The Watering Hole, Monday, March 4th, 2013: Monday Medley

First, let’s start with: HAPPY NATIONAL GRAMMAR DAY! Look out, the grammar police will be out in force, so mind your adverbs, adjectives, and parenthetical phrases!

Next, from Foreign Policy Magazine: I suppose it’s nice to know that the CIA has nothing on Noam Chomsky:

“This month, a two-year-long investigation into CIA records on Noam Chomsky concluded with a surprising result: Despite a half-century of brazen anti-war activism and countless overseas speaking engagements, the Central Intelligence Agency has no file on the legendary MIT professor.”

However, Mr. Chomsky himself seems somewhat ambivalent about this fact:

“Interestingly, Chomsky, a man forever mistrustful of U.S. government statements, actually believes the CIA’s denial. But it’s not because he’s warming to the agency as he grows older: It’s because he’s convinced of its incompetence.”

A couple of commenters on that FP thread provided a bit more information: According to Propublica.org,

“A proposed rule to the Freedom of Information Act would allow federal agencies to tell people requesting certain law-enforcement or national security documents that records don’t exist – even when they do. Under current FOIA practice, the government may withhold information and issue what’s known as a Glomar denial that says it can neither confirm nor deny the existence of records. The new proposal – part of a lengthy rule revision by the Department of Justice – would direct government agencies to “respond to the request as if the excluded records did not exist.””

– and –

Per the CIA website:

“Does the CIA spy on Americans? Does it keep a file on you?
By law, the CIA is specifically prohibited from collecting foreign intelligence concerning the domestic activities of US citizens. Its mission is to collect information related to foreign intelligence and foreign counterintelligence. By direction of the president in Executive Order 12333 of 1981 and in accordance with procedures approved by the Attorney General, the CIA is restricted in the collection of intelligence information directed against US citizens. Collection is allowed only for an authorized intelligence purpose; for example, if there is a reason to believe that an individual is involved in espionage or international terrorist activities. The CIA’s procedures require senior approval for any such collection that is allowed, and, depending on the collection technique employed, the sanction of the Director of National Intelligence and Attorney General may be required. These restrictions on the CIA have been in effect since the 1970s.”

Last, let’s look at pictures. I ran across an environmental website called Take Part, where I found a slideshow of some beautiful, some amazing, and some just plain horrifying photos from around the world. From the same website, here’s another slideshow of some of Mother Nature’s wonderful creations in the animal world. And finally, from The Weather Channel, we have eight cute baby animals.

This is our Open thread, what’s on your minds?

Noam Chomsky on Ron Paul’s 9/11 Theories: “What He Said Is Completely Uncontroversial”

Ron Paul was almost booed off the stage at last night’s “Tea Party” debate on CNN when he spoke about the real reasons al Qaeda attacked us. His explanation was followed by being chastised by Rick Santorum.

Raw Story:

Appearing on Democracy Now! on Tuesday, U.S. scholar and MIT professor Noam Chomsky responded to comments made by Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX) during Monday’s tea party debate, suggesting Paul had said nothing controversial at all, despite the audience’s negative reaction.

He agreed with Paul’s assessment about al Qaeda’s stated motives for attacking the U.S. on Sept. 11, 2001: it’s not American freedom or the nature of its society, it was U.S. policies that drove them to such a savage attack.

“What he said is completely uncontroversial,” Chomsky said. “You can read it and go in the documents. You can find it in polls. Maybe people don’t like to hear it.”

He concluded that many Muslims around the world had opposed the U.S. “not because they hate our freedoms, but because they opposed murderous and brutal policies.”

The Tea Party can’t bear to hear the truth I guess… Or, the simply have no interest in the truth.

Noam Chomsky: ‘As long they get the backing of dictators, it doesn’t matter to western governments what Arab populations think’

I found this from The Guardian:

The 19th century … 2001 … today. Noam Chomsky sees hegemonic powers showing extreme contempt for democracy — and acting in ways they know will increase terrorism.

What is their interest (Western powers)? Not the stated interest, but the REAL interest. Is it spreading democracy? Or is it all about taking control of the natural resources.. Where will it end?

Noam Chomsky talks about the election and the economy..

Chomsky: In swing states vote Obama

The Real News Network

People should vote against McCain and for Obama – but without illusions

Chomsky says while it’s true that the two parties are essentially like factions of one party – the party of business – the differences do matter to ordinary people. If you are living in a swing state, there is nothing wrong with picking the lesser of two evils.

Read more on this video from CommonDreams: The Disillusioned Reality of the American Choice

Continue reading below the fold for Part 2..

Bush & Cheney Always Saw Iraq as a Sweetheart Oil Deal

by Noam Chomsky – AlterNet

U.S. war planners want an obedient client state that will house major U.S. military bases, right at the heart of the world’s major energy reserves.

The deal just taking shape between Iraq’s Oil Ministry and four Western oil companies raises critical questions about the nature of the U.S. invasion and occupation of Iraq — questions that should certainly be addressed by presidential candidates and seriously discussed in the United States, and of course in occupied Iraq, where it appears that the population has little if any role in determining the future of its country.

Negotiations are under way for Exxon Mobil, Shell, Total and BP — the original partners decades ago in the Iraq Petroleum Company, now joined by Chevron and other smaller oil companies — to renew the oil concession they lost to nationalization during the years when the oil producers took over their own resources. The no-bid contracts, apparently written by the oil corporations with the help of U.S. officials, prevailed over offers from more than 40 other companies, including companies in China, India and Russia.

“There was suspicion among many in the Arab world and among parts of the American public that the United States had gone to war in Iraq precisely to secure the oil wealth these contracts seek to extract,” Andrew E. Kramer wrote in the New York Times.

Kramer’s reference to “suspicion” is an understatement. Furthermore, it is highly likely that the military occupation has taken the initiative in restoring the hated Iraq Petroleum Company, which, as Seamus Milne writes in the U.K. Guardian, was imposed under British rule to “dine off Iraq’s wealth in a famously exploitative deal.”

Later reports speak of delays in the bidding. Much is happening in secrecy, and it would be no surprise if new scandals emerge.

Read the rest of this article…