Bolton & Bremmer: kings of callous indifference

I don't suppose anyone ever expected the likes of Paul Bremmer or John Bolton to be Iraq Invasion apologists but it is telling to hear their views when questioned on some of the crucial failures surrounding America's involvement in Iraq.

When Paul Bremer, former U.S. Administrator of Iraq was asked at the close of a paid speech at Clark University in 2005 on his opinion of the $9 billion missing from the funds to rebuild Iraq he replied:

"I suggest you not worry, as that $9 billion was Iraqi money, not US money."

Disturbingly, this cavalier indifference reflects the callousness and contempt of one of the principle architects and catalysts or Iraq's ongoing failure.

More recently former U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, John Bolton was interviewed by the BBC's Jeremy Paxman in Iraq 4 years on where John Bolton said:

"I don't think there is an American interest in what kind of Iraq emerges from the present circumstances. I think the American strategic interest is that no part of Iraq be used as a terrorist base against us."

Jeremy Paxman then details the contradiction in this by quoting a statement previously made by former U.N. Ambassador Bolton:

"So when you said the United States remained committed to a democratic, unified and prosperous Iraq you were just spouting the party line were you?"

Incredibly, a red faced Bolton admits to Paxman that he was simply following White House policy when he made that statement. A somewhat exasperated Paxman continued:

"What do you say to people who say Ok, Saddam Hussein was a Dictator but [Iraq] wasn't then a failed state and it wasn't a haven for terrorists and that's precisely what you've created in Iraq"

John Bolton then proceeds to tell Paxman about how he would rather live in a failed state than a dictatorship.

John Bolton should be careful what he wishes for. The problem with human indifference is that it makes everything it touches meaningless.

Republican's export Cuban refugees to Australia

In an artful display of political sleight of hand, both the Republican Administration of the United States and The Government of Australia have ingeniously decided to "resettle up to 200 refugees processed in the other country every year."

The Mutual Assistance Arrangement reported by news.com.au quoting Australian Minister for Immigration Kevin Andrews states:

"Under this arrangement, the US will consider people who arrive in excised offshore places and have been taken to Nauru for further processing..."

Methinks someone's too clever for their own good.

To explain from the U.S perspective, there has been a record of complaints levied by some South American refugee groups including Haiti that the United states was employing a two tiered refugee process that was biased in favour of Cubans. In response to this, the then Clinton Administration implemented a policy of repatriating Cuban refugees who had not landed on U.S. soil back to Cuba.

Whilst this policy has gone some way to ameliorating concerns by other ethnic refugee groups it angered the large Cuban ex-pat constituency based in Florida as exampled during the 2004 U.S. elections and discussed in The CarpetBagger Report: Republicans, the 2004 Election, and the Cuban-American vote

"Cuban Americans have always opposed the policy and hoped Bush would back them on refusing to return these 12 would-be immigrants to Castro for punishment. At a minimum, they argued, the 12 should be sent to a third country."

I can only assume that in response to this Cuban constituency backlash that the U.S has artfully come upon the idea of simply sending these Cuban refugees to Australia as a means of meeting the concerns of all refugee groups--Cubans included.

Am I being cynical? I think not. To explain if it was not about this then why isolate just Cubans for the exchange program with Australia?

U.S. backed terrorists arrested

In a major set-back to U.S. efforts to undermine the Iranian government Iran Press TV reports the arrest of 90 members of the terrorist group Jundallah a terrorist group who has committed car bombings, abductions and executions of citizens in both Iran and Israel.

In a recent ABC News Exclusive: The Secret War Against Iran U.S. officials, in an act of unprecedented ass covering were reported as saying that

"...the U.S. relationship with Jundullah is arranged so that the U.S. provides no funding to the group, which would require an official presidential order or "finding" as well as congressional oversight."

However, Doug Lorimer's article CIA funds terrorist operations against Iran quotes former US State Department counter-terrorism agent Fred Burton as saying:

"The latest attacks inside Iran fall in line with US efforts to supply and train Iran’s ethnic minorities to destabilise the Iranian regime."

Earlier this month, Voice of America radio gave an interview with Iranian branch leader Abd el Malik Regi during which he admitted to having personally executed Iranian hostages abducted by Jundallah.

In 2005, Abu Abdallah al-Khattab, identified as the spokesman for Jundallah in Gaza as originally reported in the Jerusalem Post and quoted by scotsman.com stated:

"Our people will not remain idle in the face of American crimes in Muslim countries."

By having a "relationship with Jundullah" the United States government is, by any sane definition legitimizing terrorism and stands as the very antithesis to a "war on terror." By extension it stands as a betrayal of the American people and their trust that their government is acting in good faith.

For some I imagine, the knowledge that their government is admittedly supporting an identified enemy of the American people is an act of betrayal bordering on treason.

If 9/11 proved anything it was that there is a price for everything and in light of that sacrifice the American people have a right to know what their government is buying them into.

America spits on the graves of 9/11 victims

Terrorist's world wide are rejoicing today in the wake of America's release of convicted terrorist and boastful plane bomber Luis Posada Carriles.

When not bombing civilian airliners Luis likes to relax by bombing tourist destinations, conducting assassination, and running illegal para-military operations on behalf of the American government.

As late as 1997 Posada was known by U.S. officials to be coordinating bombing attacks of tourists in Cuba from inside the United States, including evidence that Posada had reminded the bombers by Fax that:

“If there is no publicity, the job is useless... The American newspapers will publish nothing that has not been confirmed. ... If there is no publicity, there is no payment."

So, armed with this evidence does the FBI get the chance to charge Posada with terrorism charges? No. In an act of administrative cretinism the charges are instead levied as an immigration misdemeanor.

This is not an isolated incident either. In 1990 then president George H.W. Bush pardoned Orlando Bosch, a convicted terrorist and Posada's plane bombing co-hort, at the request of George Snr's son, Jeb, Governor of Florida.

In my mind then these acts by America are like spitting on the graves and memories of their brothers and sisters who died as a result of 9/11, every soldier who has died fighting terrorism around the world as well as spitting on the victims of every terrorist action worldwide.

America's actions on this issue are sickening if unsurprising.