Shortly after the invasion of Iraq in 2003, I interviewed Ray McGovern, one
of an elite group of CIA officers who prepared the president's daily
intelligence brief. McGovern was at the apex of the "national security"
monolith that is American power and had retired with presidential plaudits.
On the eve of the invasion, he and 45 other former senior officers of the
CIA and other US intelligence agencies wrote to President George W Bush that
the "drumbeat for war" was based not on intelligence, but lies.
"It was 95 per cent charade," McGovern told me.
"How did they get away with it?"
"The press allowed the crazies to get away with it."
"Who are the crazies?"
"The people running the administration have a set of beliefs a lot like
those expressed in Mein Kampf . . . these are the same people who were
referred to in the circles in which I moved, at the top, as 'the crazies'."
I said, "Norman Mailer has written that he believes America has entered a
pre-fascist state. What's your view of that?"
"Well . . . I hope he's right, because there are others saying we are
already in a fascist mode." . . .
[Comfortably aligned with dictators who ostensibly guaranteed them stability
and cheap oil, western leaders dispensed liberal nostrums while checking in
their democratic principles at the palace gate or the tent flap.--David
Gardner, "Revolts expose tawdry policies of west," ft.com,
February 24, 2011]
[The fulsome praise for Clinton from GWU's president and the loud, sustained
applause also brought to mind a phrase that - as a former Soviet analyst at
CIA - I often read in Pravda. When reprinting the text of speeches by high
Soviet officials, the Communist Party newspaper would regularly insert, in
italicized parentheses: "Burniye applaudismenti; vce stoyat" - Stormy
applause; all rise.--Ray McGovern, "The Push of
Conscience and Secretary Clinton," counterpunch.org, February 24,
[ . . . both the United States and Weimar Germany had constitutions in which
checks and balances were integrated to maintain a multi-party system, the
rule of law, and individual liberties. Both countries were on the receiving
end of acts of terrorism that produced a dramatic and violent reaction
against the presumed perpetrators of the crimes, so both quickly adopted
legislation that abridged many constitutional rights and empowered the head
of state to react decisively to further threats. The media fell in line,
concerned that criticism would be unpatriotic.
Both the U.S. and Germany possessed politically powerful military-industrial
complexes that had a vested interest in encouraging a militarized response
to the threats and highly polarized internal politics that enabled
politicians to obtain advantage by exploiting national security concerns.
Both countries experienced severe financial crises and printed fiat currency
to pay the bills, and both had jurists and political supporters who argued
that in time of crisis the head of state must be granted special executive
authority that transcends the limits placed by the constitution.--Philip
Giraldi, "A Tale of Two Cities: Weimar and
Washington," antiwar.com, December 29, 2011]