Is it because our media is more focused on directives from our governments, that we remain ignorant of the other side of the story or even know the full story.

Just as Cosgrove was the ‘go to’ man in Australia, Lieutenant-General Hamid Gul (a military commander in the Pakistani Army in the 1980s), served as the head of the country’s Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) agency from 1987 to 1989.

But Gul’s rise to fame came during the Pakistan-Saudi-US effort to keep  funds and logistical support flowing to the Afghanistan mujahidin, who were eventually credited with defeating Soviet military and political forces.

However, as is the practice of leaving no witnesses or ‘loose ends’, during the Bush administration, the US sought to put Gul on a UN list of international terrorists but their efforts were blocked by the Chinese delegation.

Domestically, Gul has been an outspoken opponent of Asif Ali Zardari, the Pakistani president, and has called for the Supreme Court to be reinstated as the rule of law in Pakistan, so he hardly represents lawlessness, which seemingly is what America and its toadies do want.

Al Jazeera interviewed Gul during a short visit to Doha and asked: ‘You recently said ‘the Taliban is the future, the Americans
are the past in Afghanistan’. Isn’t that a little far-fetched ?

Hamid Gul: ’Taliban is the future; the Americans are defeated. It isn’t necessarily because their firepower and their might has weakened, but it is because their own people are sick and tired [of engagement in Afghanistan]. There is fatigue now, fatigue is the threat and is the worst thing for a nation to suffer from. There is no way that the Americans can hold on to Afghanistan.

Al Jazeera: Could that lead to [Afghanistan President] Hamid Karzai’s government being toppled ?’

Hamid Gul: Karzai is no more. He is now fighting for his life. They have already started telling him that by the end of this year he will have to shoulder the responsibility of security in Afghanistan. But what are they giving him for this? Nothing at all. In fact, more civilian casualties in military operations are going to weaken Karzai’s position.

Al Jazeera: Some in Afghanistan believe that the extent of civilian casualties has empowered the Taliban’s resurgence’.

Hamid Gul: It is not only that. While the civilian casualties have certainly made the Taliban a popular movement in Afghanistan – some 80 per cent of the population support them – the people of Afghanistan are fed up with corruption. They are sick of the influence of warlords and drug barons, and the continued American occupation.

If it was a shot stint – come in and get out after completing the job – the situation would have been different. But the Americans didn’t do that. If they wanted to disperse al-Qaeda, they succeeded after the first year, and after that they should have pulled out. The fact they stayed on betrays their real intentions in Afghanistan until Barack Obama, the US president, came and started talking about withdrawal.It was only last December that Obama announced that the US will pull out of Afghanistan. Hillary Clinton said the same thing, but there is a dichotomy.

On the one hand they say ‘We are not here to stay in Afghanistan’, but on the other hand they carry out surges and want to prop up and build the Afghan Army. However, they don’t give the money to build the Afghan Army – just $140mn. Compare this to how much it costs the US to keep just one soldier in Afghanistan – $1mn dollars per soldier per year in Afghanistan. They have now about 68,000 US troops. It is currently costing them $65bn just to maintain these troops. There are another 30,000 US troops now coming, so it will cost the US $100bn a year to maintain its forces in Afghanistan.  The US is a heavily indebted nation so how are they going to afford this? Some 57 per cent of Americans in the polls say they don’t like this war and want their boys to return home. The Americans can’t take casualties, that is their problem. To compensate, they started employing security contractors, some 104,000 security contractors currently in Afghanistan.

Mercenaries to be used where troops cannot be deployed; we have already seen what mercenaries did in Iraq. The Americans are more and more inclined – because the US military cannot suffer casualties – to employ mercenaries, not just from the US but also from the local population. This is a very dangerous trend if we are to believe that mercenaries can win wars and carry forward the political objectives of the country. This means that whoever has more money can employ more mercenaries, win wars, win territories, etc.

Al Jazeera: Given everything you have just said, how do you think the latest US and Nato offensive against the Taliban is going to play out ?

Hamid Gul: It is not going to work. I think it is an ‘eye wash’, it has political purpose back home. But there is no political purpose for Afghanistan. They are saying that they are protecting the civilian population, but they are dislodging the civilians from their homes in very harsh weather conditions in Afghanistan. The cold winds from the steppes of Central Asia sweep these regions.
When you launch such military operations, the people are inevitably dislodged and their fields abandoned. In this situation, what are the Americans trying to achieve – I don’t know. There is much ambiguity about their political objectives. Every military conflict must have a political purpose. I cannot discern that there is any political purpose.

Al Jazeera: From a strategic point of view, Pakistan’s involvement in Afghanistan has been seen as setting up a buffer, or deterrent, to India. But now that Pakistan has nuclear capability, how important is Afghanistan to Islamabad ?

Hamid Gul:  We want a friendly Afghanistan; we know India is playing havoc with us. The Pakistani Taliban are being sponsored by the Indian intelligence and the Mossad, by the way, to carry out their attacks in Pakistan. The Mossad is very active in Pakistan and they are providing all the guidance and technical support to the Indian intelligence. So, Pakistan has to have its back covered – no country can fight on two fronts.We have to have a friendly Afghanistan, this does not mean that we dominate Afghanistan. No one can dominate Afghanistan, a country which has already buried two superpowers and the third one is about to be buried there. No, that’s not the purpose Pakistan has in Afghanistan.

Al Jazeers: Is the failure to stabilise Afghanistan adversely affecting Pakistan’s own security?*

Hamid Gul:  Yes, indeed it is. The conflict is not just derivative of the failures of the Kabul government – that is a puppet government. The real cause of the conflict is the occupation of Afghanistan by the Americans. If they go out, and after such a time – post-US occupation, the OIC and the Muslim countries have to come in and play their part. Then Afghanistan can redeem itself. I do not think that Afghanistan will be another Vietnam for the Americans because they have said they will pull out. Obama is a president who is very clear. In his State of the Union address, I think it was clear he was not addressing terrorism but instead focusing on such internal issues as healthcare, unemployment and debt servicing.  It appears he is more focused on the domestic front than foreign affairs. You can’t focus on both at the same time.

Al Jazeera: There has been a surge in violence in Pakistan since the exit of Pervez Musharraf, the former president. The Pakistani Taliban threaten towns and cities, and there are tensions between the PPP and MQM in key ports like Karachi. What is needed to stabilise Pakistan right now ?

Hamid Gul:  Political cleaning up of the mess. The rule of law must take root in Pakistan. Unfortunately, the more powerful among the politicians and generals, when it comes to their turn – whether by martial law or civilian democracy – they want to run the affairs of the country according to their own predilections and propensities. And that is where we go wrong.

The political institution has to be set right; the Supreme Court and Parliament must be empowered. Right now, all the power is vested under the 17th Amendment, which was an amendment to the constitution passed by the dictator Musharraf in 2003. This gave more power to the office of the president and the ability to bypass the constitution and remain in leadership irrespective of elections.

Asif Ali Zardari, the Pakistani president, now has that power and he is refusing to budge. So, the 17th Amendment has to go, Parliament has to be empowered, rule of law by the Supreme Court has to be established and the army must not interfere. Then things will begin to fall in place and we will take the right direction.

Al Jazeera: Do you think the US is helping Zardari stay in power because he is seen as co-operating in the so-called war on terror ?

Hamid Gul: I think there is ambivalence in their position and they sometimes do criticise him. The American press has in the past bashed Zardari, but it has gone quiet now. The Americans fear the return of the Supreme Court in Pakistan because it could rule that the US drone attacks are violations of the country’s sovereignty.  If that happens, Parliament would have to act on the Supreme Court’s decision and reverse the policy. The Americans are sceptical and suspicious that if the Supreme Court is given free reign in Pakistan, it is likely to rule against their interests and agenda in Pakistan.

Al Jazeera: Do you think the government will survive until the next national elections ?

Hamid Gul: The government will survive but I am almost certain Zardari will not. I do not want to appear to be clairvoyant, but I doubt Zardari has many days left in government.

Al K\Jazeera: In recent years, US officials have accused you of having close ties with the Taliban and al-Qaeda. How do you respond to that ?

Hamid Gul: No, this is wrong, I have no such ties. As far as al-Qaeda is concerned, I simply say come up with the evidence for 911. You haven’t even charged Osama bin Laden so far, that means you don’t have hard evidence against him. The full story is yet to come out.In my opinion, all this is a gimmick, an inside job.In regards to the Taliban, I support their cause of Afghan resistance. I lend them my moral support because I have in the past had strong connections with them. Incidentally, I maintained strong connections with both sides. Many in the Afghan government are my good friends. But since the Taliban are representing the national spirit of resistance, I have given them my voice. The Americans sent my name to the UN Security Council to put me on a sanctions list and declare me an international terrorist. But they failed because the Chinese knew the
truth well and blocked that move.

Basically, the Americans have nothing against me. I saw the charges and I replied to them in the English-language press in Pakistan. I said if they have anything against me to bring it forward, put me on trial. Tell me what wrong I have done. I have been taking moral stands. The Americans talk of freedom of speech, but apparently my speech hurts them because it counters their excesses. I won’t use the word ‘interests’ because what US policy-makers are doing runs against the interests of the American people. If I say this is right and this is wrong, I am exercising my right and ultimately, this is to the benefit of the American people.

Al Jazeera: But Zardari once told a western journal that you are a “political ideologue of terror”.

Hamid Gul: I wrote a letter to Zardari that I am an ideologue of jihad, which is common between us. He is a Muslim like me and believes in the Quran. Terror is a totally different thing. I do not support terror at all, but jihad is our right when a nation is oppressed. According to the United Nations Charter, national resistance for liberation is a right. We call this a jihad.

Aljazeera.net/english 2003 – 2010 ©

Congressional hearing reveals US intelligence agencies shielded Flight 253 bomber – by Alex Lantier

February 03, 2010 “WSWS” — A January 27 hearing of the House Committee on Homeland Security established that US intelligence agencies stopped the State Department from revoking the US visa of Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab.

The Nigerian student, whom US officials suspected of being affiliated with the Yemeni terrorist group Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, attempted to set off a bomb on Northwest Flight 253 into Detroit on Christmas Day. Revocation of Abdulmutallab’s visa would have prevented him from boarding the airplane.

The hearing was reported in a brief article posted January 27 on the web site of the Detroit News, headlined, “Terror Suspect Kept Visa to Avoid Tipping Off Larger Investigation.”

The revelation that US intelligence agencies made a deliberate decision to allow Abdulmutallab to board the commercial flight, without any special airport screening, has been buried in the media. As of this writing, nearly a week after the hearing, the New York Times, Wall Street Journal, Washington Post and Los Angeles Times have published no articles on the subject. Nor have the broadcast or cable media reported on it.

This is despite—or perhaps more accurately, because of—the fact that this information exposes the official government story of the near-disaster to be a lie. President Obama, who has joined with top US intelligence, FBI and Homeland Security officials to insist that Abdulmutallab was inadvertently allowed to board the plane carrying explosives because of a failure to “connect the dots,” has from the start been deceiving the American people.

The official line strained credulity from the outset, given reports of multiple advance warnings that the Nigerian student was linked to terrorists in Yemen who were planning attacks on the US.

As was widely reported within hours of the failed bombing attempt, Abdulmutallab’s father—a former Nigerian government minister and prominent banker—went to the US embassy in Abuja in November to warn that his son was involved with radical Islamists in Yemen and had broken off contact with his family. The family said they had given US officials extensive information about their son in the expectation that they would “find and return him home.”

In his prepared statement to the House Committee on Homeland Security on January 27, State Department Under-Secretary for Management Patrick Kennedy said: “In the case of Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, on the day following his father’s November 19 visit to the Embassy, we sent a cable to the Washington intelligence and law enforcement community through proper channels (the Visas Viper system) that ‘Information at post suggests [Farouk] may be involved in Yemeni-based extremists.’”

Kennedy confirmed that all US intelligence agencies received warnings that Abdulmutallab was training with terrorists in Yemen. He noted that the initial diplomatic cable from Abuja misspelled Abdulmutallab’s name. However, Kennedy continued, “At the same time, the Consular Section entered Abdulmutallab into the Consular Lookout and Support System database known as CLASS… The CLASS entry resulted in a lookout using the correct spelling that was shared automatically with the primary lookout system used by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and accessible to other agencies.”

Under questioning by the committee chairman, Rep. Bennie Thompson, Kennedy explained why the State Department might not revoke the US visa of a suspected terrorist: “We will revoke the visa of any individual who is a threat to the United States, but we do take one preliminary step. We ask our law enforcement and intelligence community partners, ‘Do you have eyes on this person and do you want us to let this person proceed under your surveillance so that you may potentially break a larger plot?’”

He added: “And one of the members [of the intelligence community]—and we’d be glad to give you that out of [open session]—in private—said, ‘Please, do not revoke this visa. We have eyes on this person. We are following this person who has the visa for the purpose of trying to roll up an entire network, not just stop one person.’”

Under questioning by Rep. Dan Lungren, Kennedy confirmed that Abdulmutallab’s case was one in which US intelligence officials had interceded to block a visa revocation.

In prepared remarks at the same hearing, National Counterterrorism Center Director Michael Leiter stated: “Within the intelligence community we had strategic intelligence that Al Qa’ida in the Arabian Peninsula [AQAP—the terrorist group in Yemen with which Abdulmutallab was in contact] had the intention of taking action against the United States prior to the failed attack on December 25th, but we did not direct more resources against AQAP, nor insist that watch-listing criteria be adjusted prior to the event.” He added that US intelligence analysts “did not push [Abdulmutallab] onto the terrorist watch-list.”

This inaction came despite the fact that US intelligence agencies were well aware of the threat posed by AQAP. According to Leiter: “The Intelligence Community highlighted the growing threat to US and Western interests in the region posed by AQAP, whose precursor elements attacked our embassy in [the Yemeni capital] Sana’a [in September 2008]. Our analysis focused on AQAP’s plans to strike US targets in Yemen, but it also noted—increasingly in the fall of 2009—the possibility of targeting the United States.”

Amazingly, the US government did not declare AQAP a terrorist group until January 19, 2010, even though it was referred to by that name in 2009. State Department spokesman Philip Crowley stated that declaring AQAP a terrorist group would “prohibit provision of material support and arms to AQAP and also include immigration-related restrictions that will help stem the flow of finances to AQAP.” Thus, for nearly a month after the attempted bombing, US officials were not required to implement a range of measures against AQAP, including “an asset freeze, travel ban, and arms embargo,” according to Crowley.

At the January 27 hearing, Leiter said that there had been “multiple” points of failure in the US government’s response to warnings of the impending attack. However, all three government officials testifying—Kennedy, Leiter and Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Deputy Secretary Jane Lute—said no disciplinary action would be taken.

DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano, who was invited to the hearing and was in Washington at the time, refused to attend. She did not notify committee members beforehand. Napolitano was widely criticized for claiming on December 27 that the “system worked” prior to, during and after the attempted bombing.

Official testimony now records that US intelligence agencies deliberately let Abdulmutallab board Flight 253, putting the lives of hundreds of passengers at risk, in the course of an as yet undisclosed intelligence operation. Whether US agencies were unaware of Abdulmutallab’s plans, or consciously decided to allow an attack to proceed, remains unclear.

In this context, it should be noted that the reason for US inaction given at the hearing—that US intelligence did not want to alert Al Qaeda that it was watching Abdulmutallab—does not hold water. As congressmen noted during the hearing, US Customs and Border Protection had prepared to interrogate Abdulmutallab upon arrival in Detroit, as he was on the Terrorist Identities Datamart Environment database. This would be counterproductive if US agencies were mounting a concerted effort to hide their interest in Abdulmutallab.

There are a number of possible explanations for the decision to allow Abdulmutallab to board Northwest Flight 253. One possibility is that it was bound up with efforts by elements within the US intelligence apparatus to politically destabilize the Obama administration.

To seriously investigate the possible motivations behind the government’s actions, the question must be asked: What would have been the consequences of a successful attack? Hysterical media coverage would have provided fodder for the most right-wing factions in the ruling class to demand war against Yemen or other Muslim countries. At home, there would have been calls for a mass dragnet like that after the September 11 attacks, and immense political pressure for a new battery of police-state laws.

Even having failed, the attack was used as a pretext for expanding US military operations in Yemen, adding further security restrictions at airports, and expanding the “no-fly” passenger list and other databases by agencies unaccountable to the American people.

The testimony at the January 27 hearing also blows apart the line promulgated by the establishment media, which universally echoed the administration’s hackneyed phrase to explain the Flight 253 incident—a “failure to connect the dots” on the part of US intelligence agencies. This, of course, is the same phrase used in the official cover-up of the 9/11 attacks.

Thus, in a January 2 editorial entitled “Why Didn’t They See It?” the New York Times wrote: “No doubt sorting through heaps of information and determining what is urgent or even worthy of follow-up is daunting. Still, it is incredible, and frightening, that the government cannot do at least as good a job at swiftly updating and correlating information as Google.”

The Times itself, in a subsequent article published January 18, reported the results of its own investigation, based on interviews with senior White House and intelligence officials. The newspaper revealed more “missed clues,” including the fact that intelligence authorities learned in early November from a communications intercept of Al Qaeda followers in Yemen that a man named “Umar Farouk” had volunteered for a coming operation. Despite such evidence of an official cover-up, the Times maintained the line that the near-disaster was the result of mistakes, omissions and an inability to “connect the dots.”

It is now possible to answer the New York Times editorial of January 2: They did “see it,” and the Times’ incredulous and cynical attempt to explain the Flight 253 attack as the result of mere incompetence was part of a campaign of disinformation. This is a campaign in which, by its silence on the January 27 hearing, the Times continues to participate.

The Congressional hearing vindicates the analysis of the World Socialist Web Site, which exposed the highly dubious character of the official story, pointed to the possibility of US government involvement, and demanded that officials involved in handling Abdulmutallab’s case be named and investigated.

In a December 31 column (“The Northwest Flight 253 intelligence failure: Negligence or conspiracy?”) the World Socialist Web Site wrote: “The general outlines of the Northwest bombing attempt and the 9/11 attacks are startlingly similar. One might even say that what is involved is a modus operandi. In both cases, those alleged to have carried out the actions had been the subject of US intelligence investigations and surveillance and had been allowed to enter the country and board flights under conditions that would normally have set off multiple security alarms.

“Both then and now, the government and the media expect the public to accept that all that was involved was mistakes. But why should anyone assume that the failure to act on the extensive intelligence leading to Abdulmutallab involved merely ‘innocent’ mistakes—and not something far more sinister?”

In the January 18 New York Times article cited above, the newspaper also noted that Obama personally met on December 22 with CIA, FBI, and DHS officials because Obama was “worried about possible terrorist attacks over the Christmas holiday.” In another meeting the same day, the Times reported, Obama’s homeland security advisor John Brennan held talks on Yemen, “where a stream of disturbing intelligence had suggested that Qaeda operatives were preparing for some action, perhaps a strike on an American target on Christmas day.”

Nevertheless, Obama gave a December 28 internet and radio address in which he falsely described Abdulmutallab as an “isolated extremist.”

He also declared: “A full investigation has been launched into this attempted act of terrorism, and we will not rest until we find all who were involved and hold them accountable… We will continue to use every element of our national power to disrupt, to dismantle and defeat the violent extremists who threaten us.”

Over a month after Obama made these claims, it is clear that US intelligence agencies were deeply involved and the White House is overseeing a massive cover-up.

Copyright © 1998-2010 World Socialist Web Site

Sales are broken up into 4 steps, 1) introduction 2) create a need 3) have a product that addresses that need and 4) take the order.

Sales down in full body imaging at airports … how about a few – well publicised – apprehended plane bombers, like the ‘Underwear Bomber’ plot, the ‘Toothpaste, Shampoo, and Bottled Water Bomber’ plot and the ‘Shoe Bomber’ plot?

All seemingly ‘not the sharpest tool in the shed’ tyes seemingly getting past the ‘fool-proof’ inspections, but definite reasons that countries buy American made full body imagers.

As time passes, we discover things were not as they were presented to us. Is this a sign of a complacent or compliant media?

If you are to believe the USA government, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed (alleged al-Qaida mastermind behind 9/11), outwitted the CIA and the NSA, in fcat 16 USA intelligence agencies as well as those of all American allies including Mossad (who should be right on top of Muslim hardliners) their National Security Council and Airport Security four times on just one morning; that largely untrained and inexperienced pilots pulled off skilled piloting feats of crashing hijacked airliners into the World Trade Center towers and the Pentagon and how state of the art air defenses somehow failed to function.

As one report said, ‘after such amazing success, al-Qaida sould have attracted the best minds in the business, but, instead, it has been reduced to amateur stunts’, but is al-Qaida really real or is it a ‘create a need to buy some product’ ?

Look up integrity in an American dictonary and its been crossed out, they’s sell their own mother for better-than-the-Jones’s- look. President Obama has commited to an ‘undeclared war’ on Yemen, that neither the American public or Congress were informed of or consulted with. The ‘Underwear Bomber’ provides a convenient excuse for Washington’s new war.

We’re all a bit jaded these days and ask outselves whose agenda are these, who benefits or is best served by these events and the spin-doctoring. According to the news report, Yemeni President Ali Abdullah Saleh told the Saba news agency that a terrorist cell was arrested and that the case was referred to judicial authorities for its links with the Israeli intelligence services. So is the ‘Underwear Bomber’ an Israeli terrorist recruit?

Israel may have an interest in keeping the US fully engaged militarily against all potential foes of Israel’s territorial expansion. There was a rumour back in the 80′s that USA and USSR generals had a pact of some sort to keep government spending high to fight the threats of the other country; how many times can collusion be factored into any business dealing?

In Russia, the Tsar’s secret police set off bombs so that they could blame those whom they wanted to arrest; Cossiga (president of Italy from 1985-1992), revealed the existence of Operation Gladio, a false flag operation under NATO auspices that carried out bombings across Europe in the 1960s, 1970s, and 1980s. The bombings were blamed on communists and were used to discredit communist parties in elections.

An Italian parliamentary investigation unearthed the fact that the attacks were overseen by the CIA. Gladio agent Vincenzo Vinciguerra stated in sworn testimony that the attacks targeted innocent civilians, including women and children, in order ‘to force the public to turn to the state to ask for greater security’.

Is local politics so different, to self-mutilation of election signs being damaged and the ‘under-dog’ status to garner sympathetic voters; on a larger scale, why not 9/11 ?  After all our good intentions and well-meaning can be also described as gullible; John Howard used it prolifically. Tony Abbott has nothing for global warming so he just pushes the greed / fear tax button.

Are we really that gullible that ppolitical parties who purport to represents the public’s interest in truth represents private interests, that office holders and lobby groups finance their political campaigns. We know the Russians pretty much went bankrupt in Afghanistan, yet we spend hundreds of millions of dollars over there.

The newest diversion (yes I believe these are distractions to keep our eye off the ball over here, the mis-management and misappropriations of public funds) is the Iranian nuclear bomb capacity, despite the unanimous conclusion of 16 U.S. intelligence agencies to the contrary.

So it comes back to the media and why they would be supportive and subservience to government and it all comes back to profitability. When I was growing up, the Aboriginals were the bad guys; but as we know, when a referendum for the rights of Aboriginals to vote was taken, it was the highest affirmative of any referendum anywhere, so the government had to find a new enemy and co-incidentally, the Americans had one ready to go Vietnam. Now days its the Muslims; and how would you react if someone started picking on you … cop it sweet ?

Remember, the media’s focus is on one thing primarily, profit and as the media saying goes ‘never let the truth get in the way of a good story‘.

Iran is an oppressive state – using religion as the main connection with the people – where orphaned children are taken under the wing of the state and conditioned to defend the regime whatever it takes, even killing innocent women.

I just watched a movie called ‘crossing over’ about the illegal immigrants in the USA, and how the right of free speech costs everything. An obviously rebellious teenager puts forward the proposition that the terrorists in actual fact were expressing themselves the only way they could – through 911 – for what the American corporate-government was doing to countries around the world, bringing ‘democracy’ to the people.

When the United Nations and its members provide ‘aid’, it’s usually expressed in $; however, what it does leave out is that the ‘aid’ is conditional on the corporations of the given country supplying the ‘aid’ to be given preferential / exclusive treatment.

We know that much of the food that China (and other Asian countries) exports to the world is low in nutritional value and at times heavily contaminated with chemicals, but what is less publicised is that much of the food ‘aid’ by the Americans is likewise suspect; GM (genetically modified) and or poor nutritional value foods.

Many African countries refused American GM foods but to add to the misery, rice from the USA lacks the nutritional value of the whole-grain native crop and an epidemic of Beriberi in the Haitian populace was traced back to USA rice, which is processed in such a way that removes vitamin B.

USA foreign aid adds to the global problem of food growth by distributing food produced by US corporations, rather than purchasing it from local farmers to strengthen their capacity to feed their own.

Be careful the hand you hold doesn’t hold you down …