Scott Horton Interviews David Rose

Scott Horton, May 21, 2009

Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.

David Rose, contributing editor for Vanity Fair, discusses the torture case of Binyam Mohamed, why the over-the-top U.S. threats to the UK over torture documents in his case may be at the request of the British government, the “007″ agent that exposes British claims of ignorance about torture as lies and the story behind the U.S. rejection of a 2004 reconciliation with Iraq’s Sunni leaders which led to the deaths of a million people.

MP3 here. (51:40)

David Rose is the author of Guantánamo: The War on Human Rights and is a special-investigations writer for the U.K.’s Mail on Sunday.

9 Responses to “David Rose”

  1. He thinks Iran might have Nukes soon ? … he’d better go and tell the 16 agencies who wrote the last NIE on iran then, because they stated that Iran doesn’t have a weapons program, so unless they’re going to magic a weapon out of thin air, it’s hard to believe they’ll “have a weapon soon” .

  2. I notice a creeping (Z) ionist takeover here at Antiwar…just try posting a comment with THAT word – without the brackets – and see what i mean.

  3. I am attempting to say the word Zionist in this post as per Duncan_Idaho’s suggestion.

  4. I’m experimenting too, as per Duncan_Idaho’s suggestion about the word ZIONIST !!!!

  5. So, Bush was just ignorant of the Zionism pervading from his administration. Likewise I guess Obama is just green when he declares his commitment to an undivided Jerusalem as Israel’s capital to packed audience at AIPAC. I enjoyed this interview but the implied notion that American politicians are somehow ignorant of the machinations of the Zionist lobby in the United States is itself a little ignorant. The fulfilment of the ‘clean break’ doctrine is as clear as can be, it has been worked towards by successive American administrations. The idea of federalism being applied to Iraq was part of that plan; borrowed by the US. David Rose’s aversion to discussing the lobby’s influence in the Iraq war really destroyed what I thought was a great interview. Israel is the regional power, whether one is for it or against it, the fact remains that Israel heavily involves itself in such things out of a percieved neccessity to protect itself. To ignore this is to possibly completely misread the situation. It may be the case that David Rose just does not know. Thank you Scott Horton.

  6. If you comment directly to articles on the front page using the words (J)ew or (Z)ionist, your comment WILL be referred for “moderation”.

    In Philip Giraldi’s article today it took me THREE tries to post this completely NON-”racist”, NON anti-”semitic” comment:

    “”announce that he is taking the military option “off the table.” ”

    Well, yeah, that’s what he should do. That’s what anyone with a brain and a modicum of morality would do. But we’re not talking about some fictional, rational, ethical being here, we’re talking about the “leader of the free world” – you know, that part of the world that likes to rape and pillage , For Free, the material and human resources of “emerging nations” who don’t follow the Capitalist doctrine of giving everything away to Wall Street vultures.

    “That is not to endorse Iran’s government or president”

    Why NOT??? There is Much commend Iran. They support the Democratically Elected government of Gaza and the West Bank; they support the Defense of Lebanon and Syria against the Israeli threat; they have not attacked another country in 250 years during which time the United Snakes have attacked over One Hundred nations; they are trying like hell to diversify their economy and move away from the Vile USD; they have good relations with their neighbours; the 25,000 (J)ews that live in total freedom in Iran can attest tot he fact Iran has ZERO against Israel – aside from the fact of Israel’s six decade long genocide of the Palestinian brothers.

    So, i would say there is a f*cking hell of a lot to commend Iran and absolutely Nothing to commend the US.”

    Fine, I understand Antiwar is a ‘going concern’ and it’s staff need to make a buck, like the rest of us, but if you’re going to ask for donations then you should respect the opinions of those who Support You financially, and who actually come here Every Day to READ, and you should Not Censor our comments.

    I’m a dyed-in-the-wool Socialist yet you don’t see me complaining about the 100% negativity this site and it’s authors demonstrate toward the SOLE democracy in this hemisphere, namely Venezuela. Do us the same courtesy or you will be facing Many more “pledge drives” in the near future.

    Via con dios

  7. Duncan-

    Why would the religious beliefs matter at all? Why do you have to mention someone’s religion in your comments? That is why we moderate them. It is not a conspiracy.

  8. I certainly am not of the exact same philosphy as antiwar.com, but I must state that: a) antiwar.com is and should NOT be bound to passing any and all posts through without edit or moderation — if you like, you can call it “lack of respect for the opinions of those who contribute financially,” but antiwar.com needs to maintain its own integrity in whatever ways it sees fit. Part of that is seeing to it that comment sections don’t turn into soapboxes for something that they don’t see as productive and then veer off into unproductive bouts of namecalling, and you may of course disagree with how they enforce that. One is free not to contribute, and if antiwar.com offends someone who contributes financially, then antiwar.com will just have to search elsewhere for that person’s contribution, but they will have their integrity intact. b)antiwar.com is not a government or quasi-government entity and so is not bound to grant unlimited, unfettered speech to everyone all the time. I do agree with the moderator’s position on mentioning someone’s religion in these comments in a way that seems gratuitous to the moderator, but that is beside the point. I believe that antiwar.com should retain and assert the right to moderate its site to get the kind of discussion it wants to see.

    I am pretty much of a flaming leftist, but I really, really, really value and appreciate antiwar.com and the work it does and will continue to contribute to it.

  9. Al is correct regarding the fact that the federal breakup of Iraq was a fundamental aspect of the Bush occupation plan for Iraq.

    Before the invasion I was straining to hear any indication of what their plans were for the re-establishment of some form of Iraqi government, in the forlorn hope that – with an occupation force of insufficient size – the planners of the looming disaster must have some brilliant plan that would preserve order, contain Iranian influence, and therefore prevent the sectarian and ethnic conflicts that were such obvious threats to the well-being of Iraqi citizens and the Iraqi state.

    The only mention that I heard by Bush or anyone in a high position in his administration on this subject (apart from the irresponsible propaganda about bringing “freedom” and “democracy” to Iraq) occured in the question period at the end of the Mar 9, 2003 presidential press conference when Bush stated, in answer to a question about the occupation plan, that he believed that the Sunni, Shia and Kurds of Iraq could live in peace in a federation. In other words a three-state solution, in the revered imperial tradition of partitioning Arab countries.

Leave a Reply