AMY GOODMAN: Do you see a replay in what happened in the lead-up to the war with Iraq -- the allegations of the weapons of mass destruction, the media leaping onto the bandwagon?
GEN. WESLEY CLARK: Well, in a way. But, you know, history doesn’t repeat itself exactly twice. What I did warn about when I testified in front of Congress in 2002, I said if you want to worry about a state, it shouldn’t be Iraq, it should be Iran. But this government, our administration, wanted to worry about Iraq, not Iran.
I knew why, because I had been through the Pentagon right after 9/11. About ten days after 9/11, I went through the Pentagon and I saw Secretary Rumsfeld and Deputy Secretary Wolfowitz. I went downstairs just to say hello to some of the people on the Joint Staff who used to work for me, and one of the generals called me in. He said, “Sir, you’ve got to come in and talk to me a second.” I said, “Well, you’re too busy.” He said, “No, no.” He says, “We’ve made the decision we’re going to war with Iraq.” This was on or about the 20th of September. I said, “We’re going to war with Iraq? Why?” He said, “I don’t know.” He said, “I guess they don’t know what else to do.” So I said, “Well, did they find some information connecting Saddam to al-Qaeda?” He said, “No, no.” He says, “There’s nothing new that way. They just made the decision to go to war with Iraq.” He said, “I guess it’s like we don’t know what to do about terrorists, but we’ve got a good military and we can take down governments.” And he said, “I guess if the only tool you have is a hammer, every problem has to look like a nail.”
So I came back to see him a few weeks later, and by that time we were bombing in Afghanistan. I said, “Are we still going to war with Iraq?” And he said, “Oh, it’s worse than that.” He reached over on his desk. He picked up a piece of paper. And he said, “I just got this down from upstairs” -- meaning the Secretary of Defense’s office -- “today.” And he said, “This is a memo that describes how we’re going to take out seven countries in five years, starting with Iraq, and then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and, finishing off, Iran.” I said, “Is it classified?” He said, “Yes, sir.” I said, “Well, don’t show it to me.” And I saw him a year or so ago, and I said, “You remember that?” He said, “Sir, I didn’t show you that memo! I didn’t show it to you!”
Jul 29th
JUAN GONZALEZ: And, Scott Horton, obviously Al Jazeera has borne the brunt of a lot of these American attacks on the media. Could you talk about Al Jazeera, specifically, what it's undergone?
SCOTT HORTON: Well, that's right. I mean, of course, one of the Downing Street papers that came out was a minute of a meeting that occurred at Blair House between Prime Minister Blair and President Bush, at which Bush proposed to him that they bomb the headquarters of Al Jazeera. In fact, at that point Donald Rumsfeld, one day earlier, had given a speech in which he had attacked Al Jazeera. Frank Gaffney and other leading neocons had openly in publications advocated bombing and attacks on Al Jazeera. At around this time, although Blair talked Bush out of the assault on the Al Jazeera headquarters, there were a number of bombings and shootings directed at Al Jazeera personnel. So people were killed, and this is a result of, you know, decisions taken in the White House by the President to get Al Jazeera.
Jul 19th
MATTHEWS: Do you believe that we have waged an aggressive war in Iraq?
SHEEHAN: Well, I think that it was illegal and immoral. There were no weapons of mass destructions. There was no connection between Saddam and 9/11, and all evidence has shown, especially this week, that what we‘re doing is strengthening al Qaeda and strengthening hatred against us for occupying the country and destroying a country that was no threat to us.
MATTHEWS: Why do you think President Bush, Vice President Cheney, Paul Wolfowitz, the other hawks in this administration—why do you think they took us to war?
SHEEHAN: Well, I think it was a lot to do with oil. It was a lot to do with destabilizing that region, which they have done very thoroughly. The Iraqi refugee crisis has made the entire region compromised there. And I think it was for profit. I mean, it‘s for Halliburton. It‘s for Blackwater. It‘s for Standard Oil. It‘s for the war profiteers. And that‘s why war is usually waged.
Jul 18th
Sarah Cove: With the Internet, we Americans are beginning to see ourselves as networked to other human beings, but other cultures have been doing this for a long time and have seen it as obvious for a very long time. I was wondering if you have noticed this phenomenon and if you have any thoughts on it?
Douglas Rushkoff: The reason why it seems so radical in America is because we are capitalists and capitalism is about the monopoly of resources. So it's hardest for us to understand that this was something that pre-existed capitalism. But really, until the Renaissance, this was the way things were. In the late Middle Ages, towns had local currency. That's how cathedrals were built, that's how windows were repaired. We are living in a pocket that is dominated by the rules of investment capital and we accept this as the very foundational laws of reality and it seems that radically different to us to do something else. But sure. It's much more closely related to the ecological world of nature than to the economic model we built over nature.
Sarah Cove: Do you see a way to mesh the hierarchical style of capitalism with the emergence of Americans as collaborators in a network of other human beings?
Douglas Rushkoff: What we have to understand is that capitalism and centralized currency are very biased to accumulation of wealth and aggrandizement of a monopoly of power. A centralized currency favors a company like Wal-Mart over local markets. If we were able to introduce alternative value systems and measures of value into the overall ecosystem, not all production and consumption would be dictated by dollars, but also by a sense of reputation, family, and other forms of social capital.
The more we live in a society that values social capital over centralized currency, the more opportunity there will be to have not only giant, long-distance purchases and corporate-sized projects supported by a centralized currency, but also a local reality that won't totally be run-over by corporate behemoths. Right now, in America, we have become such a dollar-oriented society that the market has insinuated itself into areas of human interaction.
Jul 14th
IDG: What is Net neutrality? What's your position on it?
Berners-Lee: Net neutrality is the fact that when I pay money to connect to the Internet and you pay money to connect to the Internet, then we can communicate, no matter who we are. What's very exciting at the moment is that video is happening on the Web. YouTube gets a lot of attention, because they are delivering video over the Web.
Now suppose I'm in Massachusetts and I want to find a Brazilian movie. I go to the Internet to find my favorite independent movie and filmmaker. But then the cable company in Massachusetts blocks the transmission and says, "No, we won't let you do this, because we sell movies. So, yes, we do the Internet but on the other hand we will stop you from seeing Internet movies. We want to be able to control which movies you buy."
We've seen cable companies trying to prevent using the Internet for Internet phones. I am concerned about this, and am working, with many other committed people, to keep it from happening. I think it's very important to keep an open Internet for whoever you are. This is called Net neutrality. It's very important to preserve Net neutrality for the future.
Jul 10th
Joshua Frank: So how can we change this political myopia?
Joe Bageant: Our involvement with politics, our political lives, are merely as spectators who listen to commercials for three years before the magical moment before we “cast our vote” by simply going shopping in the tiniest shopping space of all—the voting booth—with the most limited choices possible that can still be called a choice: two twin parties whose parents, the corporations, have to display them against different colored backgrounds so people can get a clue as to their difference. (“I am for fighting the war until the last dog is dead,” as opposed to “I am for pulling the troops out, but not until a few hundred thousand more dogs are dead. I don’t wanna be seen as weak on the dead dog thing.” Or my favorite, “We can’t leave now or there will be chaos?” What the fuck is it we have created there now?) Right now the owning class Westchester Country Club Democrats is offering us two flavors, Hillary Clinton (bitter vanilla) and Barrack Obama (Mocha hope.)
Soooo … What’s going on politically with the great beery redneck nation? Nothing. We don’t think about politics until the last half hour before time to vote. Then a sort of a heartburn grips our chests, and all the negative campaign ads, and the sound of Bill O’Reilly’s voice and last night’s beer and bratwurst and Hillary’s stern beady eyes drill in on us … preachers call down lightening bolts and fighter planes do a double roll over the desert … then suddenly an acidic clot curdles in our throat, we close our eyes and we projectile vomit all our fears and suspicions and prejudices and state injected messages in the direction of the party making the most noise right up until the last minute. That’s what we do down here.
Jul 10th