The Real State of the Union

The Real State of the Union

President Obama gave his 7th State of the Union speech  last night, January 21st 2015. After hearing these speeches year after year, president after president I have come to see them not as projections of what the actual state of the nation is, but rather an advertisement for things the president thinks he did well,

“ ...more of our people are insured than ever before...”

Well yeah, they kind of have to be, remember you made them criminals if they didn’t buy insurance.

Not mentioned in last nights remarks is the reality of the real state of the union.

What about the National Debt?

The Outstanding Public Debt as of 21 Jan 2015 at 06:03:20 PM GMT is:

The estimated population of the United States is 319,850,520

so each citizen's share of this debt is $56,565.23.

The National Debt has continued to increase an average of

$2.40 billion per day since September 30, 2012!

Or maybe the amount of new regulations?

A little over 75,000 pages of new burdensome and restrictive regulations were imposed on US businesses. Each one a hinderance to the growth and expansion of businesses.

No mention of the prison population.

More than 1.57 million inmates sat behind bars in federal, state, and county prisons and jails around the country as of December 31, 2013. Many from victimless crimes.

We could go on with the rising tax rates, poverty levels, inflation, wasteful spending, the drug war, real wars and their destructive nature, the rate of returning soldiers committing suicide, the rate of bankruptcy and homelessness, the NSA…. And so on and so on.

The State of the Union has become nothing more than promises of future action and commercialization of past actions, not to give a statistical breakdown of how the nation is functioning.

Afghanistan War: The Take Away

13 years, 2 months, 3 weeks, and 1 day 

The Afghanistan War is finally over at least in the sense that there will no more US combat missions for the time being. The take away from this ordeal is trillions of dollars (US) have been used and 2,356 American soldiers have died.  This is not to mention other nations service members that that died in combat. And it does not include the thousands of service members that commit suicide every year, an average of 22 per month in the US. These numbers do not include the medical costs to injured troops and the care they receive after injury. This does not include the pensions and retirements received by service members either. 

In September of this year (2014) a Bilateral Security Agreement was signed by the US and Afghan Governments allowing the US to continue funding, arming and training the Afghan Security Forces for another 10 years. 

"The deal stipulates long-term U.S. military presence in Afghanistan and access to numerous bases and installations in the country, including facilities located in Bagram, home to the notorious U.S. military prison. The pact does not detail the exact number of U.S. troops to remain, but Obama has previously stated he plans to cut U.S. troops down to 9,800 by the beginning of 2015, then cut that number by half at the end of next year, with further cuts slated for the end of 2016. As of earlier this year, there were approximately 50,000 NATO troops in Afghanistan, 34,000 of which were American." Writes Sarah Lazare, staff writer for CommonDreams.org

Also from that article.

According to Peter Lems, Program Officer at the American Friends Service Committee, "That's one of the biggest problems with the War on Terror since September 11: these wars don't end," said Lems. "We have this crazy situation where we have undeclared wars and, perhaps because of the nature of undeclared conflicts, it's easy to look at them as dissipating but never-ending."

The deal also allows the U.S. to pursue "counter-terrorism" missions as long as they "complement" those of the Afghan military and "authorizes United States government aircraft and civil aircraft that are operated by or exclusively for United States forces to enter, exit, overfly, land, take off, conduct aerial refueling, and move within the territory of Afghanistan." Critics warn that the stipulation is likely to allow the U.S. to continue its covert drone wars against the region, including neighboring Pakistan.

Under the agreement, the U.S. is to play a critical role in "advising, training, equipping, supporting, and sustaining" the Afghan military, as well as "developing intelligence sharing capabilities; strengthening Afghanistan’s Air Force capabilities; conducting combined military exercises." Many warn that "training" is in fact cover for holding onto bases and other geopolitical footholds.

According to Lems, this provision sets the conditions for long-term U.S. domination. "To have the U.S. fully fund that apparatus will lead to dependence, but also encourage Afghan officials to use force and violence the way the U.S. has," he said."

So while the US has decided to pull out a large proportion of the troops in the country, this deal allows more to stay and the continuation of the funding and arming of this foreign army. It also allows immunity to US forces still in the country. This is a hotly contested aspect of the US presence in Afghanistan. Since the beginning of Afghan campaigns US service personnel were granted a certain immunity to crimes against Afghan civilians, including murder. With an estimated 21,000 civilians killed since operations began it seems immunity is getting it's use. Sadly.

So the take away on Afghanistan is this.

The US has put it's citizens into deeper debt with it's central bankers. It has made millionaires of designers and builders of machines that maim and kill. It has subjected it's citizens to death in the name of war. And it will continue to do so into the foreseeable future. 

Stats on Afghanistan since 2001

Since October 7th 2001 the US military has occupied Afghanistan. That is 13 years. 4735 days.

Billions of dollars have been used, wasted. The estimate for the cost of deploying one U.S. soldier in Afghanistan is over US$1 million a year. The total cost from inception to the fiscal year 2011 was expected to be $468 billion.

US service member deaths are 3749 estimated 30000 wounded.

Afghanistan deaths, both military and civilian, have been estimated at 35-50 thousand.

Obama's Pre 9/11/14 speech

On 9-10-2014 US President Barack Obama delivered a speech outlining the government's interpretation of threats to National Security and the targeting of the group ISIS. The call for a plan on this issue has been circulating since two videos surfaced, each showing the apparent beheading of American Journalists. Those who identify as Republicans have called for a clear and decisive plan of action for dealing with this group, identified Democrats have been calling for the same, a true bipartisan issue has been agreed upon. There are fundamental flaws in his, and many others logic, and the amount of doublespeak here would make even George Orwell cringe. Obama, like many others, hold onto a belief that they can bring peace by bringing war. It is a myth, a costly mistake of realism, and a dangerous notion to any world inhabited by living beings.

"My fellow Americans — tonight, I want to speak to you about what the United States will do with our friends and allies to degrade and ultimately destroy the terrorist group known as ISIL.

As Commander-in-Chief, my highest priority is the security of the American people. Over the last several years, we have consistently taken the fight to terrorists who threaten our country. We took out Osama bin Laden and much of al Qaeda's leadership in Afghanistan and Pakistan. We've targeted al Qaeda's affiliate in Yemen, and recently eliminated the top commander of its affiliate in Somalia. We've done so while bringing more than 140,000 American troops home from Iraq, and drawing down our forces in Afghanistan, where our combat mission will end later this year. Thanks to our military and counterterrorism professionals, America is safer." 

Still, we continue to face a terrorist threat. We cannot erase every trace of evil from the world, and small groups of killers have the capacity to do great harm. That was the case before 9/11, and that remains true today. That's why we must remain vigilant as threats emerge. At this moment, the greatest threats come from the Middle East and North Africa, where radical groups exploit grievances for their own gain. And one of those groups is ISIL — which calls itself the "Islamic State."

Now let's make two things clear: ISIL is not "Islamic." No religion condones the killing of innocents, and the vast majority of ISIL's victims have been Muslim. And ISIL is certainly not a state. It was formerly al Qaeda's affiliate in Iraq, and has taken advantage of sectarian strife and Syria's civil war to gain territory on both sides of the Iraq-Syrian border. It is recognized by no government, nor the people it subjugates. ISIL is a terrorist organization, pure and simple. And it has no vision other than the slaughter of all who stand in its way.

In a region that has known so much bloodshed, these terrorists are unique in their brutality. They execute captured prisoners. They kill children. They enslave, rape, and force women into marriage. They threatened a religious minority with genocide. In acts of barbarism, they took the lives of two American journalists — Jim Foley and Steven Sotloff.

So ISIL poses a threat to the people of Iraq and Syria, and the broader Middle East — including American citizens, personnel and facilities. If left unchecked, these terrorists could pose a growing threat beyond that region — including to the United States. While we have not yet detected specific plotting against our homeland, ISIL leaders have threatened America and our allies. Our intelligence community believes that thousands of foreigners – including Europeans and some Americans — have joined them in Syria and Iraq. Trained and battle-hardened, these fighters could try to return to their home countries and carry out deadly attacks.

I know many Americans are concerned about these threats. Tonight, I want you to know that the United States of America is meeting them with strength and resolve. Last month, I ordered our military to take targeted action against ISIL to stop its advances. Since then, we have conducted more than 150 successful airstrikes in Iraq. These strikes have protected American personnel and facilities, killed ISIL fighters, destroyed weapons, and given space for Iraqi and Kurdish forces to reclaim key territory. These strikes have helped save the lives of thousands of innocent men, women and children.

But this is not our fight alone. American power can make a decisive difference, but we cannot do for Iraqis what they must do for themselves, nor can we take the place of Arab partners in securing their region. That's why I've insisted that additional U.S. action depended upon Iraqis forming an inclusive government, which they have now done in recent days. So tonight, with a new Iraqi government in place, and following consultations with allies abroad and Congress at home, I can announce that America will lead a broad coalition to roll back this terrorist threat.

Our objective is clear: we will degrade, and ultimately destroy, ISIL through a comprehensive and sustained counter-terrorism strategy.

First, we will conduct a systematic campaign of airstrikes against these terrorists. Working with the Iraqi government, we will expand our efforts beyond protecting our own people and humanitarian missions, so that we're hitting ISIL targets as Iraqi forces go on offense. Moreover, I have made it clear that we will hunt down terrorists who threaten our country, wherever they are. That means I will not hesitate to take action against ISIL in Syria, as well as Iraq. This is a core principle of my presidency: if you threaten America, you will find no safe haven.

Second, we will increase our support to forces fighting these terrorists on the ground. In June, I deployed several hundred American service members to Iraq to assess how we can best support Iraqi Security Forces. Now that those teams have completed their work — and Iraq has formed a government — we will send an additional 475 service members to Iraq. As I have said before, these American forces will not have a combat mission — we will not get dragged into another ground war in Iraq. But they are needed to support Iraqi and Kurdish forces with training, intelligence and equipment. We will also support Iraq's efforts to stand up National Guard Units to help Sunni communities secure their own freedom from ISIL control.

Across the border, in Syria, we have ramped up our military assistance to the Syrian opposition. Tonight, I again call on Congress to give us additional authorities and resources to train and equip these fighters. In the fight against ISIL, we cannot rely on an Assad regime that terrorizes its people; a regime that will never regain the legitimacy it has lost. Instead, we must strengthen the opposition as the best counterweight to extremists like ISIL, while pursuing the political solution necessary to solve Syria's crisis once and for all.

Third, we will continue to draw on our substantial counterterrorism capabilities to prevent ISIL attacks. Working with our partners, we will redouble our efforts to cut off its funding; improve our intelligence; strengthen our defenses; counter its warped ideology; and stem the flow of foreign fighters into — and out of — the Middle East. And in two weeks, I will chair a meeting of the UN Security Council to further mobilize the international community around this effort.

Fourth, we will continue providing humanitarian assistance to innocent civilians who have been displaced by this terrorist organization. This includes Sunni and Shia Muslims who are at grave risk, as well as tens of thousands of Christians and other religious minorities. We cannot allow these communities to be driven from their ancient homelands.

This is our strategy. And in each of these four parts of our strategy, America will be joined by a broad coalition of partners. Already, allies are flying planes with us over Iraq; sending arms and assistance to Iraqi Security Forces and the Syrian opposition; sharing intelligence; and providing billions of dollars in humanitarian aid. Secretary Kerry was in Iraq today meeting with the new government and supporting their efforts to promote unity, and in the coming days he will travel across the Middle East and Europe to enlist more partners in this fight, especially Arab nations who can help mobilize Sunni communities in Iraq and Syria to drive these terrorists from their lands. This is American leadership at its best: we stand with people who fight for their own freedom; and we rally other nations on behalf of our common security and common humanity.

My Administration has also secured bipartisan support for this approach here at home. I have the authority to address the threat from ISIL. But I believe we are strongest as a nation when the President and Congress work together. So I welcome congressional support for this effort in order to show the world that Americans are united in confronting this danger.

Now, it will take time to eradicate a cancer like ISIL. And any time we take military action, there are risks involved — especially to the servicemen and women who carry out these missions. But I want the American people to understand how this effort will be different from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. It will not involve American combat troops fighting on foreign soil. This counter-terrorism campaign will be waged through a steady, relentless effort to take out ISIL wherever they exist, using our air power and our support for partner forces on the ground. This strategy of taking out terrorists who threaten us, while supporting partners on the front lines, is one that we have successfully pursued in Yemen and Somalia for years. And it is consistent with the approach I outlined earlier this year: to use force against anyone who threatens America's core interests, but to mobilize partners wherever possible to address broader challenges to international order.

My fellow Americans, we live in a time of great change. Tomorrow marks 13 years since our country was attacked. Next week marks 6 years since our economy suffered its worst setback since the Great Depression. Yet despite these shocks; through the pain we have felt and the grueling work required to bounce back — America is better positioned today to seize the future than any other nation on Earth.

Our technology companies and universities are unmatched; our manufacturing and auto industries are thriving. Energy independence is closer than it's been in decades. For all the work that remains, our businesses are in the longest uninterrupted stretch of job creation in our history. Despite all the divisions and discord within our democracy, I see the grit and determination and common goodness of the American people every single day — and that makes me more confident than ever about our country's future.

Abroad, American leadership is the one constant in an uncertain world. It is America that has the capacity and the will to mobilize the world against terrorists. It is America that has rallied the world against Russian aggression, and in support of the Ukrainian peoples' right to determine their own destiny. It is America — our scientists, our doctors, our know-how — that can help contain and cure the outbreak of Ebola. It is America that helped remove and destroy Syria's declared chemical weapons so they cannot pose a threat to the Syrian people — or the world — again. And it is America that is helping Muslim communities around the world not just in the fight against terrorism, but in the fight for opportunity, tolerance, and a more hopeful future.

America, our endless blessings bestow an enduring burden. But as Americans, we welcome our responsibility to lead. From Europe to Asia — from the far reaches of Africa to war-torn capitals of the Middle East — we stand for freedom, for justice, for dignity. These are values that have guided our nation since its founding. Tonight, I ask for your support in carrying that leadership forward. I do so as a Commander-in-Chief who could not be prouder of our men and women in uniform — pilots who bravely fly in the face of danger above the Middle East, and service-members who support our partners on the ground.

When we helped prevent the massacre of civilians trapped on a distant mountain, here's what one of them said. "We owe our American friends our lives. Our children will always remember that there was someone who felt our struggle and made a long journey to protect innocent people."

That is the difference we make in the world. And our own safety — our own security — depends upon our willingness to do what it takes to defend this nation, and uphold the values that we stand for — timeless ideals that will endure long after those who offer only hate and destruction have been vanquished from the Earth.

May God bless our troops, and may God bless the United States of America.

Note that the announcement of bombing Iraq and other nation's land that are in control or occupation of the Islamic State group comes on the eve of September 11th, marking 13 years since an attack was made on American soil by still debated perpetrators and a bombing, invasion, and occupation of Iraq, Afghanistan and other Middle Eastern nations was being planned and carried out in response.

Chelsea Manning raises her voice on the ISIS issue.

ISIS seems to be the hottest topic the past few weeks and now a new voice has risen to give a point of view. Chelsea Manning who served in the US army as an intelligence analyst as Bradley Manning has penned an article first appearing on The Guardian website yesterday. As with all opinions this should be taken as just her point of view and agreement or disagreement is not what this post is about, it is to forward the message and thought of Manning to the readers.

An artist's rendering of how Chelsea Manning sees herself.

A few different publishers have picked up this story and a bit of confusion or willful misinterpretation has taken place by some. In his article Manning lays out her experience and knowledge of the group and their aims. Manning explains what he sees as a legitimate course that can be taken to limit, degrade and ultimately try to destroy the group with as little intervention as possible. As she puts it, " Bullets and Bombs won't stop ISIS."

You can read the RT article here or the original letter to The Guardian here.

Also be sure to read the Breitbart article misinterpreting Mannings intentions here.

Bombs over Baghdad... Again.

President Obama has authorised the bombing of targets in Iraq. This makes the fourth consecutive president to do so, and to what end? The almost continuous bombing in this country has not led to a peaceful situation. It has not led to those Iraqi people respecting the US government, it's military, and by extension the citizens of the country. It has not led to the amicable end that is being touted as the reason for all the strife.

In response to the threat of Islamic State(IS, ISIS, ISIL) members multiple countries are coming together to figure out a way to combat those they consider terrorists and threats to their national security, at least that is what is being told to those paying for the actions.

In a Newsweek article Rear Admiral John Kirby, the Pentagon press secretary reported a daily cost of 7.5 Million dollars, and the total cost reaching somewhere near $500 Million beginning just on June 16th. All of this again adds to the totals of wartime spending which the CBO reports at costing after inflation and interest in the range of $6 Trillion overall.

All of this, taxation, wasteful spending and creating enemies has an effect that ripples through time and will again come back to haunt future generations.

A response to "Want to Destroy ISIS? Congress Should Implement the Draft and Raise Taxes Immediately."

This is the headline from a recent Huffington Post blog post, authored by H. A. Goodman. In this post he gives a case for implementing the re emergence of a national draft and raising taxes to afford another war. In the face of another boogy-man in the sand box of the Middle East some will actually endorse these ideas and promote their full and swift introduction. Thrusting the US into another war inside Iraq, Syria, and other Middle Eastern and African nations will amount to what could be considered World War 3. And just as those two previous World Wars saw the forced conscription of citizens into the military forces, it seems some would still use this to obtain their wartime ends.

"It's time to get off the couch, America, and collectively sacrifice for national security, both through taxes to fund the next conflict and a draft, like previous generations in WWII, Korea, and Vietnam. ISIS wants to bankrupt this country and drag us into another quagmire, so if you believe these maniacs need to be destroyed by bullets fired from American guns, it's time for you too to start firing these bullets and paying for the next war. Once we defeat ISIS, we can then begin to destroy the next terrorist group that pops up (like Al-Qaeda Iraq morphed into ISIS) with money from higher taxes and from the additional troop levels from a national draft."

This idea, to force people to fight in a war they did not start, or to give their lives for another person's sake and even worse the ends of their own government is arguably the worst form of absolute slavery in the US.  Those that choose to volunteer are admirable in their selflessness and sacrifice, but our military isn't a 100% voluntary idea. Since the US military is funded by the US Government and the US government is funded by yearly budgets. Those budgets are approved with the knowledge that every dime will be borrowed from the US central bank The Federal Reserve. What most Americans are unaware of is the added interest that is then owed back to the Federal Reserve for loaning that money. Also unaware to most is the fact that the "debt" that is now owed to the bank is then sold to foreign nations by the central bank.

So how then does this debt get paid back? Since the US Government does not produce anything, they rely on the citizens through taxation. Increased Taxation is the second point of this article. The author states, "To my fellow Tea Party Americans who care about debt and who, like me, want these terrorists gone, I ask you to remember the cost of war. According to Harvard University, "The US has already borrowed some $2 trillion to finance the Afghanistan and Iraq Wars and the associated defense build-up -- a major component of the $9 trillion US debt accrued since 2001." The total cost will reach $6 trillion when healthcare costs from both wars are taken into account and the interest from borrowing could reach trillions."  

He adds, " Taxes and military service is what America owes its veterans, future generations, and any terrorist who gets in the way of freedom and democracy. Open up your pocket books, pick up a gun, and say goodbye to your family, because America needs everyone to chip in and protect liberty."

This gives great alarm to me as well as millions who see the costs of wars as unnecessarily burdensome to our generation as well as those that will follow. Anyone who calls himself a Conservative or recognizes the insanity and exploitation of taxation should be completely against any such increase of the great draining of personal wealth for the idea of war. Now some will say that we do not pick these fights and that we, meaning the US as a whole, should be ready to defend our culture and our country at all personal cost. This is the great collectiveness of Nationalism. To assume that one would and should hold all personal sacrifice for a geographical area they were cosmically dropped upon birth assumes that all such persons should be ready to volunteer their lives and fortunes to defend the areas government in whatever troubles they may find themselves. That is a dangerous place to find oneself, a slave upon birth to the nation one was born. Just a teat to be suckled until no longer needed or producing.



But the author gives us a glimpse of his true intention of the article in the comments section.

"Yes, a great deal of it is indeed satire aimed at showing that if Americans in aggregate had to pay for and fight wars themselves, instead of letting the 2.5 million veterans of the recent Iraq and Afghanistan Wars fight for a nation over 300 million, we'd think twice about war. We'd also think twice about fighting a third Iraq War if we had to pay for it appropriately, through a war tax. My article is meant to ask the question, what if the average American had to pay and fight for the constant wars we engage in, and would Americans be as quick to send our troops everywhere and anywhere in the name of security? Also, we still have a VA crisis so what will happen to that when a third Iraq war starts? These are all issues I've presented in the article.The answers I believe can be found in these comments, both liberals and conservatives have their own view of this article, and I thank you and everyone on here who took the time to read my thoughts. "

 Taken at face value this article is full of the worst ideology and the worst policy that can come to my mind. I believe the author sets about this article in the most facetious way, and it worked, I was dismayed at the prospect that this man would push this idea forward with such a large audience. It does not bestow any confidence in the author that he kept his intention to the comments, but gives great caution that those who read his words and took them at face value would hold any such views. I do realize that there are many, many people who do hold these views and that do propagate these ideals, and that is a very prospect as to what may come in a short while.

Note: As of 9/16/14 the author has placed a editors note preceding the article. It seems more than just I were having trouble picking up on hints of satire.  Here is his note.

Dear Reader,

This article is satire. Its goal is to highlight that Americans would never engage in decade-long wars and put war on a credit card if a draft and taxes correlated to military engagements.

I am against a draft and please read my article prior to this one, or after this one, to see where I stand. My writing is also very much against perpetual war and I've had numerous posts on this subject, as illustrated within my bio page.

Also, I'm all for constructive criticism, but please remember that threats of death take place in fascist and totalitarian regimes against writers, so if you claim to be for freedom and democracy, try to simply argue a point through words like normal people.

In addition, one website claimed that my viewpoint is "we're a nation of selfish sloths"and tried to psychoanalyze my motives. I do not feel this way and if I adhered to conspiracy theories, I'd wager that such analysis was meant to create hatred of satire, or create something that isn't presented within my thoughts or this article. I absolutely do not think we'e a slothful nation, I just think we vote on emotional issues like taxes or a draft, or a beheading video, and not on things like the VA crisis still ongoing, or the repercussions of counterinsurgency wars on our veterans and nation, or other relevant issues to our security. Therefore, to conspiracy theorists who enjoy putting words in other people's mouths, please simply disparage my writing, or lack of knowledge, or the fact that my arguments might be flawed, not your cookie cutter view of vast conspiracies that coincidentally coincide with arguments, issues, or satire you disagree with or fail to accurately interpret. My body of work speaks for itself and I am against perpetual wars and if I engage in future satirical articles, please understand that satire works to illustrate the insanity of war and bloodshed, sometimes better than preaching. Sometimes connecting the dots means simply reading another's thoughts without the agenda of correlating them to a grandiose narrative and evaluating their work in aggregate. Don't worry, there aren't any codes or secret agendas in my satirical articles, simply addressing human fallibility and propensity for never-ending wars through an apparently flawed method.

Finally, anyone using this article to foment controversy or the belief that a draft is imminent, or that a conspiracy is taking place, or that their ideology is validated in this writing must remember the thoughts below are satire, and a satirical take on why our country continually engages in never-ending war.

I might write more satire in the near future and will specify within the article that it is indeed a satirical piece. I apologize to anyone I've offended, this was certainly not my intent.

Have a wonderful day,

The costs of post 9/11

Today is 9/11/ 2014, 13 years since the greatest attack on American citizens since the country's formation. Under President Bush he used the events of the day to not only wage a Global War on an Obscure Definition of Terror but also to give this day a new name of remembrance. Patriot Day as it is now called has moved from a somber remembrance of events to debate and confusion, statism and a subjective view of what constitutes Patriotism.

What have we lost?

9/11/2001 around 3,000 people lost their lives in the World Trade Center buildings and the flights used as guided missiles. In the aftermath of the buildings collapsing, the total deaths were recorded at 2,996 people, including the 19 hijackers and 2,977 victims. More would succumb to illness caused by the dust and debris in the months and years afterwards, and we can only speculate on those citizens who died as a result of shock at the unfolding of the atrocities of the day. But these are not the only casualties we can add to this. we can also add in the deaths of service members and civilians from America and those of other nations.

According to the website Journalist's Resource "The Brown University project estimated that together, all countries involved have lost a total of 31,000 uniformed servicemembers and military contractors. In addition, the researchers estimated in 2011 that between 152,280 and 192,550 civilians in Afghanistan, Iraq and Pakistan have died as a “result of the fighting at the hands of all parties.” In March 2013, the Brown researchers revised the civilian total estimate to 200,000; and they estimated that 330,000 people had been killed overall as a result of the conflicts, accounting for all soldiers, militants, police, contractors, journalists, humanitarian workers and civilians involved."

These numbers should do enough to discourage any more operations in the areas, but sadly it does not deter those war hawkish members of the political atmosphere nor a number of citizens from the demolition and destruction of these countries, these people and these futures. 

Lives cost a lot, no one is denying that, but let's take a second to look at the economical impact the past 13 years have taken. According to the CBO (Congressional Budget Office) Total spent and obligated through FY 2014 is around 4,374.5 billion US dollars. (2014 dollars) with the Additional Cumulative Interest on Past Pentagon and State/USAID War Appropriations FY 2001‐2013 by 2054 reaching over 7,900 billion. If you are having trouble with converting that, it is 4 Trillion 374 Billion, 500 Million dollars since 2001 and an estimated 7 Trillion 900 Billion dollars. 

All of this is taken directly from increased borrowing from the US Central Bank with loans being paid back with interest by the US taxpayer. That money is being created with the future payments being ladled with interest and being sworn to your children and grand-children and so on. 

Another aspect of what has been lost since 2001.

The rights and privacy lost since 2001 have been explained by many, from Judge Andrew Napolitano to Former House Of Representative and 2008 and 2012 Presidential candidate Ron Paul, from the leaked document of the CIA, NSA, DOJ, DOD and a host of other alphabet soup agencies by the work of Bradley Manning, Edward Snowden and Julian Assange, who took personal sacrifice for the American citizens to a new level. 

All the new security you see and experience when traveling, paid for by increased taxation. All the new background checks you go through, paid for by increased taxation. The departments themselves, who have been the subject to their own leaks of inter-office behavior, are entirely funded by the same ones they are spying on. Let there be no mistake about it, the notion that you can be 100% ok with the amount of agencies and securities that have increased since 2001 and also hold a belief in the reduction of taxation is entirely erroneous. Let it also be noted that in any attempt to curb this behavior or increasing security state bubble is met with resistance by those who value their sense of safety over their sense of morality or sensibility. Hell they even used the word Patriot to pass an act of protecting themselves while spying on you; Patriot Act. 

Over the years Patriots have risen, but did you even notice?

We have already gone over Snowden, Manning and Assange, all who have given their freedom for your knowledge of the facts of the government you live under. There are more examples of those who have made a stand for a belief in what is moral and right.

The Burger King Corporation recently set itself into a media firestorm. With the acquisition of a foreign (Canada) company, the BK Corp saw to move its Headquarters to Canada to escape higher corporate taxation. Now the media and those unknowingly ignorant of economic sense call this move unpatriotic. But how so? Wasn't the Boston Tea Party a patriotic act, in the same sense to avoid undue taxation, the hypocrisy is almost deafening. 

Cliven Bundy did his patriotic duty in his defiance of federal officials to turn over parts of his land to federal department control in the name of bogus claims of conservation of a certain species. He, along with other resistors in name and spirit spent days holding off Federal Department of Land Management officers as they took to try and take what they wanted of property that had no right to.

So on this Patriots day let's remember those that gave their lives, their freedoms and their blood, sweat and tears for what is morally right, what can be more patriotic than a man who fights a tyrannous, overbearing, overreaching, overburdening Government? 

Never Forget: Your government sets its means to kill you, capture you, and steal from you. 

Rise up Patriots! 

  

Someone is leaking NSA and Gov docs, but it isn't Snowden.

https://thepatriotpapers.wordpress.com/2014/09/08/new-post-snowden-leaks-reveal-secret-details-of-u-s-terrorist-watch-list/

The US Government is trying to find the source of multiple leaks of intelligence data. Dated and drafted after Edward Snowden was removed from clearance multiple data points have been released to journalists around the world. The US government must now consider every intelligence officer and contractor a risk. It is clear that while the US Government tries its best to contain its own transgressions and discretions it would be easier and less costly to the American Citizens wallet if they refrained from performing breaches of privacy around the world. The aftermath of Snowden has left a divide in the opinions of most Americans, some calling him a traitor and others, a hero.

"Truth is treason in the empire of lies" as someone has said in the recent past rings true in this situation.





Image via http://www.newyorker.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/edward-snowden-580.jpg

Local Police Receive Military Surpluses

This is a short post I will be addressing to a local newspaper. 

These procurements are only for Nassau County Florida. If you wish to find out what Surplus Goods your local Police and Sheriffs Offices have petitioned for and received please follow the link and fill in the drop down menu. 

As events unfolded in Ferguson MO the world watched a militarized police presence to quell riots and looting. I started looking as to what hardware our local police forces were acquiring under the 1033 Program in accordance with Department of Defense and its Defense Logistics Agency. "According to the program's informational website, the 1033 Program has transferred $5.1 billion in military hardware from the United States Army to local American law enforcement agencies since 1997."  

This list was compiled and retrieved from The Free Thought Project website.

REFRIGERATION UNIT,MECHANICAL 1 Unknown $0.00 4/9/2014 FL NASSAU

REFRIGERATION UNIT,MECHANICAL 1 Unknown $0.00 4/9/2014 FL NASSAU

REFRIGERATION UNIT,MECHANICAL 1 Unknown $0.00 4/9/2014 FL NASSAU

REFRIGERATION UNIT,MECHANICAL 1 Unknown $0.00 4/9/2014 FL NASSAU

REFRIGERATION UNIT,MECHANICAL 1 Unknown $0.00 4/10/2014 FL NASSAU

RIFLE, 5.56 MILLIMETER 1 Each $499.00 4/14/2008 FL NASSAU

RIFLE, 5.56 MILLIMETER 1 Each $499.00 4/14/2008 FL NASSAU

RIFLE, 5.56 MILLIMETER 1 Each $499.00 4/14/2008 FL NASSAU

RIFLE, 5.56 MILLIMETER 1 Each $499.00 4/14/2008 FL NASSAU

RIFLE, 5.56 MILLIMETER 1 Each $499.00 4/14/2008 FL NASSAU

RIFLE, 5.56 MILLIMETER 1 Each $499.00 4/14/2008 FL NASSAU

RIFLE, 5.56 MILLIMETER 1 Each $499.00 4/14/2008 FL NASSAU

RIFLE, 5.56 MILLIMETER 1 Each $499.00 4/14/2008 FL NASSAU

RIFLE, 5.56 MILLIMETER 1 Each $499.00 4/14/2008 FL NASSAU

RIFLE, 5.56 MILLIMETER 1 Each $499.00 4/14/2008 FL NASSAU

RIFLE, 5.56 MILLIMETER 1 Each $499.00 4/14/2008 FL NASSAU

RIFLE, 5.56 MILLIMETER 1 Each $499.00 4/14/2008 FL NASSAU

RIFLE, 5.56 MILLIMETER 1 Each $499.00 4/14/2008 FL NASSAU

RIFLE, 5.56 MILLIMETER 1 Each $499.00 4/14/2008 FL NASSAU

RIFLE, 5.56 MILLIMETER 1 Each $499.00 4/14/2008 FL NASSAU

RIFLE, 5.56 MILLIMETER 1 Each $499.00 4/14/2008 FL NASSAU

RIFLE, 5.56 MILLIMETER 1 Each $499.00 4/14/2008 FL NASSAU

RIFLE, 5.56 MILLIMETER 1 Each $499.00 4/14/2008 FL NASSAU

RIFLE, 5.56 MILLIMETER 1 Each $499.00 4/14/2008 FL NASSAU

RIFLE, 5.56 MILLIMETER 1 Each $499.00 4/14/2008 FL NASSAU

RIFLE, 5.56 MILLIMETER 1 Each $499.00 4/14/2008 FL NASSAU

RIFLE, 5.56 MILLIMETER 1 Each $499.00 4/14/2008 FL NASSAU

RIFLE, 5.56 MILLIMETER 1 Each $499.00 4/14/2008 FL NASSAU

RIFLE, 5.56 MILLIMETER 1 Each $499.00 4/14/2008 FL NASSAU

RIFLE, 5.56 MILLIMETER 1 Each $499.00 4/14/2008 FL NASSAU

RIFLE, 5.56 MILLIMETER 1 Each $499.00 4/14/2008 FL NASSAU

RIFLE, 5.56 MILLIMETER 1 Each $499.00 4/14/2008 FL NASSAU

RIFLE, 5.56 MILLIMETER 1 Each $499.00 4/14/2008 FL NASSAU

RIFLE, 5.56 MILLIMETER 1 Each $499.00 4/14/2008 FL NASSAU

RIFLE, 5.56 MILLIMETER 1 Each $499.00 4/14/2008 FL NASSAU

RIFLE, 5.56 MILLIMETER 1 Each $499.00 4/14/2008 FL NASSAU

RIFLE, 5.56 MILLIMETER 1 Each $499.00 4/14/2008 FL NASSAU

RIFLE, 5.56 MILLIMETER 1 Each $499.00 4/14/2008 FL NASSAU

RIFLE, 5.56 MILLIMETER 1 Each $499.00 4/14/2008 FL NASSAU

RIFLE, 5.56 MILLIMETER 1 Each $499.00 4/14/2008 FL NASSAU

RIFLE, 5.56 MILLIMETER 1 Each $499.00 4/14/2008 FL NASSAU

RIFLE, 5.56 MILLIMETER 1 Each $499.00 4/14/2008 FL NASSAU

  

RIFLE,7.62 MILLIMETER 1 Each$138.00 12/28/2006 FL NASSAU

RIFLE,7.62 MILLIMETER 1 Each $138.00 12/28/2006 FL NASSAU

RIFLE,7.62 MILLIMETER 1 Each $138.00 12/28/2006 FL NASSAU

RIFLE,7.62 MILLIMETER 1 Each $138.00 12/28/2006 FL NASSAU

RIFLE,7.62 MILLIMETER 1 Each $138.00 12/28/2006 FL NASSAU

RIFLE,7.62 MILLIMETER 1 Each $138.00 12/28/2006 FL NASSAU

RIFLE,7.62 MILLIMETER 1 Each $138.00 12/28/2006 FL NASSAU

RIFLE,7.62 MILLIMETER 1 Each $138.00 12/28/2006 FL NASSAU

TRUCK,UTILITY 1 Each               $39,052.00           04/9/2014 FL NASSAU

Read more at http://thefreethoughtproject.com/military-hardware-local-pd-stockpiling-database-show-you/#JBgmeT4tpXOdtjJK.99

On the James Foley video

I finally watched the Foley "beheading"  video and along with that 3 others from people claiming to be of the same group ISIS, ISIL or any of their other aliases. To note that in every other video these groups or people have never cut away while the victim was being beheaded and the presence of large amounts of blood from the very beginning of the cutting, it is missing from the Foley video and the cutaway that takes place. Along with that there is the higher tech that was used in the Foley video to place a small waving ISIS flag in the upper corner of the video, it is not to say that the groups have not been able to acquire the equipment or knowledge to do this, but that is out of routine for them to do so. I also noticed a part of the Foley video that seems to imply a portion had to be cut away for some unknown reason.

All in all I am not going to say that Foley is still alive and it was all just a rouse, it seems very much like a staged event and one that sets a new precedent for what will happen in those countries as America and the world deals with what is going on.

Video experts have been analyzing this video since it's release and some have noted the very same instances and examples as I have. It is not to say that any of us are correct but that there are others who have the experience to make a judgement call on this video.

In closing I do feel sorry for Foley's parents, his family and friends. It is a sad state of affairs that a man who was in a country for the sole purpose of journalism was captured, tortured and ultimately killed for the actions of others. Time will tell if these instances will continue or if more aggressive means will be used to prevent the groups in those countries from moving forward with their plans.

I will not link the video, as anyone can easily find it themselves and I do not want to advance the viewership of anyone promoting it as an acceptable means of behavior or entertainment in any way.

What I do have to say of the message in the video. The member of ISIS uses the intervention into Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria and other Middle Eastern Nations as their purpose of this act. As a non-interventionist I believe that all  intervention has effects such as this, as does all foreign aid. Both of these policies drive a hatred of America because of an act perpetrated by American Politicians. it is far past time for others to realize this. This can be a lesson for a new direction in foreign policy or it can be used as a propaganda tool for furthering the intervention and increased wartime spending and operations.

Top Ten Countries and Military Spending

According to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute these are the top ten countries in relations to military spending. The US is again on top of this list as it has been for years. Even with its steady decline in spending due to budget cuts it still sits at over 3 times that of the number 2 spender China. All of this money is extracted from its citizens through taxation and sits as one of the top expenses in these countries.

Below is the list of the top ten countries and their military spending numbers. Although the Stockholm Institute does not give the break down per capita I have done those numbers and added them underneath each countries stats.

No. 10: Brazil
Military expenditure: $36.2 billion
Expenditure as pct. of GDP: 1.4 percent (tied, 62nd lowest)
1-yr. spending change: -3.9 percent (26th lowest)
Total arms imports: $254 million (24th highest)
Total arms exports: $36 million (12th lowest)
Population: 198.7 Million
Per Capita Spending: 183.00 Yearly


No. 9: India
Military expenditure: $49.1 billion
Expenditure as pct. of GDP: 2.5 percent (31st highest)
1-yr. spending change: -0.7 percent (46th lowest)
Total arms imports: $5.6 billion (the highest)
Total arms exports: $10 million (10th lowest)
Population: 1.237 Billion
Per Capita Spending: 40.91Yearly



No. 8: Germany
Military expenditure: $49.3 billion
Expenditure as pct. of GDP: 1.4 percent (tied, 62nd lowest)
1-yr. spending change: 0.0 percent (53rd lowest)
Total arms imports: $129 million (36th highest)
Total arms exports: $972 million (6th highest)
Population: 81.9 Million
Per Capita Spending: 601.95 Yearly





No. 7: United Kingdom
Military expenditure: $56.2 billion
Expenditure as pct. of GDP: 2.3 percent (34th highest)
1-yr. spending change: -2.6 percent (34th lowest)
Total arms imports: $438 million (15th highest)
Total arms exports: $1.4 billion (5th highest)
Population: 63.23 Million
Per Capita Spending: 903.10 Yearly



No. 6: Japan
Military expenditure: $59.4 billion
Expenditure as pct. of GDP: 1.0 percent (31st lowest)
1-yr. spending change: -0.2 percent (52nd lowest)
Total arms imports: $145 million (34th highest)
Total arms exports: N/A
Population: 127.6 Million
Per Capita Spending: 465.51 Yearly



No. 5: France
Military expenditure: $62.3 billion
Expenditure as pct. of GDP: 2.2 percent (39th highest)
1-yr. spending change: -2.3 percent (35th lowest)
Total arms imports: $43 million (55th highest)
Total arms exports: $1.5 billion (4th highest)
Population: 65.7 Million
Per Capita Spending: 948.24 Yearly



No. 4: Saudi Arabia
Military expenditure: $62.8 billion
Expenditure as pct. of GDP: 9.3 percent (2nd highest)
1-yr. spending change: 14.3 percent (16th highest)
Total arms imports: $1.5 billion (4th highest)
Total arms exports: N/A
Population: 28.29 Million
Per Capita Spending: 2219.86 Yearly



No. 3: Russia
Military expenditure: $84.9 billion
Expenditure as pct. of GDP: 4.1 percent (10th highest)
1-yr. spending change: 4.8 percent (48th highest)
Total arms imports: $148 million (33rd highest)
Total arms exports: $8.3 billion (the highest)
Population: 143.5 Million
Per Capita Spending: 591.63 Yearly



No. 2: China
Military expenditure: $171.4 billion
Expenditure as pct. of GDP: 2.0 percent (45th highest)
1-yr. spending change: 7.4 percent (36th highest)
Total arms imports: $1.5 billion (3rd highest)
Total arms exports: $1.8 billion (3rd highest)
Population:1.35 Billion
Per Capita Spending: 126.96 Yearly



No. 1: United States
Military expenditure: $618.7 billion
Expenditure as pct. of GDP: 3.8 percent (14th highest)
1-yr. spending change: -7.8 percent (12th lowest)
Total arms imports: $759 million (8th highest)
Total arms exports: $6.2 billion (2nd highest)
Population: 313.9 Million
Per Capita Spending: 1971.00 Yearly

As a total these top ten spenders on military combined equals One Trillion Two Hundred Fifty Billion Three Hundred Million, 251,300,000,000 trillion. 

The United States alone spends $100 per person in the WORLD.

These are absolutely staggering numbers. Ones that are unsustainable and unneeded. It is sad to see the worlds citizens be taken for what is a fortune in their own hands, to be taken for the sole purpose of running a governments military. A military that destroys wealth, property, and lives.  

Winter Soldier: Iraq and Afghanistan Eyewitness Accounts of the Occupations

"...In spring 2008, inspired by the Vietnam-era Winter Soldier hearings, Iraq Veterans Against the War gathered outside Washington, DC and testified to atrocities they witnessed while deployed in the occupations of Afghanistan and Iraq. This video captures the powerful words and images of this historic event.

Well-publicized cases of American brutality like the Abu Ghraib prison scandal and the massacre of an entire Iraqi family in the city of Haditha are not isolated incidents. Instead, they are the logical consequences of U.S. war policy.

Winter Soldier: Iraq and Afghanistan preserves and honors the participants' courageous contributions in or to ensure that people arounf the world remember their stories and struggle. The 1 hour edited video features 13 veterans from three days of testimony given by over 70 men and women who served in Iraq and Afghanistan. The footage addresses such issues as the U.S. military's callous disregard for civilian life, the torture of detainees, the culture of racism that's inherent in a military occupation, gender discriminations, and the health crisis facing today's veterans..."

See also http://www.ivawarchive.org/wintersoldier

Adam Kokesh and other Veterans give their accounts of their time in the United States military in the Occupations and Invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan. These accounts bringing these Vets to their ultimate decision of dissent from the practices of the US military in the expansion of the Empire and the ever long war in those countries. 

GORE VIDAL interview with MONICA ATTARD – SUNDAY PROFILE 20th APRIL 2003

Monica Attard: Hello and welcome to Sunday Profile, I’m Monica Attard. Tonight a special guest for this long weekend, Gore Vidal, America’s last small ‘r’ republican, now 76 and railing against what he calls the Bush-Cheney junta.

America, says Gore Vidal, has made meddling in the affairs of other nations his reason for being. Without a constant perception of threat the world’s last superpower can’t function. It is says Vidal a law of nature that there is no action without reaction.

The United States had September 11 coming, and at the end of the day it might well have been a gift to what he calls the Bush-Cheney junta, a gift which allowed the United States to go after Osama bin Laden and after Saddam Hussein, the two men it perceived as obstacles to the superpower’s imperial ambitions.

So what is Gore Vidal’s America? Believe him and it is truly an unappealing place where the state is constantly waging war not only against foreign nations but against its own citizens, where the police run wild abusing civil rights, where the infamous Bill of Rights is a fading memory of what could have been.

Gore Vidal: But I would say that that is not the United States that I write about, those are certain aspects either politically but I won’t say traditional, but certainly since 1950 when the economy was militarised and we began what I call perpetual war for perpetual peace, which was sometimes called the Cold War, now referred to as World War Three. I think this was a great mistake on the part of our leaders, especially President Truman at that time. And we are getting into worse and worse trouble, but don’t blame it on the Americans, we have nothing to do with it, it’s corporate America which owns the country and which in the year 2000 staged a coup d’etat when the popularly elected president Albert Gore was refused the presidency and the loser Mr Bush, was put in his place by a five to four majority of the Supreme Court, which was acting unconstitutionally. Now I’m a critic of this sort of thing and since I’m in favour of the American republic and I just like the American empire, I thought my position was pretty clear.

Monica Attard: What do you think of George Bush? Much is written about his capacities or lack of them? Is he a capable leader?

Gore Vidal: Well I shouldn’t think so, who knows whether he’s leading? It is assumed in Washington that what ruling is being done, I mean that in the most primitive way, is done by the Vice President Mr Cheney. Bush is just somebody that they put in the presidential chair.

Monica Attard: Thus the Bush-Cheney junta as you call it?

Gore Vidal: Yes the junta, the junta is oil and gas, money, ? America, they also own the media, which is why voices of dissent have been pretty much stifled, in every area of media. We are suddenly without any recourse, we the people. The Congress has abdicated, it has two great powers, one to declare war, the other is the power of the purse, these are written in the constitution. Each power has been abandoned, we haven’t declared war since 1941, and yet we’ve fought well over 200 wars since then, hot, cold, tepid. And the power of the purse is now entirely operated by the Executive for the benefit of the military. Now the larger the military you have the more you’re going to use it. Our founders were very intelligent and in the federalist papers great figures like James Maddison, one of the early presidents warned against even having a standing army except maybe to keep a little order here and there, that it would lead to empire and empire would lead to despotism. And that’s where we are now.

Monica Attard: Presumably though this manipulation of the administration by corporate interests is not something that has suddenly arrived on America’s doorstep. Presumably it’s something that’s been in the making for a very, very long time?

Gore Vidal: Of course it has.

Monica Attard: What marks the Bush administration out then as any worse than those which have come before it?

Gore Vidal: Good heavens, we have never had an administration that’s set out deliberately to rid us of the Bill of Rights, with USA Patriot Act number one, which passed 45 days after 9/11 and now there’s a current sequel to it, which has not yet been given to Congress but has been leaked, you can be arrested without a charge, put before a military tribunal without recourse to due process of law, to a lawyer, you can be deprived of your citizenship and you can be deported, this is a born American. It’s got some lovely language in it, you can be deported to a region or a country that has no government, which I must say at the moment sounds rather good to me.

Monica Attard: Of course there’s the men still in captivity in Guantanamo Bay that have yet to have their status dealt with?

Gore Vidal: Oh I don’t think they’ll ever be let go, they have nothing against them but they enjoy the power of holding them.

Monica Attard: But surely they can’t be kept forever?

Gore Vidal: I don’t see why not, I mean it is a dictatorship, it’s a dictatorship with a lot of ventilation, we still have many of the signs of the old republic are still there. That was the genius of Julius Caesar when he set going, he had Augustus, the Roman Empire, they strictly maintain all of the republican machinery having two consuls, having a senate, having this, having that, while they concentrated all power in the principate(?). So in theory the Emperor was just sometimes an acting consul and sometimes he was just somebody living in the country, but all power was to him and then of course they couldn’t work out the succession, so due to a series of wars of succession they fell apart. But that’s what we have done now, we keep the forms of the republic and we have an imperial system and something of a police state.

Monica Attard: Now Mr Vidal this dictatorship as you call it, did it have September 11 coming?

Gore Vidal: Well yes, it activated a lot of things that had been in the works. Example, after the bombing in Oklahoma City the country was duly shocked by what McVeigh and the group of what they call, call themselves ‘patriots’, may or may not have done, we still don’t know much about it, nothing was ever really investigated. But suddenly Oklahoma City they blow up a public building, immediately Clinton signs a terrorist act bill, which really it goes after many of the rights of due process of law and so on, habeas corpus, which we expect under our system. They were not annulled; they were nudged toward obedience on the part of the citizens. Then comes 9/11 and a few weeks afterwards there’s a 342-page USA Patriot Act, which is enormous detail but it certainly wasn’t thought up in 30 days since 9/11 as a response to a terrorist attack. It had been prepared and it was sent to Congress, Congress was then so overwhelmed by the media and the horror that had befallen us by wicked Arabs or whoever it was who did it, they passed it without reading it. Now we’re stuck with the damn thing, Congress at last is sitting down and realising what they wrought, and they’re reviewing some of the aspects of it, which are violently anti-democratic if one can use that phrase.

Monica Attard: Mr Vidal do you think that the United States brought the devastation of September 11 upon itself though, do you think it was a simple as a payback?

Gore Vidal: Well nothing is of that nature is ever terribly simple, no nation ever begins anything in a state of innocence, nations have pasts, they’ve done good things and bad things and have enemies and allies, indifference. There are many things we could have done, should have done, did not do, and there are many things that we did in other parts of the world, which caused resentment. The President is a born again Christian, it means he’s a protestant from the south and believes and rapture and wants to be a sunbeam for Jesus, well he’s going to let in so Washington says, I can’t believe it he’ll do it, but he will let in, in theory anyway Christian evangelicals into the Muslim world. I don’t know if you’ve ever seen an American Christian evangelical but run, no matter what you yourself may be in the way of religion, I mean these are very, very primitive people, and they’re absolutist and they know that God has chosen them to convert everyone else. To have a bunch of them loose in the Middle East I said is asking for even more trouble than what we’ve got.

Monica Attard: But given the United States reaction to September 11, the attack on Afghanistan and Iraq, the rolling back of American civil liberties, who in your view represents the more dangerous evil? Is it Osama bin Laden or George W. Bush?

Gore Vidal: Well it’s Bush we have to deal with, bin Laden is a gangster, that should have been treated not like a war with a country. Osama bin Laden is not a country, he is something like the mafia, he’s head of a bunch of religious zealots, he’s a thug, he’s a terrorist indeed. Now how do you handle that normally in a normal country? What you do is you call out the police, you get to Interpol if he’s international, you turn to other countries to help you find him and his allies. And you might even go to the United Nations if you were not eager to supersede it yourself, that’s what should have been done. Instead Bush pretends there’s a war, but you can’t have a war without a country. Terrorism, you can’t have a war against terrorism, it’s an abstract noun, you can’t fight an abstract noun.

Monica Attard: But you’d have to argue wouldn’t you Mr Vidal that attempts had been made to flush him out, particularly under the Clinton administration. And yet all of those attempts have failed, he’s a very elusive character?

Gore Vidal: Well he’s literally elusive, they can’t find him, but then again we don’t know if they’re looking for him. When our generals first arrived in Afghanistan, a country which had nothing to do with 9/11, the Taliban as such had nothing much to do with it, they were a bunch of chaotic people that we had put in charge of the country at the time of the wars with the Soviets, and they were becoming crazier and crazier. But in the interests of establishing a pipeline to get oil from the Caspian Sea down to Karachi in Pakistan, we decided to go in there and replace the Taliban and using Osama bin Laden, who had been in and out of Afghanistan, as an excuse. As soon as our general on the spot got there he gave an interview, I’m sure he got into a lot of trouble, somebody said well when do you think you’re going to get Osama bin Laden? He said, we’re not looking for him that’s not what this is about, and then he had to come back with a statement that said well, we’re against Al Qaeda, and then he had to explain what that was. But what it was really about was UNICAL, Union Oil of California which had a contract to put a pipeline from Turkmenistan down through Afghanistan down through Pakistan to the port of Karachi, where the oil would then be sold to China, we had already made a deal.

Monica Attard: So is it possible then that September 11 was potentially a preemptive strike in response to what the Arab world might have interpreted, correctly or otherwise to have been a possible US threat to Afghani strategic interests, oil interests?

Gore Vidal: Oh I think that it is now fact, one doesn’t know in a world of so much rumour and this and that, but Osama bin Laden got word that in October Clinton had a plan to hit his camps up in the hills in the eastern part of Afghanistan and to attack Afghanistan, maybe with a full invasion. This was Clinton, who was our kindly liberal president. Osama bin Laden gets wind of that and the next thing that we know we’ve got 9/11, which is a preemptive strike against us. That I think is current wisdom around Washington, not in certain circles obviously where he must be forever a mad demon and I’m sure he is a mad demon. But if he knew an attack was coming in October and he hit in September one sort of sees the logic of that.

Monica Attard: Now you also talk of the United States’ need to always manufacture an enemy. If it’s not terrorists it’s its own people, pedophiles, drug lords etc. Do you believe that it was necessary for the United States to have one individual to focus anger upon after September 11? That is Osama bin Laden?

Gore Vidal: We’ve always done it, we personalise everything because that is the style of the country, that’s the style of the media. You immediately focus on an individual of great good and beauty or a great evil and ugliness, and you just go on and on about them and you never go on about what the battle’s really about, because we want to talk about good and evil, which gets back to President Bush’s deep religiosity. He keeps talking in theological terms about good and evil, politicians ought not to do that, particularly politicians with the United States, a country in which we built what I thought was a big solid wall between the church and the state, between religion and politics. And he’s been breaking that well down too; I mean there’s a good deal to object to.

Monica Attard: Do you think that the United States, Britain and Australia had any justification for what they’ve done in Iraq?

Gore Vidal: Not really no, I think it could have been done quite differently. First of all Saddam Hussein was of no danger to the United States or England or Australia. He might be of danger to a next-door neighbour, but he didn’t even show much sign of that. The last war we had with him was 1991, well he doesn’t anything between ’91 and now.

Monica Attard: But do you accept that the people of Iraq would never have risen up themselves, that they weren’t capable of such an uprising?

Gore Vidal: Don’t you think that’s their problem? That’s not your problem and that’s not my problem. There are many bad regimes on earth, we can list several hundred, at the moment I would put Bush regime as one of them, but I don’t want anybody to attack the United States. Just send Bush back to Texas.

Monica Attard: Can you not conceive of any good planned or coincidental to come from this military campaign?

Gore Vidal: Well the first law of physics is there’s no action without reaction, so for all I know they will discover a cure for cancer because of what they did in the desert. That we can say is a good result. What we have done is we have torn up the old blueprint that came into being around 1950 in which we were in command of Germany and Japan and we were restoring them to their former glory really, and we had established NATO to help Europe, we had the United Nations to arbitrate, we had Bretton Woods, which was going to take care of the world finances in our favour but it was favourable for just about everybody. That world has been totally destroyed in the last two years, there’s nothing left to them. We have not honoured any of our arrangements, whether it’s the Hiro(?) Accords or the environment. We’ve tried to kill the United Nations several times by not paying our dues, by ignoring its orders, we have changed the world’s balance and I am amazed that you people, you people is a generic word for everybody else on earth, haven’t done anything about it and haven’t brought it ?/ attention, this is radical, this is the most radical regime since the 30s.
Monica Attard: You mentioned that the United States has essentially usurped the United Nations, or is attempting to. Another casualty of the war is the relationship between Europe and the United States, always tense but now it appears to be irretrievably damaged. Is that how you see it, you’ve lived in Europe, you still live in Europe for part of the time, what do you make of that relationship?

Gore Vidal: I don’t think it’s irretrievable; this administration will vanish without a trace one day. I just don’t want it to vanish in a nuclear cloud of some suicide bomber, because I see that they’re making all kinds of trouble for themselves that they don’t understand the extent of it. I don’t want war and I don’t want anything violent to happen.

Monica Attard: But what do you make of the descriptions?

Gore Vidal: Europe has moved on to another sphere and there are those I know rather good economists who maintain that with the creation of the Euro that removes the power of the dollar, and it’s only the power of the dollar that we’ve been able to build up this vast military, because we could print as many as we want and it’s a sovereign currency, and it’s considered safe. So any time there’s a war being threatened they buy American securities, American treasury bonds, so that’s how we finance our nuclear weapons and so on. Well Saddam Hussein threatened, it was his first threat that I think got to us, that he was going to shift over to the Euro and not the dollar, which meant that people with Euros could buy Iraqi oil, which they can’t do much of now or then, but they will one day. And that would destroy the power of the dollar to determine world values; particularly the value of oil, and this was enough to give our people a great headache.

Monica Attard: So do you think then if that scenario is correct that France and Germany would have had just as much incentive to indulge in decision making for the wrong reasons as Washington?

Gore Vidal: Well it would, they did, they embraced the Euro. They don’t love the United States, I think that should be quite clear, nor is there any reason why one country should love another anyway. President Washington who was a great statesman has said that nations should not have special friends or special enemies, nations should only have interests, and that to me is good statesmanship.

Monica Attard: But that’s precisely what Washington’s doing isn’t it, acting on its interests?

Gore Vidal: It isn’t, it’s invented interests that it doesn’t have, it pretends that Saddam Hussein had something to do with 9/11 and he was going to do it again if we didn’t go in and smash him. He had no plans and we went in and smashed him anyway. Why? Because he has the second largest oil reserves on earth.

Monica Attard: Mr Vidal if we look at the so-called coalition forces, you’ve got George Bush, you’ve got John Howard of Australia, they appear at least to have behaved as expected. That is to say we’re not really surprised by their action. When you look at Tony Blair, a British Labour leader, steadfastly supporting George Bush on this issue of Iraq what do you make of that? Why do you think he did it?

Gore Vidal: I think there’s something very creepy going on, now I’m giving you an opinion. Bush was an alcoholic and he became AA and part of AA is you find Jesus or God of something, and that helps you have the strength to cease to be an alcoholic which he said, he found God, a very primitive sort of fundamental Protestantism, believes in Armageddon, believes in the end of the world, believes that this world is nothing and only the next matters. Tony Blair is equally religious, obviously in a more sophisticated way, but he’s in a funny position, he’s Prime Minister of England, he is responsible in a sense for the Church of England, he appoints bishops for the sovereign to install. Well it is said that he’s become a Roman Catholic, now the two boys can see themselves as crusaders fighting for Jesus against the Infidel, against the heathen, against all Muslims. This to me is perfectly looney, it is nothing that I would do or you would do or most people would do since this kind of religious zeal went out of the western world quite some time ago. It did not go out of the Middle Eastern world, but we could live with that, it isn’t going to hurt us, particularly unless we make them very angry. So I think they see themselves as two Christian crusaders.

Monica Attard: Do you think that Tony Blair’s zeal will eventually see him falling in behind Washington if Washington makes a decision to extend this war and go after Syria? He says he won’t but do you think that’s possible?

Gore Vidal: Well I’m sure he says that but what he will do is a different thing. I think he’s got himself in pretty deep and I don’t think he’s worked out enough of an exit to get out of it because they are going to go into Syria.

Monica Attard: You believe that?

Gore Vidal: I know that and also Iran has been marked too. I hope it isn’t going to happen, I hope that the American people will wake up and stop the junta.

Monica Attard: How do you know that they’re going to go into Syria or Iran? Why do you say you know that?

Gore Vidal: I have connections in Washington and I know that this is a decision that has been made. Things do go wrong and things don’t happen.

Monica Attard: But you don’t think that Washington is just saber rattling, isn’t it possible that having now demonstrated its capacity and willingness to act in terms of Iraq that the Bush administration can actually achieve its aims through fear and threat?

Gore Vidal: It has no aims other than more oil and gas because Cheney had a study done about a year ago that by the year 2020 the entire world would be practically out of fossil fuels, they’re going to grab all of it and the biggest supply is in the Caspian area and all those countries whose names end in ‘stan’. That’s what our eye is on.
Monica Attard: You describe the three-stage process that you observe the US government employing against its enemies, abroad and at home. First there’s harassment, then there’s demonisation, then there’s attack. Is Syria now at the harassment stage?

Gore Vidal: You should read the New York times this morning, there were four major stories about the crimes of Syria, how it was really in with, they found the terrorists there and so it means that Iraq had been supporting terrorism and this and that, mostly stories are made up or it’s totally distorted. But the New York Times is a voice of the regime and a voice with a really a sort of desire for war and expansion in that part of the world.

Monica Attard: And so on your account then the terrorist link would just be extended ad infinitum and all of this on the back of one event, September 11, which looks on this account as though it might have been a gift for Bush, a truly massive widely perceived direct external threat needed in order to secure American global and oil interests?

Gore Vidal: That is one way of looking at.

Monica Attard: You believe there’s no plan to deliver democracy via regime change throughout the Middle East?

Gore Vidal: I don’t believe it’s our business to make regime changes in the Middle East, particularly when we’re under no threat from anybody.

Monica Attard: But is there a plan, is the American administration interested at all in delivering democracy to the Middle East?

Gore Vidal: Are you crazy? We don’t have it here for God’s sake, why would we export it? We talk a lot about it, our founding fathers, they had two things, one was majority rule or democracy, and the other is tyranny, which they called monarchy in those days. That’s all.

Monica Attard: In relation to this idea that the United States is not the slightest bit interested in delivering democracy to the Middle East, clearly much of the Arab world is deeply sceptical about what the United States is actually up to. But Saudi Arabia seems to stand apart from the rest. Why are they so taken by Washington?

Gore Vidal: Well first of all they are occupied by American troops, which were brought in at the time of Iraq One and then didn’t go home. Secondly deals were made that they are there to protect the Royal Family, which is generally in cahoots with our oil companies, and to protect them from the people if the people should suddenly turn ugly in a country like that. They’re in an awful position, I would not like to be one of them for anything, but we are there.

Monica Attard: Can I turn your mind briefly to North Korea Gore Vidal if I might? What do you think is the real threat to be dealt with there? Is there a real threat to be dealt with, because it’s hard to fathom the energy or financial gain to controlling North Korea for example?

Gore Vidal: Well we had an opportunity under Clinton, one of the few really good things he did in foreign affairs is he opened up fairly normal relations with North Korea. Bush coming in filled with zealotry for our Lord Jesus and knowing these were infidels and evil people, ‘axis of evil’, evil, evil, all of that again and again, these biblical words keep spouting from his mouth. He slammed the door on them, they wanted to have normal relations, they wanted all sorts of things in the way of trade, which Clinton began and he slammed the door, identified them with Iran and Iraq as an ‘axis of evil’, which is absolutely absurd, since the three countries have nothing to do with each other. Iran and Iraq were at war for eight years and North Korea is out of it, it’s on the moon. So the absurdity of even talking about such silly language as President Bush speaks to the people is to me an insult to our intelligence. It is so clear it is meaningless. Yet people say oh he’s the President, he must know something, well he doesn’t know anything or what he does know he’s not telling and he has his own plans.

Monica Attard: So if I could ask you to stare into your crystal ball yet again, what would you think is going to happen in North Korea?

Gore Vidal: I don’t think much of anything is going to happen; they’ll go on starving to death as apparently they are or at least so the media tells us. We only know what we’re told by in our case here by corporate America and they have a worldview, which is greatly filtered, distorted, altered for our benefit. I don’t see them on the march, and I don’t see them putting together an atom bomb and one night saying let’s let the Americans have it! Why? At some point somebody must be intelligent and you must find a reason for something. If you get attacked by somebody you have obviously done something to deserve that attack at least in their eyes. Well so far we haven’t done it, but it looks like Bush might try. We knew Saddam did not have weapons of mass destruction, I got so tired of that mantra, because if we had known it we would also know that at the first occasion he would have to use them would be at who invaded him. Now it does not take a Kosovitz to work that one out, that’s obvious. And we can’t find them and I suppose we’ll plant some there eventually, but there aren’t any now.

Monica Attard: Can I ask you one very last question Gore Vidal, what have you made of the coverage of the Iraqi by Fox?

Gore Vidal: Oh it’s disgusting, deeply disgusting, I’ve never heard people like that on television in my life and I’ve been on television for 50 years, since the very beginning of television in the United States. And I have never seen it as low, as false, one lie after the other in these squeaky voices that you get from these fast talking men and women, it was pretty sick.

Monica Attard: Do Americans believe it do you think? Do you think they fell for it?

Gore Vidal: Well the polls would say that they did, but then when you look at the way they ask the questions in the polls you’ll see they get the answers they want. We were badly hit by Osama bin Laden and only brave George Bush is going after him and he’s going to find him and kill him. Are you in favour of this? Yes, says 90 per cent of the people.

Monica Attard: But do you have enough faith in the American people to believe that perhaps they didn’t fall for that?

Gore Vidal: Some didn’t, I can tell you something that didn’t get much play but we had the mid-term elections a year or so ago and many, many Republicans were elected on the strength of George Bush’s war in Afghanistan, but simultaneously a poll got run by mistake I’m sure in the Wall Street Journal and something like 50 per cent, over 50 per cent of those who had voted for Bush in the year 2000 said they would vote for anybody else at that time, this poll was not printed anywhere else, it was only in one edition.

Monica Attard: And that was Gore Vidal, speaking to us from his home in Los Angeles in the United States. And that’s Sunday Profile for this long weekend; I hope you’ve had a peaceful Easter. Thanks to Michaele Perske and Peter Dredge, the producers of the program. I’m Monica Attard.