR.
The CFR is a small organization, about 2,100 people or something like that. Yet, they have people who are in big corporations, the important military positions, banks, any organization or institution of significance. In all these, you’ll find people who are members of the CFR.
ML: Has the CFR spawned similar organizations?
FM: As the world became more international and integrated, the elite from Europe became wealthy again. They wanted to make sure that the U.S. didn’t get everything to themselves. They came up with another bedrock organization, the Bilderbergers. It came from the name of the hotel where they first met in 1954 in Oosterbeek in The Netherlands. They let you know about the meetings today, which are held at various venues, but they won’t let you anywhere near the place. They fire everybody in the building and bring in new staff. They have armed helicopters. When they meet overseas, they have machine gun nests and tanks to protect these guys. They know the people in the world hate them, but they get together and let their hair down with each other.
The Bilderbergers look at the system as a whole and a lot of things they recommend gradually come into being. They were the first to talk about the North American Union. Once again, the people are massaged through the Bilderbergers if they are going to be allowed to run for the U.S. presidency or even vice president. You’ll see them going through there first.
There is a tremendous overlap of membership in the CFR and the Bilderbergers. In fact, David Rockefeller was the head person of the CFR and the Bilderbergers for years. There is a tremendous interlocking in all these things. And, these people who are interlocked will also sit on the board of directors of big banks, or their buddies will. Everything is tightly controlled.
ML: How about the minor candidates, such as Ralph Nader and others. Are they ignored because they are not part of the club? Also, those in the Democratic and Republican parties who are better than their colleagues, yet get little of the vote, such as Ron Paul, Dennis Kucinich and Mike Gravel? And, is Obama now being groomed since it looks like he may win the nomination, or has he been co-opted already? Two years ago, his views weren't that bad, but today he is just as much a warmonger and capitalist as the rest. Do you think he was approached?
FM: They are outsiders, but they are allowed to run for the nomination for a while in order to give the illusion that we are having a democratic process. However, these candidates don't stand a chance. They will be able to attract little money, and the media will ignore them or give them less coverage and less time during debates. If they start to become too successful, as with Jesse Jackson, the media will viciously attack him.
In the case of Ron Paul, there were occasions where pre and post-election polls showed that he either might win or could have won or came close. The votes apparently were simply stolen. Meanwhile, in places where he was competitive and a threat to the establishment candidates, the media ignored it completely. Paul amazed everyone by attracting large amounts of grassroots money. The Republican Party itself tried to freeze him out. The American people have been so brainwashed, they don't respond to a more populist message.
Democrats always talk more to the left during the nominations, but then they swing to the right for the general election. The Obama phenomenon seems to be more of a power struggle between two dominant groups in the Democratic Party and those people in the ruling class. That traditionally has indicated the range of disagreement within the ruling class. This range is reflected, not only in the candidates, but also in the activity in Congress and what is discussible in the media. This range has narrowed considerably since the Reagan counter-revolution.
Obama obviously was approached by the Brzezinski group in the party. He is unusual in that he hasn't been massaged by the elite organizations we've been talking about. However, his steady swing to the right has been engineered by his handlers. He has been smart enough to go along with his carefully-crafted presentation of himself.
ML: Isn’t there a more recent organization that has come on board to supplement the CFR and the Bilderbergers?
FM: There was a problem in the early 1970s when Japan became powerful. They decided they had to bring Japan into the consensus because they didn’t want some rogue country out there that was powerful and doing its own thing. So, they brought Japan into it and called it the Trilateral Commission, consisting of Japan, Europe and North America. You have those three main organizations.
ML: Do other groups come under the watchful eyes of the three main players?
FM: Now, there are other organizations that they use for control, such as the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank, and of course, all the central banks are interlocked. That’s where the Federal Reserve comes in.
The U.S. economy is controlled by an organization that’s privately held by banks, and yet that’s where our economic policy is determined. People think about the Federal Reserve, "Oh well. That’s government," when it’s not.
They control the money supply and who gets bailed out, as they’re doing right now. They control the interest rates. It’s remarkable, but they did this themselves. Some bankers got together and came up with this, I believe in 1910, on Jekyll Island off the coast of Georgia. A congressman got legislation introduced and when Congress began to pass the law, many banks said, "Oh no. Don’t do it. You’ll kill us. That’s terrible." The congress people said, "See, they’re against it, so it must be good."
People have told me, "You’re paranoid." If it’s real, you’re not paranoid. I found that if I don’t trust my "paranoia," I’m wrong. Things happen all the time behind closed doors. They try to keep people from finding out how the system really works by saying, "You’re a conspiracy theorist."
ML: How many people are calling the shots now? A couple of thousand?
FM: Well, that always comes up. That isn’t as important as the institutions themselves. Because over the years, you’ll have different people running things. People can be replaced. David Rockefeller was so powerful, but he’s getting so old and senile now that other people have taken on this role.
There’s kind of a ladder. The names can be interchangeable over the years, but the organizations are not. Henry Kissinger has been extremely powerful, but he was put into position by the Rockefellers. Every U.S. president, except the fool we have now, who was allowed to run because he is a fool, and all the people with significant jobs, particularly in the executive department, come from the CFR or maybe the Trilateral Commission. But, the people above them, the Bilderbergers, wield power in the world. I am fascinated to see the continuation of power from the old kings and queens.
ML: Aren’t there a lot of subgroups or organizations with benign-sounding names that make people think they are objective organizations, when in essence they are not?
FM: That’s true. They’ll set up these organizations when they perceive there is a need to evaluate a problem and try to get popular support. But, they’re all under the watchful eye of the primary organizations. They probably will have one or two people who are also members of the CFR sitting on the boards. These people take active interest and control. Here’s a good example. When LBJ was running the Vietnam War, periodically you would see in newspapers that Lyndon consulted with the 10 Wise Men, or the 15 Wise Men. He had this outfit he would consult with every so often called the "Wise Men." I’ll be darned, all but about two of them were from the CFR. The CFR supported the Vietnam War, but as the war went on, there became opposition from within the CFR. Finally, the opposition grew to the point where the CFR held discussions on whether to continue to support the war. The doves won and Johnson was called in by the Wise Men and told, "We need to talk."
The night before, LBJ had given one of his bellicose speeches and the Wise Men said, "Lyndon, it’s all over. We’re going to pull out." They said that Lyndon turned white. Within a week, LBJ gave his famous speech on TV saying that he would not run for president.
People said there was a change in power and we had a new president. There was no change in power. It was just a new puppet sitting in the seat.
— In Part Three: Bringing the Power Structure Up To Date
Last edited by Biryani on Sun Jul 05, 2009 6:50 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Part Three
ML: If a freedom movement began in an African country and a civil war ensued, would these groups sit back and watch and then work with the winning side? Or, would they actively get involved and support one side or the other?
FM: A significant thing is that all heads of the CIA have been members of the CFR. Some of them are Bilderbergers as well. It’s the same with their counterparts in Europe. They would let the CIA handle this stuff. Their primary interest in Africa right now is to protect their investments. Look at Nicaragua. They just wanted to improve their lot and become independent. So, the U.S. hired a mercenary army to destroy the government. They would love to do the same thing with Chavez and Venezuela.
ML: How did the power elite work to get the 2003 invasion of Iraq to occur?
FM: For some reason, they let the neocons get control of the Department of Defense and the executive system. Just 10 years before, the same people were being called "The Crazies" and were in a significant minority. Usually, when something like this happens, it happens over the objection of some of the older members. They’ve wanted to control the Middle East and its oil, particularly in collusion with Israel.
ML: Was Saddam Hussein a thorn in the side of the power elite?
FM: Saddam kept Israel and Iran at bay. He tried to have an equitable Middle East, yet the other Arab countries ganged up on him. What Saddam did was to exhibit independence and creativity. One continuous policy of the Western imperial powers has been to divide the Middle East and keep it from coalescing into a prosperous working state, or at least a coalition.
The big boys have no intention of bringing the Arab countries into the international club. They want to keep control of the oil for themselves. Interestingly, they have permitted people from Saudi Arabia to attend Bilderberg meetings now and then, but only as observers. The Western powers delegate some of their authority to Israel to keep things stirred up and under control.
Saddam had to go because he was successful, thus a bad example to other Arab countries, plus the fact that he tried to get his brother nations to work together. The European Bilderbergers approved of getting rid of Saddam, but they don’t like Bush’s unilateralism and the destruction of Iraq. They know that the Americans are wanting to take sole control over the oil.
ML: When did the subject of the power elite begin to pique your interest and when did you start to put the pieces of the puzzle together?
FM: I love history and I majored in it at Tulsa University. I had been reading over the years that we had a democracy, but the common people were getting it in the neck all the time. It wasn’t until 1956 that the first book about power in the United States came out. It took that long. And, it was a sociologist who wrote it, C. Wright Mills. He wrote The Power Elite. That shook everything up, but I didn’t read it until I was overseas in the Navy. I started reading and reading and eventually came across the book. Then I started reading William Domhoff’s books. He wrote Who Rules America? Subsequently, he’s written a lot of books. He is a psychologist, not even an economist or political professor, or something like that. He does this on his own. It shows you that the mainstream university professors and organizations stay away from this. The more I read on my own, the more things became clear and I decided that I wanted to study this.
ML: Where did you study?
FM: At the University of Texas. I got out of the Navy after 16 years on active duty to study this. I was in Washington D.C. and started checking around and hey asked, "What do you mean, power structure? We don’t know what you’re talking about." Then I talked to other people and they didn’t know. I finally made a connection at the University of Texas. They didn’t know what I was talking about but they thought I was such a strange student that they would let me into the radio-television-film department in communications. As student for a doctorate, I had a BA in speech. I worked at radio stations as an announcer while at school.
I had to take courses here and there on campus. It was a couple of years before I wrote a first big paper on the subject and I submitted it to the committee of all the professors in the radio-television-film department. I thought they would really be pleased. They came unglued. "What do you mean? Council on Foreign Relations? Control of the media? What is this?" The head of the department’s hands were shaking and his face was red. He said, "I want to let you know. We’re not going to kick you out at this time, but just don’t do anymore of this." I tromped on all the myths they believed and preached to the kids.
Anyway, I had to lay low for a few years. I continued studying, researching and writing. Finally, I found a professor, kind of a radical, who said, "We gotta get you out of here." It took me 11 years, but I finished the doctorate in 1984.
ML: Give us a background on your great TV show, Alternative Views, and how you covered the power elite.
FM: I started Alternative Views in 1978, before I received my PhD. In fact, my fifth program was on the Bilderbergers. The programs we did on the power structure were very enlightening. We got a tremendous response from them. People would say, "Hey, things make sense now." In fact, we interviewed Domhoff. He was very supportive.
ML: Over the years, have you received a lot of accolades or a lot of criticism?
FM: It’s strange. We got a lot of letters and phone calls and I’ve only received two negative letters over all the years. People know that they’re being lied to, but hey don’t have any information to fill the space. This program did. I don’t go out on campus anymore, but even though it’s been 10 years since our last show, and I’ve aged a lot, I still go to the store or to a restaurant and somebody will say, "Hey. You did Alternative Views." We used to get stopped a lot by people who recognized us.
ML: Give us your final thoughts about the power structure and the future.
FM: We’re in tremendous danger right now. The powers-to-be still have the same mindset that slaughtered millions of Indians, millions of blacks, killed American workers when they tried to organize, and killed people all around the world in bigger numbers than Hitler put up.
Those in the power elite look like us and they talk like us, but they’re as different from us as Martians. They look at us in two ways: either we buy their products, or we’re in their way and they can just crush us whenever they want. They’ve turned a lot of the country into an armed camp by training and arming the police. They’ve given tanks to some police department. They’re bringing in these psychopaths, like the snipers in Iraq who come back and become part of the police system. They’re doing everything possible to suppress popular will, yet most Americans are saying, "Isn’t that nice? Let’s go salute the flag."
* * * * *
There are now 171 Alternative Views programs online. The following link takes you to the home page of the site that chronicles the programs. When you get there, insert Alternative Views in the search area. You will go to a page on which each show is described. Many of these were recorded two decades or so ago, but the information is still applicable. Quite a few of the programs discuss the power structure. Give this site a look and you will see some remarkable programs with many astute guests. Numbers 516 and 517 are the most comprehensive programs on the American Power Structure.
http://www.archive.org/index.php
ML: If a freedom movement began in an African country and a civil war ensued, would these groups sit back and watch and then work with the winning side? Or, would they actively get involved and support one side or the other?
FM: A significant thing is that all heads of the CIA have been members of the CFR. Some of them are Bilderbergers as well. It’s the same with their counterparts in Europe. They would let the CIA handle this stuff. Their primary interest in Africa right now is to protect their investments. Look at Nicaragua. They just wanted to improve their lot and become independent. So, the U.S. hired a mercenary army to destroy the government. They would love to do the same thing with Chavez and Venezuela.
ML: How did the power elite work to get the 2003 invasion of Iraq to occur?
FM: For some reason, they let the neocons get control of the Department of Defense and the executive system. Just 10 years before, the same people were being called "The Crazies" and were in a significant minority. Usually, when something like this happens, it happens over the objection of some of the older members. They’ve wanted to control the Middle East and its oil, particularly in collusion with Israel.
ML: Was Saddam Hussein a thorn in the side of the power elite?
FM: Saddam kept Israel and Iran at bay. He tried to have an equitable Middle East, yet the other Arab countries ganged up on him. What Saddam did was to exhibit independence and creativity. One continuous policy of the Western imperial powers has been to divide the Middle East and keep it from coalescing into a prosperous working state, or at least a coalition.
The big boys have no intention of bringing the Arab countries into the international club. They want to keep control of the oil for themselves. Interestingly, they have permitted people from Saudi Arabia to attend Bilderberg meetings now and then, but only as observers. The Western powers delegate some of their authority to Israel to keep things stirred up and under control.
Saddam had to go because he was successful, thus a bad example to other Arab countries, plus the fact that he tried to get his brother nations to work together. The European Bilderbergers approved of getting rid of Saddam, but they don’t like Bush’s unilateralism and the destruction of Iraq. They know that the Americans are wanting to take sole control over the oil.
ML: When did the subject of the power elite begin to pique your interest and when did you start to put the pieces of the puzzle together?
FM: I love history and I majored in it at Tulsa University. I had been reading over the years that we had a democracy, but the common people were getting it in the neck all the time. It wasn’t until 1956 that the first book about power in the United States came out. It took that long. And, it was a sociologist who wrote it, C. Wright Mills. He wrote The Power Elite. That shook everything up, but I didn’t read it until I was overseas in the Navy. I started reading and reading and eventually came across the book. Then I started reading William Domhoff’s books. He wrote Who Rules America? Subsequently, he’s written a lot of books. He is a psychologist, not even an economist or political professor, or something like that. He does this on his own. It shows you that the mainstream university professors and organizations stay away from this. The more I read on my own, the more things became clear and I decided that I wanted to study this.
ML: Where did you study?
FM: At the University of Texas. I got out of the Navy after 16 years on active duty to study this. I was in Washington D.C. and started checking around and hey asked, "What do you mean, power structure? We don’t know what you’re talking about." Then I talked to other people and they didn’t know. I finally made a connection at the University of Texas. They didn’t know what I was talking about but they thought I was such a strange student that they would let me into the radio-television-film department in communications. As student for a doctorate, I had a BA in speech. I worked at radio stations as an announcer while at school.
I had to take courses here and there on campus. It was a couple of years before I wrote a first big paper on the subject and I submitted it to the committee of all the professors in the radio-television-film department. I thought they would really be pleased. They came unglued. "What do you mean? Council on Foreign Relations? Control of the media? What is this?" The head of the department’s hands were shaking and his face was red. He said, "I want to let you know. We’re not going to kick you out at this time, but just don’t do anymore of this." I tromped on all the myths they believed and preached to the kids.
Anyway, I had to lay low for a few years. I continued studying, researching and writing. Finally, I found a professor, kind of a radical, who said, "We gotta get you out of here." It took me 11 years, but I finished the doctorate in 1984.
ML: Give us a background on your great TV show, Alternative Views, and how you covered the power elite.
FM: I started Alternative Views in 1978, before I received my PhD. In fact, my fifth program was on the Bilderbergers. The programs we did on the power structure were very enlightening. We got a tremendous response from them. People would say, "Hey, things make sense now." In fact, we interviewed Domhoff. He was very supportive.
ML: Over the years, have you received a lot of accolades or a lot of criticism?
FM: It’s strange. We got a lot of letters and phone calls and I’ve only received two negative letters over all the years. People know that they’re being lied to, but hey don’t have any information to fill the space. This program did. I don’t go out on campus anymore, but even though it’s been 10 years since our last show, and I’ve aged a lot, I still go to the store or to a restaurant and somebody will say, "Hey. You did Alternative Views." We used to get stopped a lot by people who recognized us.
ML: Give us your final thoughts about the power structure and the future.
FM: We’re in tremendous danger right now. The powers-to-be still have the same mindset that slaughtered millions of Indians, millions of blacks, killed American workers when they tried to organize, and killed people all around the world in bigger numbers than Hitler put up.
Those in the power elite look like us and they talk like us, but they’re as different from us as Martians. They look at us in two ways: either we buy their products, or we’re in their way and they can just crush us whenever they want. They’ve turned a lot of the country into an armed camp by training and arming the police. They’ve given tanks to some police department. They’re bringing in these psychopaths, like the snipers in Iraq who come back and become part of the police system. They’re doing everything possible to suppress popular will, yet most Americans are saying, "Isn’t that nice? Let’s go salute the flag."
* * * * *
There are now 171 Alternative Views programs online. The following link takes you to the home page of the site that chronicles the programs. When you get there, insert Alternative Views in the search area. You will go to a page on which each show is described. Many of these were recorded two decades or so ago, but the information is still applicable. Quite a few of the programs discuss the power structure. Give this site a look and you will see some remarkable programs with many astute guests. Numbers 516 and 517 are the most comprehensive programs on the American Power Structure.
http://www.archive.org/index.php
James Madison’s position at the Constitutional Convention was that state power should be used "to protect the minority of the opulent against the majority." That is why the Senate has only a hundred members who are mostly rich and were given a great deal of power. The House of Representatives, with several hundred members, is more democratic and was given much less power.
Even liberals like Walter Lippmann, one of the leading intellectuals of the 20th century, was of the opinion that in a properly functioning democracy, the intelligent minority, who should rule, have to be protected from “the trampling and the roar of the bewildered herd.”
Among the conservatives, Vice President Dick Cheney just recently illustrated his understanding of democracy. He was asked why he supports a continuation of the war in Iraq when the population is strongly opposed. His answer was simply: “So?”
- Noam Chomsky
Even liberals like Walter Lippmann, one of the leading intellectuals of the 20th century, was of the opinion that in a properly functioning democracy, the intelligent minority, who should rule, have to be protected from “the trampling and the roar of the bewildered herd.”
Among the conservatives, Vice President Dick Cheney just recently illustrated his understanding of democracy. He was asked why he supports a continuation of the war in Iraq when the population is strongly opposed. His answer was simply: “So?”
- Noam Chomsky
Last edited by Biryani on Tue Jul 07, 2009 5:33 pm, edited 1 time in total.
In an intervirew by David Barsamian, Noam Chomsky put it exactly how I've been feeling over the years...particularly about the relationship between America and Europe.
DB: Do you see Europe and East Asia emerging as counterforces to U.S. power at some point?
NC: They’re emerging all right. There is no doubt that Europe and Asia are economic forces roughly on a par with North America, and have their own interests. Their interests are not simply to follow U.S. orders. They’re tightly linked. So, for example, the corporate sector in Europe, the U.S., and most of Asia are linked in all kinds of ways and have common interests. On the other hand, there are separate interests, and these are problems that go way back, especially with Europe.
The U.S. has always had an ambivalent attitude towards Europe. It wanted Europe to be unified, as a more efficient market for U.S. corporations, great advantages of scale. On the other hand, it was always concerned about the threat that Europe might move off in another direction. A lot of the issues about the accession of the East European countries to the European Union have a lot to do with that. The U.S. is strongly in favor of it, because it’s hoping that these countries will be more susceptible to U.S. influence and will be able to undermine the core of Europe, which is France and Germany, the big industrial countries, which might move in a somewhat more independent direction.
Also in the background is a long-standing U.S. hatred of the European social market system, which provides decent wages and working conditions and benefits. It’s very different from the U.S. system. And they don’t want that model to exist, because it’s a dangerous one. People get funny ideas. And it’s very explicitly stated that with the accession of Eastern European countries, with low wages and repression of labor and so on, it may help undermine the social and worker standards in Western Europe, and that would be a big benefit for the U.S.
DB: With the U.S. economy deteriorating and with more layoffs, how is the Bush administration going to maintain what some are calling a garrison state with permanent war and occupation of numerous countries? How are they going to pull it off?
NC: They have to pull it off for about another six years. By that time they hope they will have institutionalized highly reactionary programs within the United States. They will have left the economy in a very serious state, with huge deficits, pretty much the way they did in the 1980s. And then it will be somebody else’s problem to patch it together. Meanwhile, they will have, they hope, undermined social programs, diminished democracy, which of course they hate, by transferring decisions out of the public arena into private hands. and they will have done it in a way that will be very hard to disentangle. So they will have left a legacy internally that will be painful and hard. But only for the majority of the population. The people they’re concerned about are going to be making out like bandits. Very much like the Reagan years. It’s the same people, after all.
And internationally, they hope that they will have institutionalized the doctrines of imperial domination through force and preventive war as a choice. The U.S. now in military spending probably exceeds the rest of the world combined, and it’s much more advanced and moving out into extremely dangerous directions, like space. They assume, I suppose, that no matter what happens to the American economy, that will give such overwhelming force that people will just have to do what they say.
DB: Do you see Europe and East Asia emerging as counterforces to U.S. power at some point?
NC: They’re emerging all right. There is no doubt that Europe and Asia are economic forces roughly on a par with North America, and have their own interests. Their interests are not simply to follow U.S. orders. They’re tightly linked. So, for example, the corporate sector in Europe, the U.S., and most of Asia are linked in all kinds of ways and have common interests. On the other hand, there are separate interests, and these are problems that go way back, especially with Europe.
The U.S. has always had an ambivalent attitude towards Europe. It wanted Europe to be unified, as a more efficient market for U.S. corporations, great advantages of scale. On the other hand, it was always concerned about the threat that Europe might move off in another direction. A lot of the issues about the accession of the East European countries to the European Union have a lot to do with that. The U.S. is strongly in favor of it, because it’s hoping that these countries will be more susceptible to U.S. influence and will be able to undermine the core of Europe, which is France and Germany, the big industrial countries, which might move in a somewhat more independent direction.
Also in the background is a long-standing U.S. hatred of the European social market system, which provides decent wages and working conditions and benefits. It’s very different from the U.S. system. And they don’t want that model to exist, because it’s a dangerous one. People get funny ideas. And it’s very explicitly stated that with the accession of Eastern European countries, with low wages and repression of labor and so on, it may help undermine the social and worker standards in Western Europe, and that would be a big benefit for the U.S.
DB: With the U.S. economy deteriorating and with more layoffs, how is the Bush administration going to maintain what some are calling a garrison state with permanent war and occupation of numerous countries? How are they going to pull it off?
NC: They have to pull it off for about another six years. By that time they hope they will have institutionalized highly reactionary programs within the United States. They will have left the economy in a very serious state, with huge deficits, pretty much the way they did in the 1980s. And then it will be somebody else’s problem to patch it together. Meanwhile, they will have, they hope, undermined social programs, diminished democracy, which of course they hate, by transferring decisions out of the public arena into private hands. and they will have done it in a way that will be very hard to disentangle. So they will have left a legacy internally that will be painful and hard. But only for the majority of the population. The people they’re concerned about are going to be making out like bandits. Very much like the Reagan years. It’s the same people, after all.
And internationally, they hope that they will have institutionalized the doctrines of imperial domination through force and preventive war as a choice. The U.S. now in military spending probably exceeds the rest of the world combined, and it’s much more advanced and moving out into extremely dangerous directions, like space. They assume, I suppose, that no matter what happens to the American economy, that will give such overwhelming force that people will just have to do what they say.
WHAT DID APRIL SAY?
Following is a recent article by Jeff Archer (Malcom Lagauche) posted on his website www.malcomlagauche.com
WHAT DID APRIL SAY?
We are approaching the 19th anniversary of the infamous meeting between April Glaspie, former U.S. Ambassador to Iraq, and Saddam Hussein on July 25, 1990. Sadly, this incident has been virtually eliminated from the history of Iraq-U.S. relations. After the cease-fire agreement between the U.S. and Iraq in February 1991, some media attention was given, but that quickly disappeared.
April Glaspie met with Saddam Hussein on July 25, 1990 to discuss the future of Kuwait and Iraq.
Before we discuss her meeting, let’s look at background information that led to the point where Iraq was on the verge of invading its Arab neighbor to the south. For many years, the country known as Kuwait was culturally, geographically, racially and economically a part of the area known as Iraq today. Iraq has been identified by different names over the centuries and has been a part of various empires, but present-day Kuwait was always a province of Basra, the southernmost component of Iraq.
In the early part of the 20th century, the British laid the boundaries that led to the current Middle East. Many of those overran traditional cultures and identities, making the area a hotbed of violence from then until the beginning of the 21st century. Today, it looks like the conflicts created by these borders may yet spill over into the next century. The Kuwaiti-Iraqi border created hostility and mistrust. Despite the British placing of stooges in power in Iraq during their 20th century occupation of the country, two of the quisling governments protested the status of Kuwait as an independent country.
Until 1990, the Ba’ath government of Iraq and the emirate of Kuwait held an uneasy truce. At times, both countries experienced amiable relations, but at others, there was an aloofness. The common denominator was that both were populated by Arabs and both used this brotherhood to keep peace.
In 1980, Iran and Iraq went to war. The two countries fought a bloody eight-year conflict that ended in a stalemate. Iran wanted to spread its own Islamic revolution throughout the Middle East and Iraq was the only country in the area that could stop the territorial designs of Iran. Iraq was the buffer that stopped the countries of the Arabian Peninsula, including Kuwait, from falling into Iranian hands. Unlike the hostile attitude of neighboring countries brought on by U.S. intervention in the area, during the 1980s, Iraq’s Arab neighbors stood solidly behind the country that was sacrificing its soldiers to keep the independence of Gulf Arabian countries. In the 1990s, with forceful persuasion by the U.S., countries like Saudi Arabia, U.A.E., Qatar, and others turned against their former ally. Kuwait, with much U.S. assistance, was the first to betray Iraq and others followed. Some, however, such as Yemen and Jordan, kept cordial relations with Iraq because the people of these countries forced their leaders not to ostracize the Iraqis.
By the end of the Iran-Iraq War, Iraq’s economy had been greatly weakened. The incidents leading to Desert Storm began to emerge.
Kuwait lent money to Iraq during the war. The money was allocated for the defense of Kuwait, as well as that of Iraq, and the Iraqi government did not expect to be hard-pressed to repay the loans after the hostilities ended, especially because much of the money was used in thwarting Iran from invading Kuwait.
Soon after the cease-fire, Kuwait demanded repayment. Saddam Hussein was shocked that Kuwait would apply so much pressure after his country had spent eight bloody years defending Kuwait from Iranian aggression. When Iraq attempted to discuss the matter of repayment with Kuwait, the Kuwaitis became ever more insistent about immediate remission. The Iraqis knew at that time that the CIA and Kuwait had already instituted measures to further undermine the Iraqi economy, yet they did not realize the severity and progress of those plans.
After Iraq crossed the Kuwaiti border on August 2, 1990, many aspects of this anti-Iraq scheme came out in the open. The Iraqis found a copy of a letter dated November 22, 1989 and marked "Top Secret and Private" that was sent by Brigadier Ahmed Al Fahd (Director General of the State Security Department of Kuwait) to Sheikh Salem Al Sabah Al Sabah (Minister of the Interior of Kuwait). The letter mentions the coalition of the CIA and the Kuwaiti government and their plans to undermine the Iraqi economy. Here are a few highlights:
In accordance with Your Highness’s orders, as given during our meetings with you on October 22, 1989, I visited the headquarters of the United States Intelligence Agency, together with Colonel Ishaq Abd Al Hadi Shaddad, Director of Investigations for the Governorate of Ahmadi, from November 12 to 18, 1989. The United States side emphasized that the visit should be top secret in order not to arouse the sensibilities among our brothers in the Gulf Cooperation Council, Iran and Iraq …
We agreed with the United States side that visits would be exchanged at all levels between the State Security Department and the Central Intelligence Agency, and that information would be exchanged about armaments and social and political structures of Iran and Iraq …
We agreed with the American side that it was important to take advantage of the deteriorating economic situation in Iraq in order to put pressure on that country’s government to delineate our common border. The Central Intelligence Agency gave us its view of appropriate means of pressure, saying that broad cooperation should be initiated between us, on condition that such actions are coordinated at a high level.
This letter proved the Iraqi allegations of a definite U.S. plan to keep Iraq’s economy weak so Kuwait could benefit. The release of this letter put a different look on the events of August 2, 1990 and the following few months. Iraq did not enter Kuwait simply to stake claim to Kuwait’s oil. It did so to stop Kuwait and the U.S. from permanently damaging its economy.
Iraqi Foreign Minister Tariq Aziz quickly spread the word about the U.S.-Kuwait collusion, but the agenda was written by Bush I and barely a peep was heard about the damning evidence. The world was hearing about "naked aggression" and "another Hitler." In an October 24, 1990 letter to the United Nations, Aziz highlighted the actions of the U.S. and Kuwait that led to the eventual occupation of Kuwait by Iraq. Many crucial points are brought up, so it is important to publish the entire letter:
I am sending you a copy of a letter dated November 22, 1989, from the Director-General of the State Security Department to the Minister of the Interior of the former Kuwaiti regime. This dangerous document proves the existence of a conspiracy between that government and the government of the United States to destabilize the situation in Iraq.
I mentioned this conspiracy in a letter dated September 4, 1990, that I addressed to foreign ministers around the world. In that letter, I explained the historical background and the machinations of the Kuwaiti leaders against Iraq as follows:
"We must therefore conclude that the leaders of the former regime wished to pursue their plots until Iraq’s economy was destroyed and its political system destabilized. It is impossible to believe that a regime like that formerly in power in Kuwait could have embarked on such an ambitious conspiracy without the support and protection of a great power. That power can only be the United States."
I also made the following remarks in my letter:
"It is evident from my historical account and from the description I have given of events, that the disagreement was not simply about economic or border questions. We had many differences of that nature over 20 years, and we always tried to maintain the best possible relations with the former leaders of Kuwait, in spite of their contemptible behavior and their despicable attitude toward Iraq. The fact of the matter is that there was an organized conspiracy, in which the former leaders of Kuwait deliberately took part with the support of the United States, to destabilize Iraq’s economy and undermine its defense capabilities against the imperialist aims of Israel and acts of aggression on part of the Arab world. To achieve that, it was necessary to undermine Iraq’s political system and to strengthen the hegemony of the United States over the region, especially over its oil resources. In fact, as President Saddam Hussein declared at the Baghdad summit, and as I indicated in my letter to the Secretary-General of the Arab League, it was a war against Iraq."
This document proves, clearly and unequivocally, that the CIA and the intelligence services of the former government of Kuwait were in league with each other in plotting against the national security, territorial integrity, and national economy of Iraq.
I should be grateful if you would kindly circulate this letter and the appended text as official Security Council documents.
Months before the beginning of Desert Storm, Tariq Aziz had exposed Kuwait’s duplicity. Instead of looking at the facts, however, much of the world allowed George Bush I to revamp them and portray a different scenario — one in which the Iraqis invaded Kuwait for no reason other than greed and the acquisition of Kuwaiti oil. Logic would tear holes in this assessment. Iraq already had the world’s second-largest oil reserves, so it did not need to grab those of Kuwait. Iraq’s economic existence had been threatened by the U.S. and Kuwait, but it seemed no one was listening.
In 1989, another strange scenario emerged. Iraq began to lose oil from its wells in the Rumailah oil fields, located in the Iraq/Kuwait border area. Iraq discovered that the Kuwaitis had installed a slant drilling operation on the border, enabling them to drill under the boundary and steal Iraqi oil. At the time, the Iraqi government assessed the oil losses at $2.7 billion, but after discovering the enormity of the operation, losses were re-assessed to about $14 billion. The stealing of Iraqi oil was well-documented by Iraq. On July 15, 1990, Tariq Aziz, in a letter to the Secretary of the Arab League, described the theft in detail.
Because of the cooperative relationship between Kuwait and Iraq during the Iran-Iraq War, Saddam Hussein was aghast at the Kuwaiti’s change of heart once the hostilities ceased. Iraq began to find pieces of the puzzle and put them together. The findings were corroborated after August 2, 1990 when the Iraqis found evidence in Kuwait, such as the top secret letter previously mentioned.
Prior to August 2, 1990, the Iraqis had enough facts to present to the Arab world showing Kuwaiti involvement in undermining their economy. To Iraq, this was the beginning of a U.S. intrusion into the area that would not be reversed once put into action. In a speech in Amman, Jordan on February 24, 1990, Saddam Hussein told those assembled of the imminent danger of allowing the U.S. to become involved in regional affairs. (See Appendix XII of the book The Mother of All Battles: The Endless U.S.-Iraq War for the entire speech.) Remember, at the time, the Soviet Union was in existence and was considered a world superpower. The Iraqi president stated:
The country that exerts the greatest amount of influence on the region, on the Gulf and its oil, will consolidate its superiority as an unrivaled superpower. This proves that if the population of the Gulf — and of the entire Arab world — is not vigilant, this area will be ruled according to the wishes of the United States.
Despite this ominous prediction, the Arab world did not take much notice. Most of the countries in the region could not envisage a permanent U.S. presence that would dictate U.S. policy to them. Events since 1990, much to the chagrin of regional Arab countries, proved Saddam Hussein’s statement accurate. Today, countries such as Qatar and Kuwait are virtual U.S. possessions.
Kuwait, despite the wishes of its oil-producing partners in OPEC, began to pump much more oil than its agreed quota, bringing the price of oil down on world markets. Every time Kuwait’s actions forced a decrease in the price of oil, Iraq lost millions, if not billions, of dollars, further eroding its economy.
The situation became more tense and Saddam Hussein called for a meeting with April Glaspie, the U.S. Ambassador to Iraq. On July 25, 1990, they met and Saddam explained his country’s plight to her. He discussed Kuwait’s breaking of OPEC agreements and that his country was in desperate need of money to help rebuild its infrastructure that was damaged in the eight-year Iran-Iraq War. (See Appendix I of The Mother of All Battles for the full transcript.)
After listening, Glaspie then assured Saddam that the U.S. was on Iraq’s side and that the U.S. was in sync with the desires of Iraq to rebuild. She explained:
I think I understand this. I have lived here for years. I admire your extraordinary efforts to rebuild your country. I know you need funds. We understand that, and our opinion is that you should have the opportunity to rebuild your country. But we have no opinion on Arab-Arab conflicts, like your border dispute with Kuwait.
Saddam Hussein then complained that the U.S. was blocking most orders his government had placed with the U.S. He said:
There is nothing for us to buy from America. Only wheat. Because every time we want to buy something, they say it is forbidden. I am afraid that one day you will say, "You are going to make gunpowder out of wheat."
Those words were quite prophetic. After Desert Storm, with a full embargo in place, Iraq could not import food, so it had to create more agriculturally-based business. In June 1992, U.S. military jets, with their afterburners, destroyed 23 Iraqi wheat fields.
Getting back to the Saddam Hussein-April Glaspie meeting, she responded to Saddam’s complaints about lack of access to American markets with, "I have a direct instruction from the president to seek better relations with Iraq."
The U.S. administration maintained that it was Iraq’s business and not that of the U.S. in the matter of Iraq’s dispute with Kuwait. On July 26, 1990, the day after the Saddam-Glaspie meeting, Margaret Tutweiler, U.S. Department of State spokesperson was asked by the press, "Has the United States sent any type of diplomatic message to the Iraqis about putting 30,000 troops on the border of Kuwait? Has there been any type of protest communicated from the United States government?" She replied, "I’m entirely unaware of any such protest."
On July 31, 1990, John Kelly, Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs, testified to Congress that the "United States has no commitment to defend Kuwait and the U.S. has no intention of defending Kuwait if it is attacked by Iraq."
These messages are not ambiguous, but they were false. Bush had plans ready to destroy Iraq and the crossing of the Iraq-Kuwait border was an appropriate excuse to implement Bush’s designs.
During the war propaganda buildup of the next few months, the subject of the Saddam-Glaspie meeting was kept under wraps. Few Americans knew of the incident. Adding to the intrigue, Glaspie seemingly disappeared. From August 4, 1990 until May 1991, no government official mentioned her or could account for her whereabouts. A few reporters worked up the nerve to ask, but they were ignored.
In May 1991, April Glaspie appeared before the U.S. Senate. Questions were not asked about where she had been for the prior nine months, and the public will probably never know. During her report to the Senate, she told of warning Saddam Hussein not to take action against Kuwait. Most of the senators believed her because she alleged that the transcripts of her meeting with Saddam were altered by the Iraqi government. (The CIA admitted that the transcripts were accurate and that Glaspie had not issued such a statement to Saddam Hussein.) After her testimony, the Senate virtually granted Glaspie hero status.
In July 1991, Senators Clayborne Pell of Rhode Island and Alan Cranston of California came up with a totally different scenario from the one Glaspie presented. They read the contents of secret messages from Glaspie to the U.S. government and assessed that Glaspie blatantly lied to the U.S. Senate.
Pell and Cranston appeared on national television and called Glaspie’s testimony deceitful and shameful. They vowed to get to the bottom of the incident, all the time lambasting Glaspie and her testimony before the Senate. Pell and Cranston announced that they were putting the machinery in motion for a full investigation to begin in September 1991. By mid-October, there was no word of an investigation.
On October 11, 1991, I called Senator Cranston’s office in Washington D.C. When I asked about the impending investigation, there was silence. After a brief pause, I was hesitatingly told that they knew nothing about it and I was advised to call the Foreign Affairs Committee.
I took the recommendation of Cranston’s office and called the committee. After I gave a brief description of the incident, I asked, "Is there any information available?" The woman, who would not identify herself, snapped "Nope!" After a moment’s pause, she tersely added, "There was a meeting scheduled and then postponed indefinitely." Then, she abruptly hung up.
Somehow, the administration squashed the only chance we had of learning the truth behind the Glaspie affair. The question that will never be publicly addressed and answered is: "Did April Glaspie give Saddam Hussein a green light for invading Kuwait out of incompetence (i.e. was the Arab-Arab statement her own?) or was she instructed to say that by the U.S. administration?"
April Glaspie is a shady character at best. According to the U.S. administration, in 1992, she accepted a position at the University of San Diego. Her phone number was listed, yet there never was an answer when it was called, and, there was no answering machine.
In June 1993, the U.S. involvement in Somalia turned from a "humanitarian" mission to one that attempted to capture the newly-demonized Mohammed Aidid. There was much bloodshed. Shortly before the public denigration of Aidid, Glaspie was re-assigned to Somalia. She wrote the new script.
Soon after the Somalia debacle, Glaspie again disappeared, only to turn up in the Rwanda area, where the slaughtering of more than a million people was just getting underway. Prior to her stint in Iraq, Glaspie was stationed in Lebanon during that country’s bitter and bloody civil war. Is the fact that Glaspie happens to appear in areas in which there is violence shortly after her debut a matter of chance, or, possibly the prelude to destruction?
WHAT DID APRIL SAY?
We are approaching the 19th anniversary of the infamous meeting between April Glaspie, former U.S. Ambassador to Iraq, and Saddam Hussein on July 25, 1990. Sadly, this incident has been virtually eliminated from the history of Iraq-U.S. relations. After the cease-fire agreement between the U.S. and Iraq in February 1991, some media attention was given, but that quickly disappeared.
April Glaspie met with Saddam Hussein on July 25, 1990 to discuss the future of Kuwait and Iraq.
Before we discuss her meeting, let’s look at background information that led to the point where Iraq was on the verge of invading its Arab neighbor to the south. For many years, the country known as Kuwait was culturally, geographically, racially and economically a part of the area known as Iraq today. Iraq has been identified by different names over the centuries and has been a part of various empires, but present-day Kuwait was always a province of Basra, the southernmost component of Iraq.
In the early part of the 20th century, the British laid the boundaries that led to the current Middle East. Many of those overran traditional cultures and identities, making the area a hotbed of violence from then until the beginning of the 21st century. Today, it looks like the conflicts created by these borders may yet spill over into the next century. The Kuwaiti-Iraqi border created hostility and mistrust. Despite the British placing of stooges in power in Iraq during their 20th century occupation of the country, two of the quisling governments protested the status of Kuwait as an independent country.
Until 1990, the Ba’ath government of Iraq and the emirate of Kuwait held an uneasy truce. At times, both countries experienced amiable relations, but at others, there was an aloofness. The common denominator was that both were populated by Arabs and both used this brotherhood to keep peace.
In 1980, Iran and Iraq went to war. The two countries fought a bloody eight-year conflict that ended in a stalemate. Iran wanted to spread its own Islamic revolution throughout the Middle East and Iraq was the only country in the area that could stop the territorial designs of Iran. Iraq was the buffer that stopped the countries of the Arabian Peninsula, including Kuwait, from falling into Iranian hands. Unlike the hostile attitude of neighboring countries brought on by U.S. intervention in the area, during the 1980s, Iraq’s Arab neighbors stood solidly behind the country that was sacrificing its soldiers to keep the independence of Gulf Arabian countries. In the 1990s, with forceful persuasion by the U.S., countries like Saudi Arabia, U.A.E., Qatar, and others turned against their former ally. Kuwait, with much U.S. assistance, was the first to betray Iraq and others followed. Some, however, such as Yemen and Jordan, kept cordial relations with Iraq because the people of these countries forced their leaders not to ostracize the Iraqis.
By the end of the Iran-Iraq War, Iraq’s economy had been greatly weakened. The incidents leading to Desert Storm began to emerge.
Kuwait lent money to Iraq during the war. The money was allocated for the defense of Kuwait, as well as that of Iraq, and the Iraqi government did not expect to be hard-pressed to repay the loans after the hostilities ended, especially because much of the money was used in thwarting Iran from invading Kuwait.
Soon after the cease-fire, Kuwait demanded repayment. Saddam Hussein was shocked that Kuwait would apply so much pressure after his country had spent eight bloody years defending Kuwait from Iranian aggression. When Iraq attempted to discuss the matter of repayment with Kuwait, the Kuwaitis became ever more insistent about immediate remission. The Iraqis knew at that time that the CIA and Kuwait had already instituted measures to further undermine the Iraqi economy, yet they did not realize the severity and progress of those plans.
After Iraq crossed the Kuwaiti border on August 2, 1990, many aspects of this anti-Iraq scheme came out in the open. The Iraqis found a copy of a letter dated November 22, 1989 and marked "Top Secret and Private" that was sent by Brigadier Ahmed Al Fahd (Director General of the State Security Department of Kuwait) to Sheikh Salem Al Sabah Al Sabah (Minister of the Interior of Kuwait). The letter mentions the coalition of the CIA and the Kuwaiti government and their plans to undermine the Iraqi economy. Here are a few highlights:
In accordance with Your Highness’s orders, as given during our meetings with you on October 22, 1989, I visited the headquarters of the United States Intelligence Agency, together with Colonel Ishaq Abd Al Hadi Shaddad, Director of Investigations for the Governorate of Ahmadi, from November 12 to 18, 1989. The United States side emphasized that the visit should be top secret in order not to arouse the sensibilities among our brothers in the Gulf Cooperation Council, Iran and Iraq …
We agreed with the United States side that visits would be exchanged at all levels between the State Security Department and the Central Intelligence Agency, and that information would be exchanged about armaments and social and political structures of Iran and Iraq …
We agreed with the American side that it was important to take advantage of the deteriorating economic situation in Iraq in order to put pressure on that country’s government to delineate our common border. The Central Intelligence Agency gave us its view of appropriate means of pressure, saying that broad cooperation should be initiated between us, on condition that such actions are coordinated at a high level.
This letter proved the Iraqi allegations of a definite U.S. plan to keep Iraq’s economy weak so Kuwait could benefit. The release of this letter put a different look on the events of August 2, 1990 and the following few months. Iraq did not enter Kuwait simply to stake claim to Kuwait’s oil. It did so to stop Kuwait and the U.S. from permanently damaging its economy.
Iraqi Foreign Minister Tariq Aziz quickly spread the word about the U.S.-Kuwait collusion, but the agenda was written by Bush I and barely a peep was heard about the damning evidence. The world was hearing about "naked aggression" and "another Hitler." In an October 24, 1990 letter to the United Nations, Aziz highlighted the actions of the U.S. and Kuwait that led to the eventual occupation of Kuwait by Iraq. Many crucial points are brought up, so it is important to publish the entire letter:
I am sending you a copy of a letter dated November 22, 1989, from the Director-General of the State Security Department to the Minister of the Interior of the former Kuwaiti regime. This dangerous document proves the existence of a conspiracy between that government and the government of the United States to destabilize the situation in Iraq.
I mentioned this conspiracy in a letter dated September 4, 1990, that I addressed to foreign ministers around the world. In that letter, I explained the historical background and the machinations of the Kuwaiti leaders against Iraq as follows:
"We must therefore conclude that the leaders of the former regime wished to pursue their plots until Iraq’s economy was destroyed and its political system destabilized. It is impossible to believe that a regime like that formerly in power in Kuwait could have embarked on such an ambitious conspiracy without the support and protection of a great power. That power can only be the United States."
I also made the following remarks in my letter:
"It is evident from my historical account and from the description I have given of events, that the disagreement was not simply about economic or border questions. We had many differences of that nature over 20 years, and we always tried to maintain the best possible relations with the former leaders of Kuwait, in spite of their contemptible behavior and their despicable attitude toward Iraq. The fact of the matter is that there was an organized conspiracy, in which the former leaders of Kuwait deliberately took part with the support of the United States, to destabilize Iraq’s economy and undermine its defense capabilities against the imperialist aims of Israel and acts of aggression on part of the Arab world. To achieve that, it was necessary to undermine Iraq’s political system and to strengthen the hegemony of the United States over the region, especially over its oil resources. In fact, as President Saddam Hussein declared at the Baghdad summit, and as I indicated in my letter to the Secretary-General of the Arab League, it was a war against Iraq."
This document proves, clearly and unequivocally, that the CIA and the intelligence services of the former government of Kuwait were in league with each other in plotting against the national security, territorial integrity, and national economy of Iraq.
I should be grateful if you would kindly circulate this letter and the appended text as official Security Council documents.
Months before the beginning of Desert Storm, Tariq Aziz had exposed Kuwait’s duplicity. Instead of looking at the facts, however, much of the world allowed George Bush I to revamp them and portray a different scenario — one in which the Iraqis invaded Kuwait for no reason other than greed and the acquisition of Kuwaiti oil. Logic would tear holes in this assessment. Iraq already had the world’s second-largest oil reserves, so it did not need to grab those of Kuwait. Iraq’s economic existence had been threatened by the U.S. and Kuwait, but it seemed no one was listening.
In 1989, another strange scenario emerged. Iraq began to lose oil from its wells in the Rumailah oil fields, located in the Iraq/Kuwait border area. Iraq discovered that the Kuwaitis had installed a slant drilling operation on the border, enabling them to drill under the boundary and steal Iraqi oil. At the time, the Iraqi government assessed the oil losses at $2.7 billion, but after discovering the enormity of the operation, losses were re-assessed to about $14 billion. The stealing of Iraqi oil was well-documented by Iraq. On July 15, 1990, Tariq Aziz, in a letter to the Secretary of the Arab League, described the theft in detail.
Because of the cooperative relationship between Kuwait and Iraq during the Iran-Iraq War, Saddam Hussein was aghast at the Kuwaiti’s change of heart once the hostilities ceased. Iraq began to find pieces of the puzzle and put them together. The findings were corroborated after August 2, 1990 when the Iraqis found evidence in Kuwait, such as the top secret letter previously mentioned.
Prior to August 2, 1990, the Iraqis had enough facts to present to the Arab world showing Kuwaiti involvement in undermining their economy. To Iraq, this was the beginning of a U.S. intrusion into the area that would not be reversed once put into action. In a speech in Amman, Jordan on February 24, 1990, Saddam Hussein told those assembled of the imminent danger of allowing the U.S. to become involved in regional affairs. (See Appendix XII of the book The Mother of All Battles: The Endless U.S.-Iraq War for the entire speech.) Remember, at the time, the Soviet Union was in existence and was considered a world superpower. The Iraqi president stated:
The country that exerts the greatest amount of influence on the region, on the Gulf and its oil, will consolidate its superiority as an unrivaled superpower. This proves that if the population of the Gulf — and of the entire Arab world — is not vigilant, this area will be ruled according to the wishes of the United States.
Despite this ominous prediction, the Arab world did not take much notice. Most of the countries in the region could not envisage a permanent U.S. presence that would dictate U.S. policy to them. Events since 1990, much to the chagrin of regional Arab countries, proved Saddam Hussein’s statement accurate. Today, countries such as Qatar and Kuwait are virtual U.S. possessions.
Kuwait, despite the wishes of its oil-producing partners in OPEC, began to pump much more oil than its agreed quota, bringing the price of oil down on world markets. Every time Kuwait’s actions forced a decrease in the price of oil, Iraq lost millions, if not billions, of dollars, further eroding its economy.
The situation became more tense and Saddam Hussein called for a meeting with April Glaspie, the U.S. Ambassador to Iraq. On July 25, 1990, they met and Saddam explained his country’s plight to her. He discussed Kuwait’s breaking of OPEC agreements and that his country was in desperate need of money to help rebuild its infrastructure that was damaged in the eight-year Iran-Iraq War. (See Appendix I of The Mother of All Battles for the full transcript.)
After listening, Glaspie then assured Saddam that the U.S. was on Iraq’s side and that the U.S. was in sync with the desires of Iraq to rebuild. She explained:
I think I understand this. I have lived here for years. I admire your extraordinary efforts to rebuild your country. I know you need funds. We understand that, and our opinion is that you should have the opportunity to rebuild your country. But we have no opinion on Arab-Arab conflicts, like your border dispute with Kuwait.
Saddam Hussein then complained that the U.S. was blocking most orders his government had placed with the U.S. He said:
There is nothing for us to buy from America. Only wheat. Because every time we want to buy something, they say it is forbidden. I am afraid that one day you will say, "You are going to make gunpowder out of wheat."
Those words were quite prophetic. After Desert Storm, with a full embargo in place, Iraq could not import food, so it had to create more agriculturally-based business. In June 1992, U.S. military jets, with their afterburners, destroyed 23 Iraqi wheat fields.
Getting back to the Saddam Hussein-April Glaspie meeting, she responded to Saddam’s complaints about lack of access to American markets with, "I have a direct instruction from the president to seek better relations with Iraq."
The U.S. administration maintained that it was Iraq’s business and not that of the U.S. in the matter of Iraq’s dispute with Kuwait. On July 26, 1990, the day after the Saddam-Glaspie meeting, Margaret Tutweiler, U.S. Department of State spokesperson was asked by the press, "Has the United States sent any type of diplomatic message to the Iraqis about putting 30,000 troops on the border of Kuwait? Has there been any type of protest communicated from the United States government?" She replied, "I’m entirely unaware of any such protest."
On July 31, 1990, John Kelly, Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs, testified to Congress that the "United States has no commitment to defend Kuwait and the U.S. has no intention of defending Kuwait if it is attacked by Iraq."
These messages are not ambiguous, but they were false. Bush had plans ready to destroy Iraq and the crossing of the Iraq-Kuwait border was an appropriate excuse to implement Bush’s designs.
During the war propaganda buildup of the next few months, the subject of the Saddam-Glaspie meeting was kept under wraps. Few Americans knew of the incident. Adding to the intrigue, Glaspie seemingly disappeared. From August 4, 1990 until May 1991, no government official mentioned her or could account for her whereabouts. A few reporters worked up the nerve to ask, but they were ignored.
In May 1991, April Glaspie appeared before the U.S. Senate. Questions were not asked about where she had been for the prior nine months, and the public will probably never know. During her report to the Senate, she told of warning Saddam Hussein not to take action against Kuwait. Most of the senators believed her because she alleged that the transcripts of her meeting with Saddam were altered by the Iraqi government. (The CIA admitted that the transcripts were accurate and that Glaspie had not issued such a statement to Saddam Hussein.) After her testimony, the Senate virtually granted Glaspie hero status.
In July 1991, Senators Clayborne Pell of Rhode Island and Alan Cranston of California came up with a totally different scenario from the one Glaspie presented. They read the contents of secret messages from Glaspie to the U.S. government and assessed that Glaspie blatantly lied to the U.S. Senate.
Pell and Cranston appeared on national television and called Glaspie’s testimony deceitful and shameful. They vowed to get to the bottom of the incident, all the time lambasting Glaspie and her testimony before the Senate. Pell and Cranston announced that they were putting the machinery in motion for a full investigation to begin in September 1991. By mid-October, there was no word of an investigation.
On October 11, 1991, I called Senator Cranston’s office in Washington D.C. When I asked about the impending investigation, there was silence. After a brief pause, I was hesitatingly told that they knew nothing about it and I was advised to call the Foreign Affairs Committee.
I took the recommendation of Cranston’s office and called the committee. After I gave a brief description of the incident, I asked, "Is there any information available?" The woman, who would not identify herself, snapped "Nope!" After a moment’s pause, she tersely added, "There was a meeting scheduled and then postponed indefinitely." Then, she abruptly hung up.
Somehow, the administration squashed the only chance we had of learning the truth behind the Glaspie affair. The question that will never be publicly addressed and answered is: "Did April Glaspie give Saddam Hussein a green light for invading Kuwait out of incompetence (i.e. was the Arab-Arab statement her own?) or was she instructed to say that by the U.S. administration?"
April Glaspie is a shady character at best. According to the U.S. administration, in 1992, she accepted a position at the University of San Diego. Her phone number was listed, yet there never was an answer when it was called, and, there was no answering machine.
In June 1993, the U.S. involvement in Somalia turned from a "humanitarian" mission to one that attempted to capture the newly-demonized Mohammed Aidid. There was much bloodshed. Shortly before the public denigration of Aidid, Glaspie was re-assigned to Somalia. She wrote the new script.
Soon after the Somalia debacle, Glaspie again disappeared, only to turn up in the Rwanda area, where the slaughtering of more than a million people was just getting underway. Prior to her stint in Iraq, Glaspie was stationed in Lebanon during that country’s bitter and bloody civil war. Is the fact that Glaspie happens to appear in areas in which there is violence shortly after her debut a matter of chance, or, possibly the prelude to destruction?
When Russia saved America
English, French and Spanish warships landed at Veracruz, Mexico in 1862. In 1863 the French captured Mexico City. In 1864 Napoleon 3 placed Maximilian on the throne of Mexico. During this period it became apparent that the South was losing the American Civil War.
In 1863 the Confederate States offered Louisiana and Texas to Napoleon 3 in exchange for his intervention with French troops, which were poised in Mexico City, against the North. The danger was indeed great. It taxed even the genius of Lincoln; and the skill and patriotism of General Grant’s heroes could not have withstood such a combination. But the United States had its most faithful admirers in the Czars of Russia. For a long time they had contemplated the liberation of the serfs, but they were checked by the then-rampant “Prussianism” and by the landowners.
It was Czar Alexander 2’s magnanimous act of emancipating the Russian serfs by his Imperial decree of Feb. 19, 1861, which greatly influenced the similar movement in the United States. Some 47 million souls in Russia were freed. The same object which by the Czar was obtained by the stroke of a pen, required in a Republic an ocean of blood and billions of treasure. Why? Because the Hidden Hand so desired it. On that same Feb. 19, 1861, the newly inaugurated Provisional President Jefferson Davis named his Cabinet.
Thus the Czar followed every step of the drama with keenest attention, and when the above plan of the Hidden Hand became known to him, he, through his ambassadors in Paris and London, informed France and England that their interference against the North would be regarded as a declaration of war against Russia. Simultaneously, the Czar dispatched his Atlantic fleet to New York harbor, and his Pacific squadron to San Francisco with orders to fight every fleet or force which would attack the Northern states. He put his ships at the disposal of Lincoln!
In 1908, when many more survivors of the Civil War lived than today, every one of them knew it. We Americans should never forget how much we owe to Russia for our salvation in 1863-64.None could doubt that the attack of the five powers which landed troops in Mexico in 1863 would have given the decisive victory to the Confederacy. The United States would have been disrupted and soon the South would have been annexed to Mexico and the North to Canada.
The history of the United States was written for the Americans by the Hidden Hand’s hirelings. This explains why this “incident” is carefully omitted from American history.
"Russia was astonished when American public opinion supported the cause of Japan during the war between those empires in 1904-05. It was a rude awakening from the dream of American gratitude, based upon her action in making a naval demonstration at New York and San Francisco in a critical period of the Civil War,” wrote J. Callan O’Laughlin in his “The Imperial America.
The above stupid and base betrayal of Russia by the United States must be laid entirely at the doors of the Jews in America, led by Jacob Schiff, who deceived public opinion to such an extent that the Americans committed the most shameful act in their short history.
By helping Japan, which traitorously attacked unprepared Russia, who saved the United States in 1863-64 from mortal danger and who proved her lack of desire to come into the New World when she absolutely made a gift of the richest Alaska, the Americans created a veritable Japanese peril . . .
The above incident of vital importance to the United States is purposely withheld from the knowledge of the American nation by its publishers, writers and press.
In 1863 the Confederate States offered Louisiana and Texas to Napoleon 3 in exchange for his intervention with French troops, which were poised in Mexico City, against the North. The danger was indeed great. It taxed even the genius of Lincoln; and the skill and patriotism of General Grant’s heroes could not have withstood such a combination. But the United States had its most faithful admirers in the Czars of Russia. For a long time they had contemplated the liberation of the serfs, but they were checked by the then-rampant “Prussianism” and by the landowners.
It was Czar Alexander 2’s magnanimous act of emancipating the Russian serfs by his Imperial decree of Feb. 19, 1861, which greatly influenced the similar movement in the United States. Some 47 million souls in Russia were freed. The same object which by the Czar was obtained by the stroke of a pen, required in a Republic an ocean of blood and billions of treasure. Why? Because the Hidden Hand so desired it. On that same Feb. 19, 1861, the newly inaugurated Provisional President Jefferson Davis named his Cabinet.
Thus the Czar followed every step of the drama with keenest attention, and when the above plan of the Hidden Hand became known to him, he, through his ambassadors in Paris and London, informed France and England that their interference against the North would be regarded as a declaration of war against Russia. Simultaneously, the Czar dispatched his Atlantic fleet to New York harbor, and his Pacific squadron to San Francisco with orders to fight every fleet or force which would attack the Northern states. He put his ships at the disposal of Lincoln!
In 1908, when many more survivors of the Civil War lived than today, every one of them knew it. We Americans should never forget how much we owe to Russia for our salvation in 1863-64.None could doubt that the attack of the five powers which landed troops in Mexico in 1863 would have given the decisive victory to the Confederacy. The United States would have been disrupted and soon the South would have been annexed to Mexico and the North to Canada.
The history of the United States was written for the Americans by the Hidden Hand’s hirelings. This explains why this “incident” is carefully omitted from American history.
"Russia was astonished when American public opinion supported the cause of Japan during the war between those empires in 1904-05. It was a rude awakening from the dream of American gratitude, based upon her action in making a naval demonstration at New York and San Francisco in a critical period of the Civil War,” wrote J. Callan O’Laughlin in his “The Imperial America.
The above stupid and base betrayal of Russia by the United States must be laid entirely at the doors of the Jews in America, led by Jacob Schiff, who deceived public opinion to such an extent that the Americans committed the most shameful act in their short history.
By helping Japan, which traitorously attacked unprepared Russia, who saved the United States in 1863-64 from mortal danger and who proved her lack of desire to come into the New World when she absolutely made a gift of the richest Alaska, the Americans created a veritable Japanese peril . . .
The above incident of vital importance to the United States is purposely withheld from the knowledge of the American nation by its publishers, writers and press.
Last edited by Biryani on Thu Sep 24, 2009 10:42 am, edited 2 times in total.
-
haroon_adel
- Posts: 125
- Joined: Tue Mar 18, 2008 8:55 am
- Location: USA