Gareth Porter – USA

Linked with Antiwar.com, and with Consortium News.com.

Gareth Porter (born June 18, 1942 in Independence, Kansas) is an American historian, investigative journalist and policy analyst on U.S. foreign and military policy. A strong opponent of U.S. wars in Southeast Asia and the Middle East, he has also written on the potential for diplomatic compromise to end or avoid wars in Vietnam, Cambodia, the Philippines, Korea, Iraq and Iran. He is the author of a history of the origins of the Vietnam War, Perils of Dominance: Imbalance of Power and the Road to War in Vietnam … (full text).

Among his books are Perils of Dominance: Imbalance of Power and the Road to War in Vietnam (University of California Press), Vietnam: A History in Documents, Vietnam: The Politics of Bureaucratic Socialism (Cornell University Press), and A Peace Denied. Dr. Porter’s many articles on international affairs, including the mass killings and mass starvation of Cambodians under the Khmer Rouge, have appeared in such publications as The Guardian, The Nation, and Foreign Affairs. (full text).

He says: … “that US House Res. 362 suggests the use of force with new bill … “, (video on the real news, 5 min, July 2, 2008).

Pentagon blocked Cheney’s attack on Iran, June 10, 2008.

..

Gareth Porter – USA

POLITICS: Official Says Iran Accepts P5+1 Talks Proposal, July 2, 2008.

Clawson and Eisenstadt conclude that a military strike against Iran by the United States could be successful, but they acknowledge that such a strike “might cause Iran’s leadership to conclude that the country needed nuclear weapons to deter and defend against the United States” … (full text, July 2, 2008).

He says also: … “that aggressive policy towards Iran from both the US and Israel is partially responsible for the rising price of oil”.

… This is, I think, very important for the simple reason that it does provide a kind of smoking gun evidence, if you will, that this whole unfolding threat to Iran has not been simply a psyops, simply an intimidation operation. We know now for a fact that Dick Cheney did, in fact, propose within the Administration that they attack Revolutionary Guard bases in Iran that were supposedly connected with supplying or training the Iraqi Shiite militiamen coming back to Iraq to fight U.S. occupation forces. And this would be done if and when they could get some kind of concrete evidence that would basically convict the Iranians of some direct involvement in the fight in Iraq … (full interview text, June 27, 2008).

US pushes Iraqi Shi’ites closer to Iran, June 26, 2008.

… The assumption that the United States should exploit its military dominance to exert pressure on adversaries has long dominated the thinking of the US national security and political elite. But this central tenet of conventional security doctrine was sharply rejected last week by a senior practitioner of crisis diplomacy at the debut of a major new centrist foreign policy think-tank. At the first conference of the Center for a New American Security (CNAS), ambassador James Dobbins, who was former president Bill Clinton special envoy for Somalia, Haiti, Bosnia and Kosovo and the George W Bush administration’s first special envoy to Afghanistan, sharply rejected the well-established concept of coercive diplomacy … (full text).

Cheney, Lieberman and Iran War Conspiracy, August 16, 2007.

… The Bush administration’s renunciation of “permanent bases” was a ploy to lull the key committees of the US Congress on an issue that had aroused many Democratic critics of the war, who had repeatedly used that term in demanding a legal commitment on the issue. The administration also used such ambiguous language to help the Iraqi government sell the agreement to Iraqi nationalists who object to long-term US bases in their country. Thus as early as last December, Iraqi National Security adviser Mowaffaq al-Rubayi declared in a television interview, “The Iraqi people reject the presence of permanent bases in Iraq” and reassured Iraqis that the government would not accept such bases “in any form whatever and will not approve, and I believe the Council of Representatives will not approve it” … (full text).

How George Bush became the new Saddam, Sept. 20, 2007.

Find him and his publications on ; on wikipedia; on the huffington post; on Google Video-search;
on inauthor Google-search;
on Google Book-search; on Google Scholar-search; on Google Group-search; on Google Blog-search.

The 1968 ‘Hue-Massacre’, June 24, 1974.

And he says (on July 29, 2005): … There is no question that the Shiites have these paramilitary groups, the Badr Corps and now the Wolf Corps, what is very ominously called the Wolf Corps, which are made up of predominantly Shiite people commanded by Shiite General. And which carry out, as I say, extra-judicial operations which involve really death squad type of activities. Let’s be very clear about this. We know that the foreign terrorists in Iraq have in fact targeted Shiite mosques. They want to kill Shiites. There is no question about that. But they represent two to five percent as the best estimate of the forces arrayed against the government, against the Americans. The vast majority of Sunni resistance fighters in the past have had no interest in killing Shiites. The fear now, realistically, is that because the Shiite Government now is clearly going into Sunni neighborhood and carrying out death squad operations is that there will be inevitably a response by the Sunni resistance to target Shiites per se rather than police, paramilitary units, and military units. The great fear that people have had about a civil war is understandable, but people need to understand that what is happening right now is the beginning of what they feared. And the only way to stop it is really to negotiate peace. And the one chance to do that really is for the United States to step up and have a vision. It’s really interesting that even the long time CIA collaborator, Iyad Allawi, made the statement that the United States has no vision and no policy to do anything about the civil war. That to me is the most devastating critique that could be made of the Bush Administration’s policy … (full long interview text).

Guess What “Surprise” Republicans Yearn For, June 28, 2008.

links:

IPS Inter Press Service;

the US-radio Talk Nation;

Bush ‘00-’04;

Bush ‘05-’06.

Comments are closed.