|
Today's
Stories
December 31,
2007
Alexander Cockburn
Goodbye
2007 and Good Riddance!
December 29
/ 30, 2007
Alexander Cockburn
Options
in America: Kill Yourself or Have a Baby
Tariq Ali
Indignation and Fear Stalk Pakistan
Fawzia Afzal-Khan
My Encounter with Benazir Bhutto
Gary Leupp
The U.S. and Pakistan After 9/11: Blowback from an Unholy Alliance
China Hand
Pakistan Stares Into the Abyss
Jacob Hornberger
Stop Medddling in Pakistan
John Chuckman
Pakistan and the Failure of Quick-Fix Politics
Missy Beattie
Evaluating Bush with the Bhutto Corruption Standard
Ralph Nader
Who Will Take the Next Step?
Fidel Castro
There Hasn't Been a Day in My Life When I Haven't Learned Something
Robert Fantina
The Sham of Homeland Security
Greg Moses
Beauty from the Heart of Texas
Catherine Lutz
What We Can Not See: Art and Bombing
Kristin Van
Tassel
Seeing in the Dark
Kim Nicolini
Redacted: Brian DePalma's Scream of Outrage
Phyllis Pollack
Keith Richards Runs With Rudolph Once More
Poets' Basement
Landau, Gibbons and Davies
Website of
the Weekend
Driving Karachi in Search of the Perfect Naan
December 28,
2007
Farzana Versey
The
Complex Electra
Wajahat Ali
A
Pakistani Requiem
Binoy Kampmark
Death in Rawalpindi: Bhutto and Her Legacy
Ayesha Ijaz
Khan
Not Dead Yet: The Pakistan People's Party Still Survives
Anthony DiMaggio
Turkey's Bombing of Iraq
Ray McGovern
Creeping
Fascism
Jim Goodman
Biofuels, the Biggest Scam Going
Ron Jacobs
Transcending the Colonizer's History: Iran, a People Interrupted
Russell Hoffman
Mini-Nukes by Toshiba
John Murphy
Greens Gone Wild
Website of the Day
Guiliani Campaign Official: "Only Rudy Can Defeat the Muslims"
December 27,
2007
Dilip Hiro
A
Tragedy Foretold: Will Bhutto's Death be a Boost for Her Party?
Murtaza Shibli
Who Killed Bhutto?
Stephen Soldz
Fallujah,
the Information War and U.S. Propaganda
Bill Quigley
Locked
Outside the Gates
Paul Craig Roberts
The Great American Lock-Up
Omer Subhani
Killing Bhutto: What Happens Next in Pakistan?
Marjorie Cohn
The Torture Tape Cover-Up: How High Does It Go?
Allan Nairn
Cataclysm By Money Whim
Jacob G. Hornberger
Smearing Ron Paul: Shame on the NYT
Norman Solomon
Channeling Suze Orman
Patrick Irelan
Rumsfeld Spills the Ink
Ben Tripp
Pass the Razor Blades
Website of the Day
Quagmire, For What It's Worth
December 26, 2007
Charles Tripp
From
One Saddam to Fifty
Paul Armentano
No-Knock, You're Dead
Rannie Amiri
Lebanon in Search of a Government
Stanley Heller
Brzezinski and Charlie Wilson's War
John Walsh
Two Unreasonable Men
Martha Rosenberg
The Strange Career of Scott Gottlieb
Norman Madarasz
Bolivia Amends New Constitution and Faces Mutiny from Within
Website of
the Day
Cockburn at the Battle of Ideas
December 25,
2007
Patrick Cockburn
Conscience
and Empire
December 24,
2007
Andrea Peacock
A
Dark Ride on the Border
Tariq Ali
Thinking of Edward Said
Uri Avnery
Help! A Ceasefire!
Jill Jameson
Burma is Not Back to Normal: A Trip from Rangoon to Mae Sot
Steve Melendez
Russell Means Goes to Washington
Mike Whitney
The Big Fix
Chuck Munson
Not Getting It About New Orleans
John Walsh
Clueless Crusaders
Farzana Versey
Tony Blair and the Hawking of Religion
Richard Neville
Dreaming of a White House Christmas
Website of the Day
Back in the USSR
December 22 / 23, 2007
Alexander Cockburn
Mike
Huckabee's Ascending Chariot
Ralph Nader
Politics
and Profits: How the Oil Cartel Gets Its Way
Andy Worthington
Intelligence Failures, Battlefield Myths and Unaccountable Prisons
in Afghanistan
Ahmad Faruqui
The Comedian of Pakistan
Bill Moyers
Society on Steroids
Rev. William
E. Alberts
Blessed are the Peacemakers
Timothy J. Freeman
From Kant to Lennon: Can War Really be Over?
Anthony DiMaggio
Democrats Continue to Capitulate on Iraq
Fred Gardner
Molecule of the Year, Cannabiodiol
Paul Krassner
Enhanced Hazing Techniques
Seth Sandronsky
17 Years of Meanness: Repealing California's Three Strikes Law
William Loren
Katz
Christmas Eve Freedom Fighters: Recalling the Battle of Lake
Okeechobee
Michael Dickinson
In the Dungeon of the Zabita
Ron Jacobs
Why Leon Russell Still Matters
David Vest
Doyle Bramhall's "Is It News?"
Poets' Basement
Orloski, Davies and Ford
Website of the Weekend
George W. Hates Santa
December 21,
2007
John Ross
New Massacres Loom in Mexico
Jacob Hornberger
Nothing Can Morally Justify the Invasion of Iraq
Dick J. Reavis
A
Way Out of the Newspaper Abyss
Jeff Cohen
and Norman Solomon
The 2007 P.U.-litzer Prizes
Peter Morici
Business as Usual as Recession Looms
Jack McCarthy
Let Us Now Praise Judith Regan (Even If She Did Sleep with Bernie
Kerik)
Raúl Zibechi
Sex and Revolution
Steve Early
How the Presidential Candidates Made Me an Atheist
David Macaray
Union Aftermath
Patrick Bond
Zuma, the Center-Left and the Left-Left in S. Africa
Lakota Freedom Delegation
A Declaration of Independence from the USA
Website of
the Day
Solomon v. Beck: Tale of the Tape
December 20,
2007
David Rosen
Mitt
Romney's Secret Life as a Pornographer
Alan Farago
The
Huckster and the Wreckage: Jeb Bush and the Subprime Mortgage
Crisis
Laura Carlsen
Standing Up to NAFTA
Ashley Dawson
The Return of the Bread Riot
Wayne Smith
and Jennifer Schuett
Cuba Changes, US Policy Stagnates
Website of
the Day
How to Talk to a FoxNews Reporter
December 19,
2007
Saul Landau
Is
the NIE Bush's Watergate?
Paul W. Lovinger
Hillary the Hawk
Norman Solomon
The Mad Corporate World of Glenn Beck
Dave Zirin
George Mitchell's Drugs of Choice
Marjorie Cohn
Bush Still Spinning Iranian Nukes
Sen. Russell
Feingold
The Iraq War is Exhausting Our Nation
Sonja Karkar
A Christmas Reflection on Palestine
Anthony Papa
Open the Drug Gulags
Christopher Ketcham
Pave the Holy Lands with Good Intentions
Davey D
Britney's Little Sister is Pregnant: Should We Blame Hip Hop?
Website of
the Day
When Republicans Use the F-Word on TV
December 18,
2007
R. F. Blader
The
Politics of Teen Pregnancy
George Wuerthner
Gunning for Wolves in Idaho
Steven Higgs
Can the NAFTA Superhighway be Stopped?
Vijay Prashad
Encounters with Ghadar
David Macaray
The Free Rider Problem
Ralph Nader
Nine Books That Make a Difference: a Reading List for the Holidays
Eva Liddell
Privatizing War Abroad, Invading Privacy at Home
Martha Rosenberg
While the Bodies are Still Warm: Drugs, Shrinks and Shooters
Dave Lindorff
When Impeachment is Out of Print
Peter Morici
The Consequences the Trade Deficit
Website of
the Day
Ron Paul: How Fascism Will Come to America
December 17,
2007
Mike Whitney
Staring
Into the Abyss
Tom Barry
Planning
the War on Immigrants
Uri Avnery
A
Gaza Masada?
Greg Moses
Crossing the Line in Texas
Allan Nairn
Terrorism; Counter-
Terrorism: Excuses for Murder
Patrick Bond
South Africa's Fight Between Hostile Brothers
Stephen Lendman
Police State America
Charles Jonkel
Grizzly Right of Way
Laray Polk
An Inside-Out Crisis in Gaza
Stephen Fleischman
Pawns in Their Game
December 15
/ 16, 2007
Peter Linebaugh
A
People's Penny for the Magna Carta
Howard Zinn
Bomb After Bomb
Standard Schaefer
The Greening of Big Tobacco
Raymond J.
Lawrence
Let's Take Christ Out of Christmas
Alan Farago
Down on Desolation Row: the Vultures and the Growth Machine
Saul Landau
Lord Byron and the Bad Tourists
Jenna Orkin
Lying to "Reassure" the Public: Bush's EPA and the
Post-9/11 Toxic Air Cover-Up
Ahmad Samih
Khalidi
Why a Palestinian "State" is a Punitive Construct
Robert Fantina
Politics By Photo-Op
Missy Comley
Beattie
Resistance Amid the Ruins
Ramzy Baroud
Of Mormons and Muslims
James L. Secor
A Vision for China's Future
Elijah Wald
Ike Turner's Music Won't be Forgotten
Website of
the Weekend
The Alliance for the Wild Rockies Needs (and Deserves) Your Support
December 14,
2007
JoAnn Wypijewski
The
Dirty Cad: What Giuliani's Sex Life Tells Us About Him
John Ross
Iraqi
Refugees Return: One Cruel Hoax
Jacob Hornberger
Terror Suspects Belong in Federal Court
Andy Worthington
Guantánamo and the Supreme Court: What Happened?
Allan Nairn
"Shoot Them on the Spot": Rewarding War Crimes
Dave Zirin
The Mitchell Report: Absolving the Owners
Dave Lindorff
The First Cut is the Deepest
Misty MacDuffee
Toxic Grizzlies
Ben Terrall
What Happened to Lovinsky Pierre-Antoine?
Dr. Mustafa
Barghouthi
Prerequisites for Peace
Website of the Day
Sen. Kit Bond: "Waterboarding is Like Swimming"
December 13,
2007
Paul Craig
Roberts
Shrinking
the Dollar from the Inside-Out
Mike Whitney
Dershowitz for the Defense--of Waterboarding
Ron Jacobs
Blank Check DemocratsL the Great War Funding Conspiracy
Norman Solomon
The USA's Human Rights Daze
Peter Morici
The Dragon and the Toothless Dog: China Doesn't Flinch
Sandy Mayes
Blocking the Strykers: 13 Days of War Resistance at Port Olympia
Franklin Lamb
The UN in Lebanon: Whose Mission Is It Fulfilling?
Jacob Hornberger
Don't Reform the CIA, Abolish It
Nadim Rouhana
An Interloper in My Own Land
Dave Zirin
On Pigskin and Petrol
Website of the Day
Rachel's Needs (and Deserves) Your Support!
December 12, 2007
Allan
Nairn
US Intelligence is Tapping Indonesian
Phones
Alan
Farago
How Sprawl Eats Its Young
Ray
McGovern
Torture, Lies and Videotape
Winslow
T. Wheeler
The Phony Pentagon Budget Cuts
Evan
Jones
The Raid on Great Western: Why an Australian Bank Might Spell
Doom for the US Farm Belt
James
Petras
An Open Letter to Sarkozy on the Exchange of Political Prisonsers
Joel
Hirschorn
The Horserace Fiction: Clinton, Obama and the Democratic Machine
Joshua
Frank
Why Ron Paul Deserves Our Attention
Sherry
Wolf
Why the Left Should Reject Ron Paul
Dan
Bacher
Survey of a Fish Graveyard
Website
of the Day
Men Eating Bugs
December
11, 2007
Patrick
Cockburn
What's Really Happened During
the Surge?
Diana
Johnstone
The Next Kosovo War
Paul
Craig Roberts
It's Waco All Over Again: Preventive Detention and the Constitution
David
Macaray
Impasse in Hollywood
Ralph
Nader
Gail Collins Versus the Underdogs
Andy
Worthington
Guantánamo Britons to be Released: a Mixed Result
Martha
Rosenberg
No Holiday for High Risk Sex Workers
Steve
Champion /
Anthony Ross
Words for Our Brother, Tookie Williams
Kim
Nicolini
Tangled Up in Dylan
Michael
Dickinson
Say Goodbye to Purgatory: Pope Rat Gets Indulgent
Website
of the Day
A Charming (and Worthy)
Pitch
December 10, 2007
Uri
Avnery
How They Stole the Bomb From Us
Debbie
Nathan
The Perils of Journalism and Child
Porn
JoAnn
Wypijewski
Is There a Left Here Left?
If So, What Can It Do?
Steve
Kelly
Cheap Chips, Counterfeit Wilderness
Donna
J. Volatile
Welcome to the Revolution
December
8 / 9, 2007
Alexander
Cockburn
The Coup Against Bush and Cheney
Brenda
Norrell
Seize the Land, Chain the Peace Activists
Saul
Landau
The Ruins of Empire
R.
F. Blader
A Rape in Every Drink?
Ray
McGovern
Spinning Iran's Centrifuges
Allan
Nairn
Imposed Hunger in Gaza, the Army in
Indonesia
Linn
Washington, Jr
Spotlight on Death Row
Paul
Craig Roberts
When Will Bush Come Clean?
December
7, 2007
Sean
Penn
Piano Wire Puppeteers
Arthur
Versluis
Mining Water in the Desert
M.
G. Piety
Racism and the American Psyche: Some
Thoughts on Race and Intelligence
Pam
Martens
Banksters Gone Wild
Alan
Farago
Will the Free Market Kill Suburbia?
Sprawl and the Credit Crisis
Allan
Nairn
It Takes (Out) a Village
Col.
Dan Smith
Bush, Iran and the Politics of Doomsday
Alice
Slater
The Iran Opening
Robert
Weissman
The Story of Stuff
Website
of the Day
Something
About Mitt
December
5, 2007
Mike
Whitney
Why the CFR Hates Putin
Sharon
Smith
The Anti-War Enablers: Tom Hayden
and the Dead End Democrats
James
Petras
Venezuela in the Aftermath
Ron
Jacobs
The Iran Charade
Dave
Zirin
Kicking a Dead Man: the Sliming of Sean Taylor
John
V. Whitbeck
Two States or One? Time to Choose
Peter
Zinn
Covered in New Orleans
Niranjan
Ramakrishnan
Impeach Pelosi Instead
Alan
Farago
The Credit Bomb Detonates in Florida
Heather
Gray
US Meddling in Australian Politics
Website
of the Day
A Donner Summit Night Before Xmas
December
4, 2007
Alexander
Cockburn
Jackboot State Stubs Its Toe in
Ann Arbor
Andy
Worthington
Guantánamo and the Supreme
Court
Paul
Craig Roberts
The Lies at the End of the American
Dream
Ray
McGovern
No-Nuke Iran
Winslow
T. Wheeler
Admiral Mullen and the Defense Budget: When White Elephants are
Too Small
Allan
Nairn
The Regime Still Stands in Burma, Where "the People Just
Want Food"
Russell
Mokhiber
The USA v. Al Arian
Nikolas
Kozloff
As Chávez Falters: Raising the Stakes for the South American
Left
John
V. Walsh
Peace Movement Paralyzed
Ghada
Ageel
Will Peace Cost Me My Home?
Stephen
Soldz
The Facts be Damned!: Psychologists' President Defends Psychologist
Involvement in Interrogations
Website
of the Day
Hands Off the People of Iran
December
3, 2007
Tariq
Ali
Venezuela After the Referendum
Bill
Quigley
New Orleans: Bulldozers for the Poor,
Tax Credits for Developers
Eric
Walberg
The Bible and Middle East History
Uri
Avnery
After Annapolis
Marjorie
Cohn
Operation Iraqi Freedom Exposed
Dave
Lindorff
Vengeance Isn't Sweet
Stephen
Fleischman
Homeless in Paradise
Martha
Rosenberg
Perp Walks for the Mink Clad on Chicago's Mag Mile
Website
of the Day
So Just Lead!
December
1 / 2, 2007
Alexander
Cockburn
Emblems of the Bush Age: Adrift
in a Sea of Booze
Jeffrey
St. Clair
The Bear Minimum: the Grizzly and
the Future of the Rocky Mountain West
Mike
Whitney
"Iraq Doesn't Exist Anymore": an Interview with Nir
Rosen
Shemon
Salam
A Visit From the FBI
Roger
Burbach
The Battle in Bolivia
Benjamin
Dangl
New Politics in Old Bolivia
Brian
M. Downing
The Quiet on the Middle Eastern Front: How Much Credit Goes to
the Surge?
Greg
Moses
Night of the Living Redneck: a Texas Horror Story
Sonja
Karkar
The "Never-Never" Peace Conference
Saul
Landau
Ethics and Evil in South Boston
Margaret
Kimberley
Black America Left Behind
John
Ross
What are the Prospects for a New Mexican Revolution?
Reza
Fiyouzat
Exit on the Left: When Che's Children Visited Iran
Judith
Scherr
Berkeley Turns Right for the Holidays
Lance
Olsen
Of Forests and Finance: Logging for the Wealthy
Christopher
Brauchli
Mr. Bush and the Despots
Robert
Fantina
Iraq as U.S. Colony
Dan
Bacher
Fish Triage on Prospect Island
Michael
Donnelly
Remembering How to be Human: John Trudell and the Music of Urgency
Website
of the Weekend
Appalachian Voices
November
30, 2007
Peter
Stone Brown
The Re-Packaging of Bob Dylan
Wajahat
Ali
The Volatile Mistress: an Interview with Javed Jabbar, Pakistan's
Former Minister of Information
Allan
Nairn
Cold-Blooded Celebrity: Thomas L. Friedman and the Bali Bombers
Alan
Farago
The Sorrows of Suburbia: Politics, Sprawl and the Housing Crash
John
Ross
The Death of Latin America's First Revolution
Corporate
Crime Reporter
America's Corporate Crime Capitals
Lucia
Alvarez
Diego Gonzalez
Argentina's Political Future
James
Rothenberg
The Iraqi Miracle
Website
of the Day
Bio-Bling?
November
29, 2007
R.
F. Blader
The Most Dangerous Kind of Bribe
Ismael
Hossein-Zadeh
Distorting Fascism to Demonize Iran
Stephen
Soldz
War on the Couch: Fear, Aggression and Empire
Sheldon
Richman
Iraq 3.0
George
Wuerthner
Forest Fires, Lies and Chainsaws
Felice
Pace
Did All Things Considered Self-Censor on Annapolis?
Col.
Dan Smith
The Meaning of Annapolis
Harvey
Wasserman
Terror Target Nukes
Nikolas
Kozloff
Primetime Hate Debate: Lou Dobbs, Immigration and Campaign '08
Paul
Krassner
Huffington Post Bloggers Go On Strike!
Dave
Lindorff
News Not Fit to Print: US Coup Planned for Venezuela?
CP
News Service
The One State Declaration
Website
of the Day
A Native View of Yellowstone Bison Slaughter
November
28, 2007
James
Petras
CIA Destabilization Memo Surfaces
on Venezuela
Jeff
Halper
Annapolis: When the Roadmap is a One
Way Street
Pam
Martens
Crashing Citigroup
Peter
Morici
Economy in Crisis: Avoiding a Recession
Mohammed
Khatib
Separate and Unequal in Palestine
Helen
Redmond
The Horror and the Hope: Health Care in America
William
S. Lind
In the Fox's Lair: Quiet Before a New Iraq Storm?
Ben
Tripp
We, the People: a Trope for All Seasons
Liaquat
Ali Khan
Pakistan: First, Restore the Constitution and Reinstate the Judges
Jeff
Berg
Holbrooke Says Bush Won't Attack Iran
Website
of the Day
The Lies of Joe Klein
November
27, 2007
Joe
DeRaymond
On the Road to the Torture School
Paul
Craig Roberts
Meet the Only Two Candidates Worse Than Bush and Cheney: Hillary
and Rudy
Marjorie
Cohn
Remembering Victor Rabinowitz
Mike
Whitney
A Dollar the Size of a Postage Stamp
Ron
Jacobs
The Myths of Military Progress
Col.
Dan Smith
The Pentagon's "People System" Still Doesn't Work
Ralph
Nader
Family Learning
Karim
Makdisi
Annapolis and the Unholy Alliance: the View from Beirut
Christopher
Ketcham
Memo to Hollywood Writers: Strike Until You Drop
Ronan
Bennett
Martin Amis Does a Coulter
Website
of the Day
Celebrating the Uncensored Media
November
26, 2007
Kathleen
and Bill Christison
Heading for Annapolis
Paul
Craig Roberts
The End of All That
David
Macaray
Enter Mediator
Sameer
Dossani
Pakistan's Wounded Dictator
Roger
Burbach
The Final Battle in Bolivia
Mark
Scaramella
Guns and Greed in the Emerald Empire
Brian
McKinlay
Howard's End
Rick
Kuhn
The Fall of a Racist Union Buster
Binoy
Kampmark
Ruddslide and Dull Alec
Monica
Benderman
What Do You Know of War?
Brenda
Norrell
Return to Alcatraz
Website
of the Day
Ghostworld by DJ Spooky
November
24 / 25, 2007
Alexander
Cockburn
The Ordeal of Catherine Wilkerson,
MD
Robert
Fisk
Darkness Falls on the Middle East
Saul
Landau
Norman Mailer will Not R.I.P.
Jeffrey
St. Clair
Justice Stephen Breyer, Cancer Bonds and the Origins of Neoliberal
Environmentalism
Rannie
Amiri
Beirut's Black Friday
Christopher
Brauchli
Iraq Embassy as Gilded Palace
Daniel
Gross
The Gap and Black Friday
Mike
Whitney
"A Generalized Meltdown of Financial Institutions"
Marjorie
Cohn
Iran and the 2008 Elections
David
Rosen
Senior Sex: the Real Sexual Life of Aging Americans
David
Michael Green
If Conservatism is the Ideology of Freedom ....
Kenneth
Rexroth
When Euripides Played the Hindu Kush: Greeks and Buddhists in
Afghanistan
Muhammad
Iqbal
Trans. Shahid Alam
Ghazal
Website
of the Day
Aerial Footage of Delta Fish Kill
November 23, 2007
Gary
Leupp
Killing the Buddha in Pakistan's Swat
Valley
Laura
Carlsen
Coming to Terms with Diversity in
Bolivia: an Interview with Alvaro Garcia, Bolivia's VP
David
Macaray
Keeping Labor Unions Out
Andy
Worthington
Former Guantánamo Detainee Seeks Asylum in Sweden
Clifton
Ross
Trashing Chavez: Keith Olberman's Toxic Rant
Seth
Sandronsky
Battling Sodexho
Dan
Bacher
Death in the Delta: Thousands of Fish Stranded by Bureau of Reclamation
William
A. Cook
The Myth of Middle East Peace
Website
of the Day
Waiting for the Guards: Stress Techniques as Torture, a Short
Film
November
22, 2007
Alan
Farago
Who Lost America's Everglades?
Greg
Moses
A Thanksgiving Basting
Dave
Lindorff
Impeachment is Back on the Table
Mike
Ely
Native Blood: the Myth pf Thanksgiving
Omar
Azfar
Gore for President of Pakistan?
November
21, 2007
Vijay
Prashad
Our Dictator, Their Democracy
Martha
Rosenberg
Undercover at a Turkey Slaughtering Plant
Manuel
Garcia, Jr.
Epiphany on the Glacier
John
Ross
The Last Days of Mexican Corn
Brian
McKenna
Cancer Terrorists Unmasked
Stephen
Soldz
Isolation Torture Routine at Guatánamo
Monica
Benderman
Needing Peace
Ben
Terrall
Slavery in the Fields: The Real Price of Sugar
Website
of the Day
Mercy for Animals
|
Weekend
Edition
December 31, 2007
An Interview with
Adrian Levy
After
Bhutto: a Nuclear Pakistan?
By WAJAHAT ALI
In the wake of Bhutto's tragic assassination,
renewed international attention focuses itself on Pakistan's
political instability and nuclear capabilities. The United States
and President Musharraf adamantly state that the Pakistani military
represents the only stable safeguard against potential radical
extremists and Al Qaeda sympathizers taking over Islamabad and
controlling Pakistan's nuclear weapons and technology. Playwright
Wajahat Ali received an exclusive interview with Guardian journalist
Adrian Levy, author of the explosive new book, "Deception:
Pakistan, the United States, and the Secret Trade in Nuclear
Weapons," to discuss Pakistan's political past, present,
and future regarding nuclear proliferation and its volatile relationship
with the United States.
ALI: Adrian Levy, thanks
for agreeing to do this interview. All around the world, Benazir
Bhutto's assassination tops the headlines. You've done extensive
and exhaustive research on Pakistan's international and domestic
policies. What are the repercussions of this tragedy in relation
to Pakistan's current political stability?
LEVY: It will have an enormous
impact on Pakistan by engendering more instability. The reasons
for that are that the Pakistan Political Party [Bhutto's political
party], although very feudal and by no means perfect and by no
means transparent and open, is still a tremendous political operation
with a lot of grassroots support. That support is not solely
based in her home state of Sindh, but there is consolidated support
from most progressives for her that has emerged merely due to
the frustration with 9 years of Musharraf's military rule. Lot
of people who are not sympathetic to Bhutto, personally or her
party, see the chance to vote as a vote against Musharraf and
against his party, the PML-Q, the "King's" party as
it is called in Pakistan. That party represents only the wishes
and needs of the military and certain pragmatic politicians whose
interests are only in survival and not in progressing any kind
of liberal, progressive, secular movements in Pakistan.
The feelings, generally, from
numerous people I've talked to in Pakistan is that although Bhutto
was an imperfect electoral card and although an imperfect candidate
- who has been beset by corruption allegations and like all parties
she had tremendous problems with her two terms mainly in her
weakness in standing up to the military - nevertheless, people
saw [her] as the beginning of something. The start of something:
the commencing of a new dialogue with the military. She was seen
as the foil, and once this began - if support was strong enough-
the PML-Q vote [Musharraf's party] would've been minute. Musharraf
would've been weakened even with tremendous vote rigging involved.
The result would be a National
Assembly that would not be answerable to the military but to
a democratic system. This is only the very, very, very beginnings
of something, but it is better than the option of Musharraf retaining
all political power according to the frustrated voices of Pakistanis
wishing to see a democratic Pakistani system. Their voices are
not being listened to. The worst possible situation of all is
for there to be no election, or the candidates are simply the
military's chosen candidates or the military's sympathetic coalition,
the MMA, the religious coalition, which as we know only polled
12% of the vote in the last election.
Another reason her death is
significant is that, in essence, it is a blow to a buoyant progressive
movement. A lot of people will feel downtrodden, very pessimistic.
It strengthens the military's hand in Pakistan. Fear, chaos,
and anarchy in Pakistan strengthen the military's hand. It also
plays very much in the military argument that democracy is young,
incapable and juvenile even, and that only the military
is the professional, solid entity that can hold together a fractured
Pakistan. They create a false equation that goes like this: "Without
the military, there would be chaos. Without the military, there
would be an Islamic coup. Without the military, the nuclear assets
of Pakistan may well fall into the hands of Jihadists - or parties
and goals - antithetic to the West." This is completely
crass and a complete un-writing of the real situation in Pakistan.
The reality is that the military
have, throughout, manipulated the Islamist vote. They have given
succor, money, training, arms and political power to the Islamists
and religious conservatives. They've brought them into the military
coalition; they've used them against the military's moderate,
liberal opponents. In fact, if we look at Musharraf through hard
objective facts, since 1999 virtually all facets of Pakistani
life have gotten worse. The only facets that have not gone worse
are due to the swamping of Pakistan by U.S. money. When they
talk of the Pakistani economy and economic growth being more
buoyant, these are simply figures that are bent around the artificial
situation of billions of dollars being pumped into Pakistan by
America. [The U.S. has given Pakistan more than 10 billion dollars
of aid in the past 5 years.]
In effect, society has become
far more radicalized, far less democratic, the institutions of
democracy have been undone by the military. The military has
become tremendously wealthy, tremendously unreliable even. The
personal wealth of the top tier generals, I mean, each general
has assets of more than 10 to 15 million dollars. If you look
at the military businesses, they turned in a 10 billion dollar
profit, which is the same size profit last year as the Hong Kong
Shanghai Bank. They're a political class of their own, and their
interests aren't the same as the democratic movement of Pakistan.
Let's talk in depth about
Pakistan's military and intelligence agencies, the ISI. First,
from your research, how powerful are these agencies? If indeed
they are powerful and pervasive, how could they not have known
of A.Q. Khan's nuclear proliferation activities [Abdul Qadeer
Khan is known as the "Father of Pakistan's Nuclear Bomb,"
a Pakistani scientist and engineer who confessed to operating
a nuclear proliferation program]? How can students who besieged
Pakistan's Red Mosque in July--which is sitting right in front
of ISI agencies - be fully loaded with guns and ammunition? Are
the ISI and military incompetent, or are they highly involved
in the daily political happenings of Pakistan?
All the research shows, and
all of my objective sources that include external agencies and
former members of Pakistan's military, that the nuclear proliferation
activities of A.Q. Khan were effectively a state run policy.
They evolved out of the desk of General Zia [Zia al Haq ruled
Pakistan as a military dictator for 11 years] in August 1988,
and they evolved in the knowledge that in 1988 the U.S. made
it clear as soon as the Soviets had left Afghanistan, all U.S.
aid would be cut off to Pakistan since Pakistan would not be
needed anymore.
So, Pakistan was looking at
two things: 1) The need to get hold of hard cash outside the
monies they would now lose from the U.S., and 2) To generate
a political presence of power that could stand up to U.S., since
it could no longer be counted as a continuous, consistent, solid
ally. The leadership of both the ISI and the military, after
the death of General Zia, thought the best way to do this was
to woo political allies through use and deployment of the country's
nuclear assets and to make hard cash by selling those assets.
This is critical in understanding the motivation behind what
happened to A.Q. Khan.
The ISI and military leaders
sat down and had a meeting during the last 3 months of Zia's
life, and then after his death, the leader of the military, General
Baig, and the leader of the ISI, Hamid Gul, sat down and discussed
a term of defiance. Would it be a nuclear defiance, or an economic
defiance? What was the best way of creating an Islamic movement
that could stand up to U.S. interference?
One thing to keep in mind is
that the U.S. very much created the grounds for this to happen.
The U.S. relationship in Pakistan has been feeble, a roller coaster,
a feast and famine existence. America either loved Pakistan when
it needed it politically, or it abandoned it when it didn't.
I want to throw forward one critical point to understanding this
idea. If we can just look at the hard figures of U.S. aid to
Pakistan during every period of dictatorship in Pakistan, we
see that U.S. aid has been enormous, absolutely enormous. It
has been bountiful: both "black" aid by the CIA and
overt aid by Congress. And during the weak period of democracy
in the 90's when fledgling political parties in Pakistan tried
to stand on their own feet, U.S. aid only amounted to $1 million
a year. America never tried to build a civil society, instead
they've only supported dictatorships [in Pakistan.]
In your book you name names and state that at least 5 U.S.
presidents had knowledge of Pakistan's nuclear ambitions and
could have taken a more proactive and competent approach in curbing
what is now a volatile and potentially explosive situation. Let's
talk about America's love- hate relationship with Pakistan. Originally,
in the 70's you mentioned U.S. was loathe to have a nuclear Pakistan,
however the State Department, especially in the 80's, engaged
in highly dubious, if not illegal, leaks of information and support
to Pakistan to help them build nuclear technology. How complicit
has the United States been in this deception? Who has been deceiving
whom? How has U.S., if at all, helped Pakistan go nuclear and
if so how does it benefit U.S. foreign policy interests?
The critical time is 1979:
the world changed. We have the Soviets invading Afghanistan,
the Shah fleeing Iran, and Khomeini returning to lead the Islamic
Revolution from Paris to Tehran. When that happened, American
began to feel insecure suspecting a front against it that could
expand to Asia. The feeling of Carter's National Security Adviser
Zbigniew Brzezinski - and he lobbied for this in memos he wrote
in 1979 - was that the gold standard of U.S. should be shifted.
No longer should emphasis be placed on human rights and non-proliferation,
but these should be moved down the political agenda in order
to court Pakistan anew and win it under our umbrella. Carter's
administration ran out of steam, but we see as soon as Reagan's
administration came in the White House, a huge number of moves
from the State Department to the Pentagon were made to Pakistan
to attract them to the table. Those offers were very clear: the
information that has been released through the Freedom of Information
shows meetings between Haig, the Secretary of State and other
U.S. officials saying, "We will not mind Pakistan having
a bomb. That is not an issue for us now. We need to use them
as a springboard for our support of the mujaheddin in
Afghanistan. We are prepared to set aside, or, not look at issues
of the Pakistan bomb."
In other meetings they were
more overt and actually said, "just take it off our radar.
Get the bomb program off our radar. Don't embarrass us with it."
So, in terms of deception, it is a deception of the American
people. The American people are being told that non-proliferation
was the gold standard of the government, in fact, it wasn't.
Non- proliferation was sold down the river to woo Pakistan in
this temporary relationship of 8 or 9 years. And Pakistan, of
course then, having been armed and enabled by America that not
just turned a blind eye but actively gave assistance to the program,
having done that, America then turned its back on Pakistan in
1989-1990. Pakistan warned three U.S. officials, "if you
turn our back on us, we will sell our technology and Iran will
be our first client."
Now, that message was given
to Norman Schwarzkopff at Central Command, it was given to Bob
Oakley, the U.S. Ambassador in Islamabad, and it was given to
the Assistant Secretary of State in the Pentagon. All three were
told and all three reported back. And, the decision was that
Pakistan wasn't needed now. The attention was on Gulf War 1,
the attention was on the Middle East, so Pakistan was abandoned,
and it did what it said it would do and began to sell its nuclear
technology. We know through several interviews given by many
people in the CIA and working in the Pentagon as analysts that
active operations to prevent Pakistan from selling and procuring
nuclear program were sabotaged from within the White House. It's
actually a question of enabling the program. Reagan's administration
enabled it, and Bush Sr.'s administration then basically turned
their back on Pakistan in 1990 when the country was unstable,
when democracy was weak, when the [Pakistani] civil society needed
support from the U.S. So, it was an inevitable consequence that
Pakistan would sell. Any claims that American had a progressive
view towards nuclear technology wasn't true. It was duplicitous.
Pakistan was very much a victim of this, in essence. It was looking
for consistency from U.S. and never received it.
First, please explain the
relationship of Musharraf and Bush post 9-11 and specifically
how it relates to Pakistan's nuclear capability and ambitions?
Second, one argument is that Musharraf's military dictatorship,
although it is hardly labeled as such by the White House, must
be supported out of necessity to ensure nuclear technology does
not fall in the hands of extremists and Al Qaeda. Basically,
the line goes: if no Musharraf, then Al Qaeda has a nuclear bomb.
How legitimate is this threat and assertion?
It's completely false, a completely
false assertion put forward by two groups of people: a circle
of neo-conservatives from the Vice President's office and the
Pentagon. They didn't want to get involved in the messy business
of building a democracy, and they did want to get involved with
dealing with a dictatorship, because it is easier to talk down
on the phone to a General than it was to talk about a messy democratic
system. They were on the verge, before 9-11, in proclaiming Pakistan
a terrorist state for supporting Al-Qaeda, for nuclear proliferation.
In fact, if we look at all the facts, we had a military regime
that was suppressing human rights, that was proliferating, that
was supporting terrorism, that had a threatening link to 9-11.
That was not Iraq. It wasn't Iraq. There was only one country
that ticked all of those boxes: Pakistan. And yet, a group of
neo-cons around the President had an agenda that went back to
1992 and that agenda was Iraq. They thought Saddam should be
the next suitable target. Consequently, all information on Pakistan
were downscaled. Quite honestly, the greatest threat was instability
in Pakistan, and yet that's something American didn't want to
get involved with.
So, how legitimate is that
claim that Pakistan's nuclear program will allow itself to fall
in the hands of Al-Qaeda or
Absolutely impossible. It's
impossible for a weapon to be released. That just cannot happen.
The Pakistani military have their own command and control structure,
their own methods of dealing with it. It's a fear story that
is put forward to justify the support of the dictatorship. It's
a ludicrous argument.
The modern fear is that
the "Axis of Evil" or rogue nations are stealthily
obtaining nuclear technology. This charged is leveled against
Iraq under Saddam, Iran's new government, and Al Qaeda sympathizers
and Taliban. How credible is this allegation? Also, what is Pakistan's
role in helping these countries and agents achieve their goals?
The Pakistan military and intelligence
agencies were selling to these countries, and they didn't allow
it to slip into the hands of the jihadists. The Pakistani military
set up country to country deals They first offered all of their
technology to Iraq, but Iraq didn't believe the offer was genuine
and thought it was entrapment, so they turned them down. Pakistan
then went back to Iran and set up a relationship with Iran. Then,
in 1993-1994, they did the same in their deals with North Korea.
Those deals came from within the military and A.Q. Khan's network
was simply the proxy by which it happened. By 2002, we reached
a situation where Iran, Iraq, Libya, North Korea, Syria, and
Saudi Arabia were all either in the position to be negotiating
for or possessing nuclear technology. This was a government enterprise.
Government carriers were used. Government transporter planes,
ships, the Navy, and air force were used to transport. And A.Q.
Khan was tracked at every stage by American intelligence until
the end of the 90's and beginning of the millennium. So, they
began to know what he was doing. The picture that was portrayed
in the intelligence was that this was a government enterprise
and not simply A.Q. Khan.
A.Q. Khan is routinely painted
as the "father of the Islamic bomb." In fact, in 2004,
he appeared live on television and claimed personal responsibility
for nuclear proliferation and selling of information to "rogue
governments." Subsequently, he was pardoned but placed under
house arrest by Musharraf, who feigned ignorance regarding nuclear
black market deals happening under his nose. If what you just
said is true, then how can one man, an elderly scientist no less,
escape the scrutiny of his nation and international policing
forces and freely deal nuclear technology? Why was he used as
scapegoat?
A deal was done in 2003, because
Pakistan had signed up on the "War on Terror" and was
now a consolidated partner--the military was seen as a partner
without whom the war could not be fought. So, they decided to
absolve the reputation of the Pakistani military by finding a
scapegoat: A.Q. Khan. If Khan would agree to stand up for this
[nuclear proliferation], then no one else would interrogate him,
no one else would be given access to him. And the whole deal
would be dealt with within Pakistan. The military will be absolved,
their military's reputation protected and preserved, and they
would continue to be an ally. So, Khan appeared on T.V. in 2004
in January and he gives his great speech, a mea culpa of "I,
alone, along with a small band supporters did this grand enterprise,"
and sure enough the next day he is pardoned. And the investigation
is done later, 18 months later, written up by Musharraf. And
a line was drawn under the affair.
Why do some people in Pakistan
or "the Muslim world" consider A.Q. Khan to be a hero,
whereas the rest of the world paints him as a criminal and nuclear
proliferator? What explains this marked discrepancy in characterization?
In one sense, he is a hero:
a man with relatively paltry means took a country that was, at
that stage, under-equipped and created for it through his brilliant
organization a sophisticated nuclear program. For which, you
can have nothing but the highest respect in that he put together
a massive enterprise run very efficiently. We can see quite reasonably
why certain people would see him as a remarkable individual.
He was betrayed very much by the military he worked for; he was
sacrificed by them for very cynical political reasons.
In that sense, the military
of Pakistan has been the enemy of the wider "Islamic"
community. And Khan was seen as simply a dutiful assistant of
Pakistan who loved his country and serviced that program with
remarkable efficiency. A lot of people over-emphasized the money
that Khan made, his individuals assets and etc., this is just
part of a smear against Khan. He was mostly motivated by patriotism.
He was mostly motivated by his desire to see Pakistan stand up
to India. Mostly motivated by what he saw as a bigotry with the
non proliferation act and bigotry with its enforcement which
allowed Israel, for example, to develop a covert bomb with no
word about it, and yet Pakistan couldn't have one. The un-level
playing field where countries like Israel, South Africa, Argentina
and others could secretly acquire technology, and yet Pakistan
was forbidden. So, one can understand why Khan was lionized and
treated as a hero.
Pakistani patriots and supporters
say India is nuclear and has fought several wars against Pakistan.
Israel is an ally of India and it's nuclear. Major Western countries
are nuclear. Why should Pakistan be denied this same right? Isn't
it merely protecting its borders and sovereignty? What gives
Western countries the right to have it and not Pakistan? Is this
a legitimate question?
It's a very, very good question.
It's a really good question. It's the hardest question to answer.
I think the problems have been created by the proliferation mainly
with the situation with India. India did obtain a nuclear problem
and it was de facto accepted. And when one reads the report from
the State Department and Pentagon regarding this, they accepted
that Pakistan is going to take this badly and it is an inequality
that India will be accepted and the Pakistan program wouldn't.
That's absolutely right.
But the major problem stepped
in, because as we discussed before, America was slow to respond
with any consistent regard to Pakistan, so Pakistan then went
on and developed a proliferation system. This is brand new within
nuclear history. Which other countries proliferated on the scale
that Pakistan did, with the contempt that Pakistan showed both
to organizations and to nation states? The [Pakistani nuclear]
program may well have been accepted if it was not for the proliferation
that created a situation in the international intelligence community;
that just enraged them. When the deals were exposed, the extent,
depth, and breadth of it, that basically created the movement
to go after the Pakistan program. But, you're right, there is
a huge inequality in a way that system is administrated by the
protectionist powers--that's absolutely right.
The last question. We often
see movies of the 50's and 60's depicting the Cold War hysteria--mushroom
clouds, the Cuban Missile Crisis, children hiding under desks
preparing for potential nuclear annihilation, MAD (Mutually Assured
Destruction) situations and what not. Is this the vision of
the world's future? What can be done now via foreign policy or
international organizations that can curb the dangerous proliferation
of nuclear weaponry? Is it hopeless?
I think the most important
thing of all, and it this comes back to your initial question,
for most people who have the money, who have an interest, have
the influence and interests to work towards creating a stable
Pakistan. I think that really, really matters. I think a nuclear-free
Middle East is desirable. Disarming Israel, assuming all the
powers around it are disarmed, that idea will simply not be realizable.
I don't think Israel will be persuaded to do it. I think creating
a progressive movement in Pakistan that itself will fight against
terrorism, Al Qaeda, and create a liberal, more secular consensus
might be the answer. In order to do that, we have to support
democracy over there. We have to honor the wishes of the majority
of the Pakistan people who don't want to live under military
dictatorship. So, in America's policy sense, it has to shift
from the easy path of propping up generals and to the messy path
of assisting countries in nation building. It needs to be consistent
towards countries like Pakistan.
Wajahat Ali is Pakistani Muslim American who is
neither a terrorist nor a saint. He is a playwright, essayist,
humorist, and recent J.D. whose work, "The
Domestic Crusaders," is the first major play about Muslim
Pakistani Americans living in a post 9-11 America. His blog is
at http://goatmilk.wordpress.com/.
He can be reached at wajahatmali@gmail.com
.
|
Now Available!
How the Press Led
the US into War
Buy End Times Now!
New From
CounterPunch Books
The Secret
Language
of the Crossroads:
HOW THE IRISH
INVENTED SLANG
By Daniel Cassidy
WINNER
OF THE
AMERICAN BOOK AWARD!
Click Here to Buy!
Cassidy
on Tour
Click Here for Dates & Venues
"The Case Against
Israel"
Michael
Neumann's Devastating Rebuttal of Alan Dershowitz
Click Here to Buy!
Saul Landau's
Bush and Botox World
with a Foreword by Gore Vidal
Click Here to Order!
Grand Theft Pentagon
How They Made a Killing on the War on Terrorism
The Occupation
by Patrick Cockburn
Humanitarian Imperialism
By Jean Bricmont
CITY BEAUTIFUL
By Tennessee Reed
Bruce Springsteen On Tour
By Dave Marsh
The Book on 9/11 the White House Denounced
as "ABSOLUTE GARBAGE"
|
