Je vous suggère deux émissions de radio animées par Dave Emory sur le phénomène (malheureux) de la renaissance du nazisme en Europe. La première donne un aperçu de ce qui se passe dans les pays baltes, alors que la deuxième s’arrête sur la situation en Ukraine. Évidemment, le développement du nazisme en Europe de l’Est doit être compris dans le contexte de la guerre larvée que se livre l’Occident et la Russie pour le contrôle de l’Europe et des pipelines de gaz naturel. Parmi les nombreux éléments que l’on pourrait souligner, je crois qu’il est intéressant de mentionner que le gouvernement conservateur canadien de Stephen Harper semble avoir adopté l’approche visant à réhabiliter les soldats de la 14ème Division de la Waffen SS ayant combattu en Europe de l’Est. Ce mouvement de révisionnisme historique prend de l’ampleur dans les pays baltes justement et en Europe du Nord. Les soldats ayant combattu dans ces unités nazies ou pro-nazies sont rebaptisées pour l’occasion des « combattants de la liberté ». Dave Emory mentionne que certaines universités canadiennes, sans les nommer, offrirait même des bourses d’études aux candidats montrant de l’intérêt en ce sens. Le Canada a accueilli un nombre important d’immigrants ukrainiens au vingtième siècle et beaucoup se sont installés dans les provinces de l’ouest. Ceux-ci semblent entretenir d’excellentes relations avec le Parti Conservateur du Canada et constituent ainsi une clientèle électorale de choix. On se souvient tous de la visite du Ministre canadien des Affaires Étrangères, John Baird, à la place du Maidan. Son enthousiasme et sa fierté de se joindre aux manifestants pro-européens, ne faisaient aucun doute.
This great interview with Robert Parry of the Consortiumnews website by anti-fascist researcher Dave Emory must be listened to. For lots of reasons but especially because we never get to hear the full story in the mainstream media, as well as in the so-called « alternative » media, on anything. It is always one side of the coin only, if ever one side is covered correctly without ideological biases, preconceptions, prejudices, etc. The received rhetorical line concerning 9/11 and its aftermath goes like this: « The evil Osama bin Laden and his Al Qaeda warriors have attacked America. George W. Bush, as a true Commander-in-Chief, has stood up against these bloodthirsty terrorists and he is making sure that America stays safe and secure. He has struck back at them by going to war in Afghanistan and in Iraq ». That’s the way it goes.
Well…like it is often the case in life, it is not that simple. To begin with, let me remind you of a couple of things. First, in 2001, the Bushes and the bin Ladens were on the board of directors of the Carlyle Group, which Dave Emory has studied and presented in For The Record # 347. The Carlyle Group is one of the most influential investment firms of the world. Only the greatest of all get the chance to sit on that precious panel. And on the day of September 11th 2001, they just happened to hold their annual investment conference. Probably only just a coincidence, one could say. Members could then watch live the events unfolding in Manhattan. Among others, Frank Carlucci and James Baker III were present. Second, let me remind you as well that on September 12th, when nobody else could fly in the U.S., 12 members of the bin Laden family were flown out of the country. Third, both the chief of intelligence for Saudi Arabia and the head of the FBI were replaced in the weeks just prior to 9/11, which is rather curious and frightening, to say the least.
All things considered, the « war on terror » has been good for both the Bushes and the bin Ladens. For George W. Bush, this war has allowed him to be in the spotlight and be admired as the great defender of America, to acquire additional powers for his presidency and finally to shout out all those who were contesting (rightfully) the validity of his election at the detriment of Al Gore. And for the bin Ladens, the war on terror allowed Osama to strengthen the cause of Al Qaeda and recruit new warriors. In 2004, only four days before the presidential election, Osama bin Laden released a video in which he denounced George W. Bush. Intelligence analysts at the CIA were of the opinion that Osama bin Laden was in fact trying to help George W. getting reelected. In effect, such a virulent attack against Bush by Osama before the election was obviously recuperated by the Republican team as an endorsement of John Kerry. That was enough to swing the vote in favor of George W. And why would Osama do such a thing, would you ask? Because Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda didn’t want the U.S. out of Iraq, U.S. troops being too good for the cause of Al Qaeda.
Mr Parry talks about a lot of other different relevant points. One of them is the obvious biased coverage by the press of the performance of Democrat politicians. Robert Parry explains that a game of professional credibility assessment was at play in the media, as Conservative politicians were quite often accusing journalists of being « liberal ». Reporters reacted to these accusations by becoming harder and tougher on Democrats, unfairly most of the times, to establish their credibility, with the unfortunate consequence that Al Gore was treated miserably. Parry gives many examples. This is a great show. In order to listen to the audio archive, you must have Realaudio installed.