Award-winning investigative journalist and founder/editor of ConsortiumNews.com, Robert Parry has passed away. His ground-breaking work uncovering Reagan-era dirty wars in Central America and many other illegal and immoral policies conducted by successive administrations and U.S. intelligence agencies, stands as an inspiration to all in journalists working in the public interest.
Robert had been a regular guest on our Between The Lines and Counterpoint radio shows -- and many other progressive outlets across the U.S. over four decades.
His penetrating analysis of U.S. foreign policy and international conflicts will be sorely missed, and not easily replaced. His son Nat Parry writes a tribute to his father: Robert Parry’s Legacy and the Future of Consortiumnews.
If you've made a donation and wish to receive thank you gifts for your donation, be sure to send us your mailing address via our Contact form.
See our thank you gifts for your donation.
Between The Lines' coverage and resource compilation of the Resistance Movement
Selected speeches from the Women's March in Hartford, Connecticut 2018, recorded and produced by Scott Harris
Promoting Enduring Peace presented its Gandhi Peace Award jointly to renowned consumer advocate Ralph Nader and BDS founder Omar Barghouti on April 23, 2017.
Subscribe to our Weekly Summary & receive our FREE Resist Trump window cling
Email us with your mailing address at contact@btlonline.org to receive our "Resist Trump/Resist Hate" car window cling!
who helped make our 25th anniversary with Jeremy Scahill a success!
For those who missed the event, or were there and really wanted to fully absorb its import, here it is in video
Jeremy Scahill keynote speech, part 1 from PROUDEYEMEDIA on Vimeo.
Jeremy Scahill keynote speech, part 2 from PROUDEYEMEDIA on Vimeo.
"How Do We Build A Mass Movement to Reverse Runaway Inequality?" with Les Leopold, author of "Runaway Inequality: An Activist's Guide to Economic Justice,"May 22, 2016, John Jay College of Criminal Justice, The City University of New York, 860 11th Ave. (Between 58th and 59th), New York City. Between The Lines' Scott Harris and Richard Hill moderated this workshop. Listen to the audio/slideshows and more from this workshop.
Listen to audio of the plenary sessions from the weekend.
Listen to the full interview (30:33) with Jeremy Scahill, an award-winning investigative journalist with the Nation Magazine, correspondent for Democracy Now! and author of the bestselling book, "Blackwater: The Rise of the World's Most Powerful Mercenary Army," about America's outsourcing of its military. In an exclusive interview with Counterpoint's Scott Harris on Sept. 16, 2013, Scahill talks about his latest book, "Dirty Wars, The World is a Battlefield," also made into a documentary film under the same title, and was nominated Dec. 5, 2013 for an Academy Award in the Best Documentary Feature category.
Between The Lines' Executive Producer Scott Harris hosts a live,
weekly talk show,
Counterpoint, from which some of Between The Lines'
interviews are excerpted. Listen every Monday evening from 8 to 10 p.m.
EDT at www.WPKN.org
(Follows the 5-7 minute White Rose Calendar.)
Counterpoint in its entirety is archived after midnight ET
Monday nights,
and is available for at least a year following broadcast in
WPKN Radio's Archives.
You can also listen to
full unedited interview segments from Counterpoint, which
are generally available some time the day following broadcast.
Subscribe to Counterpoint bulletins via our subscriptions page.
A compilation of activist and news sites with a progressive point of view
Podcasts: direct or via iTunes
Subscribe to Program Summaries, Interview Transcripts or Counterpoint via email or RSS feed
If you have other questions regarding subscriptions, feeds or podcasts/mp3s go to our Audio Help page.
Learn how to support our efforts!
Tweets by @BTLRadioNewsPosted March 30, 2011
Interview with Phyllis Bennis, director of the New Internationalism Project at the Institute for Policy Studies, conducted by Scott Harris
Nine days after ordering the Pentagon to launch attacks on Moammar Gadhafi's air defenses and ground troops, along with an international coalition, President Obama delivered a nationally televised speech designed to defend that decision. In his March 28th address at the National Defense University, Obama justified the U.S. intervention in Libya by maintaining that the rebel-held city of Benghazi was on the brink of a humanitarian disaster, with Gadhafi's forces closing in, and the likelihood of a bloodbath. He also told Americans that the multinational effort he had organized was needed in Libya to avoid a repetition of the nation's costly war in Iraq. The president pledged that NATO, of which the U.S. is the most important member, will take over leading enforcement of the U.N. mandated no-fly zone over Libya.
But while reaction varied -- with most Democrats offering support and most Republicans leveling criticism -- several important questions remained unanswered in the president's speech. What will the U.S. military do to support the president’s stated goal of removing Gadhafi from power? What's the exit strategy for the U.S. if the rebels are unable to defeat Gadhafi’s forces, and Libya’s people find themselves in a long, bloody civil war? Other questions focused on the unknown political character and goals of Libyan opposition groups, whose rebel fighters have lost ground to government troops in recent days.
Between The Lines' Scott Harris spoke with Phyllis Bennis, director of the New Internationalism Project at the Institute for Policy Studies. She takes a critical look at President Obama's speech and his decision to intervene in the Libyan conflict.
PHYLLIS BENNIS: Well, you know, Scott, I think that we already are involved in a third war in the Middle East and unfortunately, President Obama's speech didn't do much to assuage that fear. It was a good speech. President Obama can be a great communicator. It was a powerful speech; it was an emotive speech. But, it didn't answer a lot of the key questions that people have been asking. The questions remain. The question of: Why didn't he consult with Congress? There was no real discussion about the U.S. plan is. He said, basically, "Our position is, we want regime change." But, our military isn't involved in that because the military is restricted by what the U.N. resolution says, and that's just about protecting civilians. So, of course, we're not going to move toward regime change with our military.
The problem, of course, is that I don't think that anybody really believes that. When you have the commander-in-chief telling the military "we want regime change, but we want you to be very careful about what you do." That's a real mixed message that I think really doesn't work very well.
And then you have the problem of what the endgame looks like. We didn't hear anything about the Libyan opposition. There's lots of questions about that. The problem that we have here is that this isn't just a revolutionary process that we're watching and cheering. This is one where our government, our tax money, our military is actively fighting with them. These are now our guys. So the question of who they are becomes much more important. And of course, President Obama couldn't answer that, because frankly, I don't think that they have a clue either.
I would love to believe that President Obama is really trying to create new foreign policy, a foreign policy based on internationalism, based on taking care of people in other nations. But as long as our actual policy enables those violations everywhere else, and the one place we decide to do something about it -- it's a military assault, then I can't accept it. Then I'd find it just too hard to believe.
BETWEEN THE LINES: Phyllis, in a recent article, you talked about the prospect and your concern about a long war in Libya especially given the fact that the United States -- President Obama specifically calling for the ouster of Gadhafi -- the United States and its allies seem to be running aircover for the rebel movement. Maybe you could expand on your concern about how this could devolve into a very long adventure.
PHYLLIS BENNIS: Yeah, I think part of the problem is that without clarity, that the role of the United States is or is not to be a partisan, a partner, a military backer of the opposition forces, which is the role that our troops are playing now. There's no question about that. But it's not acknowledged quite that way. U.S. planes, French planes, have among other things, attacked retreating regime tanks and troops; attacked planes on the ground; attacked an airfield hundreds or maybe even thousands of kilometers away from any civilians; attacked military barracks. So they've gone far beyond this notion of simply immediate protection of the civilians in Benghazi, for instance.
The problem is that absent the complete overthrow of Gadhafi's regime, which would probably mean that Gadhafi would be killed somehow along the way. I don't quite see how else that would happen.
The possibility is far more likely, I think, that there will be a division of the country between a Gadhafi-controlled Western sector and essentially a Western protectorate in the east -- a NATO-U.S. protectorate of some sort in the eastern part of Libya where conveniently enough, that oil happens to be located -- the temporary interim government already signed their first contract (March 27) with some foreign oil company.
But the possibility of a long-term stalemate with the country divided, occasional flare-ups of violence, but the involvement remaining of U.S., NATO, other forces -- it could go on for a very long time. This was actually anticipated in the U.N. resolution. There's a reference to a request to the secretary general of the U.N. It asks him to report to the Security Council about the military developments in Libya within seven days and every month thereafter.
So it was implying that they believe that this is something that was going to go on for months, at least. President Obama tried in his speech tonight to sort of say, "well, we're pulling back; we're not the main ones." By implication sort of saying, and therefore we don't have to worry about it going on too long. But it doesn't really work that way. The U.S. is still the main component of NATO so having NATO command and control doesn't mean the U.S. isn't there. We're still the main military force. It's primarily U.S. planes. The U.S. has flown something like 199 military sorties in the last few days. The Brits had flown 2. So that's a divide of who's doing what at this point.
Phyllis Bennis is author of the book, "Ending the U.S. War in Afghanistan: A Primer." Visit the Institute for Policy Studies website at www.ips-dc.org
Related Links: