Wednesday, December 30, 2009

TAKING EYES OFF THE BALL AND MISSING THE LOW-HANGING FRUIT

"We are apt to close our eyes against a painful truth...For my part, I am willing to know the whole truth; to know the worst; and to provide for it."
Patrick Henry


From
Flight 253: Anatomy of a Cover-Up
A Failure to "Integrate and Understand," or a Thin Tissue of Lies
by Tom Burghardt
January 13, 2010
[http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=16888]

While the President may be "standing by" his national security advisers, the question is, are the denizens of America's secret state standing by him? One well-connected Washington insider, MSNBC pundit Richard Wolffe, isn't so sure.

Wolffe, the author of a flattering portrait of Obama, Renegade: The Making of a President, when asked on MSNBC's Countdown with Keith Olbermann January 4 what is the White House "focus here right now?" Wolffe's startling reply: "Is this conspiracy or cock up? It seems that the president is leaning very much towards thinking this was a systemic failure by individuals who maybe had an alternative agenda." (emphasis added)

"I will accept that intelligence by its nature is imperfect" the President said, "but it is increasingly clear that intelligence was not fully analyzed or fully leveraged."

The question is why? And more pertinently from a parapolitical perspective, what "alternative agenda" is playing out here that would put the lives of nearly 300 air passengers at risk?

Conclusion

As of this writing, it is not yet possible to provide a comprehensive answer as to why these events unfolded as they did. I am however, certain of one thing: the Obama administration, the security agencies presumably under its control and the corporate media, johnny-on-the-spot when it comes to covering-up imperialism's multitude of crimes, are lying to the American people.

There are however, several preliminary hypotheses which can be advanced, all of which raise further troubling questions worthy of additional investigation.

Were the Christmas Day events a pretext to expand the "War on Terror" into yet another strategic petroleum chokepoint as analyst F. William Engdahl suggests in an excellent piece published by Global Research?

Nor can we dismiss out of hand the analysis offered by the World Socialist Web Site that the failed Christmas Day airline plot was a maneuver by extreme right-wing elements deeply embedded in the U.S. National Security State "to destabilize and undermine the Obama administration." To this can be added Richard Wolffe's provocative statement that factions within the secret state may have had their own "alternative agenda," and thus failed to act.

Add to the mix, the systematic outsourcing of intelligence and security functions to a host of giant defense firms, outside of democratic control; in other words, rightist grifters who answer to shareholders and not the American people, and suddenly another piece of Wolffe's "alternative agenda" comes into sharp focus.

Chock-a-block with ex-CIA officers, NSA analysts, FBI agents and U.S. Special Forces veterans of America's dirty wars who now staff the privatized U.S. security complex, in other words well-paid mercenaries who know a thing or two on how to run a clandestine operation, and we just might have another plausible theory why a "dot" or two was ignored Christmas Day.

Tom Burghardt is a researcher and activist based in the San Francisco Bay Area. In addition to publishing in Covert Action Quarterly and Global Research, his articles can be read on Dissident Voice, The Intelligence Daily, Pacific Free Press, Uncommon Thought Journal, and the whistleblowing website Wikileaks. He is the editor of Police State America: U.S. Military "Civil Disturbance" Planning, distributed by AK Press.


***


What in the doggone world is going on?
The Central Intelligence Agency KNEW that a suicide bomber (with or without his nail clippers) was going to blow up an airplane, and yet the C.I.A. sat on this intel.
The C.I.A. buried this information.
At least George W. Bush, while on his vacation at Crawford, could tell a messenger that he had
covered up his own ass after delivering the message about what was going to take place on September 11th.
The Decider decided to just ignore this warning, and, because he had repeatedly shown us that he was just a happy-go-lucky, bungling cowboy, the world would conclude,
“Well, he’s just not that bright, and so it's understandable why America was vulnerable to an attack.”

No.

Wrong.

George W. Bush merely let the attack run its course.
I believe that President Obama would have immediately taken some action during his vacation in Hawaii had a messenger from the C.I.A. or any other agency told him about this terrorist who was going to blow up a plane.

This is scary!

When it looks like one…
Talks like one…
And walks like one…

IT COULD BE A COUP.

Who is “running the country”?

WHO’S REALLY IN CHARGE OF THE Homeland and its NATIONAL SECURITY?

(What has Dr. Kissinger been up to lately?

Does Dick Cheney still plan to run for President?)

THERE IS NO MYSTERY PLANE HERE.

The cat is coming out of the bag, and it is up to the Fourth Estate and the American people to truly take America back, and to stop the hidden agendas of others who value their
money and power
above
Liberty
Truth
&
Justice.

The Pursuit of Happiness will have to take a back seat until we have gotten to the bottom of this
NEST OF VIPERS.


***



DETROIT BOMBER INCIDENT: PLAYING THE AMERICAN PEOPLE, AGAIN


By: Devvy
January 1, 2010
© 2009 - NewsWithViews.com
Terrorism is serious. No question we're all deeply concerned about terrorists coming across our borders while Congress and the last five presidents have sat on their backsides, making half-baked efforts to seal up the borders, hunt down the illegals and get them out of our country. America has paid a terrible price from the slaughter of our citizens by illegal aliens. All we have seen is Band Aids since Ronald Reagan opened the flood gates and our brave U.S. Border Patrol agents treated as nothing but political pawns.
Much has been written about Northwest Flight 253 originating in Amsterdam. It became immediately obvious to many there was something wrong with the story. William Norman Grigg, one of my favorite columnists, wrote an excellent piece, The Old 'False Flag Trick'[1] In that column, William reminds Americans that the FBI was running a dangerous operation in NYC which resulted in the bombing of the World Trade Center in 1993. Oh, yes, they did and six people died. Not a single FBI personnel was ever held accountable for murder:
"The New York Times later reports on Emad Salem, an undercover agent who will be the key government witness in the trial against Yousef. Salem testifies that the FBI knew about the attack beforehand and told him they would thwart it by substituting a harmless powder for the explosives. However, an FBI supervisor called off this plan, and the bombing was not stopped. [New York Times, 10/28/1993]
"Other suspects were ineptly investigated before the bombing as early as 1990. Several of the bombers were trained by the CIA to fight in the Afghan war, and the CIA later concludes, in internal documents, that it was “partly culpable” for this bombing (see January 24, 1994). [Independent, 11/1/1998] 9/11 mastermind Khalid Shaikh Mohammed is an uncle of Yousef and also has a role in the WTC bombing (see March 20, 1993). [Independent, 6/6/2002; Los Angeles Times, 9/1/2002] One of the attackers even leaves a message which will later be found by investigators, stating, “Next time, it will be very precise.” [Associated Press, 9/30/2001]"
"This factual accounting of Salem and the sting operation came out during trial and cannot be disputed. What shocked me is that for once, the truth actually appeared in the NY Times, which, unfortunately, has become nothing more than a propaganda rag over the years. At the time, millions of Americans should have demanded not only criminal indictments against the FBI personnel involved, but the removal of the Director of the FBI and the Attorney General for allowing this act of terrorism to happen. It didn't happen, either because Americans didn't know or didn't care."[2]
At that time, the Butcher of Waco, Janet Reno, conducted the investigation into her own people. Now, another equally inept political animal, Janet Napolitano, is vowing to "fix it."

One of the things that struck me most odd was the photo ABC News put out regarding the would be bomber's under wear. Here's this guy sitting on what is alleged to be a bomb that would blow his backside to the 72 Virgins in the sky playground. He's hidden the bomb in his under wear with a built in panty pouch, but that pouch where the bomb caught fire, is still quite visible and clean looking.[3] Additionally, as I wrote in a short note for my email alert list:
"But, this latest incident reads eerily similar to an episode of Law & Order where a young man had problems with girls. The character was also in emotional turmoil over seeking God and peace for himself. Ripe for the picking. In that episode, the script is quite similar to the one on Christmas Day. Both young men. Both socially inept. Both seeking God. Both embrace Islam. Both turn to terrorism."
In mid-December 2009, the outlaws in the U.S. House of Representatives voted a 60-day extension on three provisions of the anti-Bill of Rights "Patriot" Act. A new act of terrorism on an incoming flight to an American airport should seal the deal when it comes up for a vote soon.
Grigg points out in his column: "Owing to what must have been an anguished report from his father, Umar Abdulmutallab was known to the CIA and the State Department as a potential terrorist. Umar Abdulmutallab the elder, a banking official from Nigeria, met personally with CIA officials to express concerns that his son – who had gone to Yemen for the supposed purpose of studying Arabic – was falling into the company of suspected terrorists."
Certainly, the question begs to be answered: Why wasn't this guy's name and face plastered all over airport security offices? Why didn't the CIA put out a world wide bulletin to all airports that Abdulmutallab's own father considered him so dangerous, he took the time to meet with CIA officials and warn them? Reminds me of another "failure." John Ashcroft rejecting warnings in the strongest language of a terrorist attack in the summer of 2001- 'Ashcroft Personally Rejected Specific Warnings of Impending Terrorist Attacks During Summer of 2001'. Patrick Briley, one of the most respected researchers in this country on the OKC bombing wrote that piece and it should be read by everyone. [4]
Who is to be held accountable? The government of The Netherlands as well as the airport officials at the Amsterdam airport. But, wait! Supposedly, allegedly, the U.S. somehow "...prevented Dutch authorities from installing full body scanners before the suspected Christmas Day bomb plotter passed through security at Amsterdam's airport, the Dutch government claimed today." [5] How is it that the U.S. government can dictate to another foreign government what they can and cannot install at their own airports?
Grigg reprints an important interview from an eyewitness to Abdulmutallab's boarding on that flight. The one who should be tracked down and questioned is the "well-dressed, official looking fellow from India." He was so obviously Abdulutallab's handler.
Moving the herds in the desired direction
Yesterday on FOX News Network, one of their simple minded hosts, Dave Briggs, blurted out: Get those full body scanners in all airports. If it means getting naked in front of them to make my family safe, then I say do it! Briggs has already given his consent to get down on his knees and fitted with chains of bondage. Not to mention how dangerous those scanners are to your health: Full-Body Scanners to Fry Travelers With Radiation. Why do you think the dentist puts a protective cover over your body when they do x-rays of your mouth?


Those scanners are not going stop these zealots. Making sure every pilot is armed, as was routine only two months prior to 9/11 [6], will send a clear signal: Try it and we will shoot your ass dead and sort out the legal details later. Adopt the same procedures as El Al, the Israeli airline system that has not had an attack on their planes in 30 years. [7]
I submit to you that there is a deeper, darker agenda at work here. It will be some time before any journalist will be able to get ahold of the FBI lab reports on the explosive and amount inside Abdulutallab's underwear via a FOIA (Freedom of Information Act). Perhaps never if the feds don't want us to see it; the old "national security" exemption.
I am truly thankful that no one was injured or killed on that flight. But, after 20 years of watching what has gone on in this country and a zillion hours of research, I firmly believe that very disturbed man was a patsy from the get go.
In order to advance the agenda for complete control, it is necessary to continue using fear and the specter of mass terror to get Americans to give up more and more of their freedoms for the illusion of "being kept safe." If you don't know how the game is played, the game will play you.
Jeri Lynn Ball is a gifted writer and determined researcher. Like so many other dedicated Americans who love this country, she has written about the plans and methods being used to create the "new Soviet man." Her books (Masters of Seduction, The Great Communitarian Hoax and others) are out of print and difficult to find. She has never been given the credit so richly deserves for all her hard work over the years. One has to understand how propaganda is being used and the ultimate goal. Jeri explains it so succinctly here:
The Totalitarian Vision of “Human Reconstruction”
"The same year they wrote “The Program,” Communist architects and social engineers began to implement their plans for the globalist, communistic New World Order, commencing with the transformation of all humans into supporters of totalitarianism. Nikolai Bukharin had previously written “that the revolution's principle task was to ‘alter people's actual psychology.’”
"In 1928 Bukharin stated that “one of the first priorities is the question of the systematic preparation of new men, the builders of [totalitarian] socialism.” In his book, Soviet Civilization, Andrei Sinyavsky states that the “idea of the new man is the cornerstone of Soviet civilization.” The “new man” is in fact the indispensable, fundamental basis of all totalitarian societies. Totalitarianism requires the support, approval, and fearful veneration of the masses; if the “new men and women” had not been created, totalitarianism would not exist today.
"The Communists planned to create not only a new way of life, but new human beings. They sought to achieve not only the reconstruction of social and cultural institutions, but reconstruction of human beings. Communist totalitarianism has undergone tremendous growth over the past century only because it has “the support of a man of a new social and psychological type”—the “new communitarian (Communist) man.” A communitarian is a member of a communistic community. A communitarian adopts and advocates communistic concepts, such as a spirit of community, selfless commitment to community service, and the duty to work for “the common good.” The terms “Communist” and “communitarian” are synonyms and are interchangeable, but the word “communitarian” connotes a sense of community and a spirit of collectivism."
Please take the time to read these few pages from Jeri's book, The Clash of Civilizations: The U.S. and Communist Ruling Elites.
Americans must take the time to learn what the communitarian philosophy is so they can understand the agenda. The communist Chinese, the U.S. government and the Soviets are in league together to bring about a horrific, brutal one world government. The communitarian philosophy (communist morality) is taught to vulnerable young Americans in several universities in this country. Please take the time to learn and understand what communitarian means because it is an ideology that is being inculcated into the minds of the American people who are in effect, becoming active players in destroying our republic. See: The Historical Evolution of Communitarian Thinking
"We are apt to shut our eyes against a painful truth... For my part, I am willing to know the whole truth; to know the worst; and to provide for it." Patrick Henry


Don't let "progressives" (socialists and communists) or the blood thirsty, war mongering neo-cons keep you from learning the truth. Marxist Obama/Soetoro has simply picked up where Bush left off. [8] Research takes time, but it's the only way to learn the methods being used to destroy us and defeat them. This weekend, no college or NFL football game, trip to the mall or movie theater is more important than becoming educated on how Americans are being manipulated and unifying against these masters of evil. Open your eyes, America. The painful truth is right there to see.


What has been the reaction of the American people over the Northwest Flight 253 incident? The polls are showing between 72-76% of Americans are ready to line up, allow themselves to be stripped naked in front of a scanner and exposed to ionizing radiation. Operation Abdulmutallab can be considered a success - unless millions refuse to fly. Congress and the airlines will get the message loud and clear.






December 30, 2009

Not Just Paranoia

Are Presidents Afraid of the CIA?

By RAY McGOVERN

In the past I have alluded to Panetta and the Seven Dwarfs. The reference is to CIA Director Leon Panetta and seven of his moral-dwarf predecessors — the ones who sent President Barack Obama a letter on Sept. 18 asking him to “reverse Attorney General Holder’s August 24 decision to re-open the criminal investigation of CIA interrogations.”

Panetta reportedly was also dead set against reopening the investigation—as he was against release of the Justice Department’s “torture memoranda” of 2002, as he has been against releasing pretty much anything at all—the President’s pledges of a new era of openness, notwithstanding. Panetta is even older than I, and I am aware that hearing is among the first faculties to fail. Perhaps he heard “error” when the President said “era.”

As for the benighted seven, they are more to be pitied than scorned. No longer able to avail themselves of the services of clever Agency lawyers and wordsmiths, they put their names to a letter that reeked of self-interest—not to mention the inappropriateness of asking a President to interfere with an investigation already ordered by the Attorney General.

Three of the seven—George Tenet, Porter Goss, and Michael Hayden—were themselves involved, in one way or another, in planning, conducting, or covering up all manner of illegal actions, including torture, assassination, and illegal eavesdropping. In this light, the most transparent part of the letter may be the sentence in which they worry: “There is no reason to expect that the re-opened criminal investigation will remain narrowly focused.”

When asked about the letter on the Sunday TV talk shows on Sept. 20, Obama was careful always to respond first by expressing obligatory “respect” for the CIA and its directors. With Bob Schieffer on Face the Nation, though, Obama did allow himself a condescending quip. He commented, “I appreciate the former CIA directors wanting to look out for an institution that they helped to build.”

That quip was, sadly, the exception to the rule. While Obama keeps repeating the mantra that “nobody is above the law,” there is no real sign that he intends to face down Panetta and the Seven Dwarfs—no sign that anyone has breathed new life into federal prosecutor John Durham, to whom Holder gave the mandate for further “preliminary investigation.” What is generally forgotten is that it was former Attorney General Michael Mukasey who picked Durham two years ago to investigate CIA’s destruction of 91 tapes of the interrogation of “high-value detainees.”

Durham had scarcely been heard from when Holder added to Durham’s job-jar the task of conducting a preliminary investigation regarding the CIA torture specialists. These are the ones whose zeal led them to go beyond the already highly permissive Department of Justice guidelines for “harsh interrogation.”

Durham, clearly, is proceeding with all deliberate speed (emphasis on “deliberate”). Someone has even suggested—I trust, in jest—that he has been diverted to the search for the money and other assets that Bernie Maddow stashed away.

In any case, do not hold your breath for findings from Durham anytime soon. Holder appears in no hurry. And President Obama keeps giving off signals that he is afraid of getting crosswise with the CIA—that’s right, afraid.

Not Just Paranoia

In that fear, President Obama stands in the tradition of a dozen American presidents. Harry Truman and John Kennedy were the only ones to take on the CIA directly. Worst of all, evidence continues to build that the CIA was responsible, at least in part, for the assassination of President Kennedy. Evidence new to me came in response to things I included in my article of Dec. 22, “Break the CIA in Two.

What follows can be considered a sequel that is based on the kind of documentary evidence after which intelligence analysts positively lust.

Unfortunately for the CIA operatives who were involved in the past activities outlined below, the temptation to ask Panetta to put a SECRET stamp on the documentary evidence will not work. Nothing short of torching the Truman Library might conceivably help. But even that would be a largely feckless “covert action,” copy machines having long since done their thing.

In my article of Dec. 22, I referred to Harry Truman’s op-ed of exactly 46 years before, titled “Limit CIA Role to Intelligence,” in which the former President expressed dismay at what the Central Intelligence Agency had become just 16 years after he and Congress created it.

The Washington Post published the op-ed on December 22, 1963 in its early edition, but immediately excised it from later editions. Other media ignored it. The long hand of the CIA?

Truman wrote that he was “disturbed by the way CIA has been diverted from its original assignment” to keep the President promptly and fully informed and had become “an operational and at times policy-making arm of the government.”

The Truman Papers

Documents in the Truman Library show that nine days after Kennedy was assassinated, Truman sketched out in handwritten notes what he wanted to say in the op-ed. He noted, among other things, that the CIA had worked as he intended only “when I had control.”

In Truman’s view, misuse of the CIA began in February 1953, when his successor, Dwight Eisenhower, named Allen Dulles CIA Director. Dulles’ forte was overthrowing governments (in current parlance, “regime change”), and he was quite good at it. With coups in Iran (1953) and Guatemala (1954) under his belt, Dulles was riding high in the late Fifties and moved Cuba to the top of his to-do list.

Accustomed to the carte blanche given him by Eisenhower, Dulles was offended when young President Kennedy came on the scene and had the temerity to ask questions about the Bay of Pigs adventure, which had been set in motion under Eisenhower. When Kennedy made it clear he would NOT approve the use of U.S. combat forces, Dulles reacted with disdain and set out to mousetrap the new President.

Coffee-stained notes handwritten by Allen Dulles were discovered after his death and reported by historian Lucien S. Vandenbroucke. They show how Dulles drew Kennedy into a plan that was virtually certain to require the use of U.S. combat forces. In his notes Dulles explains that, “when the chips were down,” the new President would be forced by “the realities of the situation” to give whatever military support was necessary “rather than permit the enterprise to fail.”

Additional detail came from a March 2001 conference on the Bay of Pigs, which included CIA operatives, retired military commanders, scholars, and journalists. Daniel Schorr told National Public Radio that he had gained one new perception as a result of the “many hours of talk and heaps of declassified secret documents:”

“It was that the CIA overlords of the invasion, Director Allen Dulles and Deputy Richard Bissell had their own plan on how to bring the United States into the conflict…What they expected was that the invaders would establish a beachhead…and appeal for aid from the United States…

“The assumption was that President Kennedy, who had emphatically banned direct American involvement, would be forced by public opinion to come to the aid of the returning patriots. American forces, probably Marines, would come in to expand the beachhead.

“In fact, President Kennedy was the target of a CIA covert operation that collapsed when the invasion collapsed,” added Schorr.

The “enterprise” which Dulles said could not fail was, of course, the overthrow of Fidel Castro. After mounting several failed operations to assassinate him, this time Dulles meant to get his man, with little or no attention to what the Russians might do in reaction. Kennedy stuck to his guns, so to speak; fired Dulles and his co-conspirators a few months after the abortive invasion in April 1961; and told a friend that he wanted to “splinter the CIA into a thousand pieces and scatter it into the winds.”

The outrage was mutual, and when Kennedy himself was assassinated on November 22, 1963, it must have occurred to Truman that the disgraced Dulles and his outraged associates might not be above conspiring to get rid of a President they felt was soft on Communism—and, incidentally, get even.

In his op-ed of December 22, 1963 Truman warned: “The most important thing…was to guard against the chance of intelligence being used to influence or to lead the President into unwise decisions.” It is a safe bet that Truman had the Bay of Pigs fiasco uppermost in mind.

Truman called outright for CIA’s operational duties [to] be terminated or properly used elsewhere.” (This is as good a recommendation now as it was then, in my view.)

On December 27, retired Admiral Sidney Souers, whom Truman had appointed to lead his first central intelligence group, sent a “Dear Boss” letter applauding Truman’s outspokenness and blaming Dulles for making the CIA “a different animal than I tried to set up for you.” Souers specifically lambasted the attempt “to conduct a ‘war’ invading Cuba with a handful of men and without air cover.”

Souers also lamented the fact that the agency’s “principal effort” had evolved into causing “revolutions in smaller countries around the globe,” and added:

With so much emphasis on operations, it would not surprise me to find that the matter of collecting and processing intelligence has suffered some.”

Clearly, CIA’s operational tail was wagging the substantive dog—a serious problem that persists to this day. For example, CIA analysts are super-busy supporting operations in Afghanistan and Pakistan; no one seems to have told them that they need to hazard a guess as to where this is all leading and whether it makes any sense.

That is traditionally done in a National Intelligence Estimate. Can you believe there at this late date there is still no such Estimate? Instead, the President has chosen to rely on he advice of Gen. David Petraeus, who many believe will be Obama’s opponent in the 2012 presidential election.

Fox Guarding Henhouse?

In any case, the well-connected Dulles got himself appointed to the Warren Commission and took the lead in shaping the investigation of JFK’s assassination. Documents in the Truman Library show that he then mounted a targeted domestic covert action of his own to neutralize any future airing of Truman’s and Souers’ warnings about covert action.

So important was this to Dulles that he invented a pretext to get himself invited to visit Truman in Independence, Missouri. On the afternoon of April 17, 1964 he spent a half-hour trying to get the former President to retract what he had said in his op-ed. No dice, said Truman.

No problem, thought Dulles. Four days later, in a formal memo for his old buddy Lawrence Houston, CIA General Counsel from 1947 to 1973, Dulles fabricated a private retraction, claiming that Truman told him the Washington Post article was “all wrong,” and that Truman “seemed quite astounded at it.”

No doubt Dulles thought it might be handy to have such a memo in CIA files, just in case.

A fabricated retraction? It certainly seems so, because Truman did not change his tune. Far from it. In a June 10, 1964 letter to the managing editor of Look magazine, for example, Truman restated his critique of covert action, emphasizing that he never intended the CIA to get involved in “strange activities.”

Dulles and Dallas

Dulles could hardly have expected to get Truman to recant publicly. So why was it so important for Dulles to place in CIA files a fabricated retraction. My guess is that in early 1964 he was feeling a good bit of heat from those suggesting the CIA might have been involved somehow in the Kennedy assassination. Indeed, one or two not-yet-intimidated columnists were daring to ask how the truth could ever come out with Allen Dulles on the Warren Commission. Prescient.

Dulles feared, rightly, that Truman’s limited-edition op-ed might yet get some ink, and perhaps even airtime, and raise serious questions about covert action. Dulles would have wanted to be in position to flash the Truman “retraction,” with the hope that this would nip any serious questioning in the bud. The media had already shown how co-opted—er, I mean “cooperative”—it could be.

As the de facto head of the Warren Commission, Dulles was perfectly positioned to exculpate himself and any of his associates, were any commissioners or investigators—or journalists—tempted to question whether the killing in Dallas might have been a CIA covert action.

Did Allen Dulles and other “cloak-and-dagger” CIA operatives have a hand in killing President Kennedy and then covering it up? The most up-to-date—and, in my view, the best—dissection of the assassination appeared last year in James Douglass’ book, JFK and the Unspeakable. After updating and arraying the abundant evidence, and conducting still more interviews, Douglass concludes the answer is Yes.

SOURCE: http://www.counterpunch.org/mcgovern12302009.html


Ray McGovern was an Army officer and CIA analyst for almost 30 year. He now serves on the Steering Group of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity. He is a contributor to Imperial Crusades: Iraq, Afghanistan and Yugoslavia, edited by Alexander Cockburn and Jeffrey St. Clair (Verso). He can be reached at: rrmcgovern@aol.com

***

P.S.
It was Wolfowitz and his boss, DoD Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, who had proposed an immediate attack on Iraq at an emergency National Security Council meeting on the day after the destruction of the World Trade Center.






Saturday, December 26, 2009

IF THESE THINGS DON'T EXIST THEN I'M LOOKING FOR SOME SERIOUS SEED MONEY TO GET THE BALL ROLLING

1. Eyeglass lenses that will project 180 degree view of what is in front and behind. The apparatus would require some type of feature whereby the rear view is transmitted to the front portion of the eyewear. I'll come up with a nifty name later.

2. I want to build a computer keyboard "table" that will the cover the keyboard when I want a flat surface to write or draw on. I shall name it the tabula rasa.

3. This next is probably already available: A camera that is "built" inside binoculars that will take pictures of what is being viewed.

Friday, December 25, 2009

ANGELUS


He took that large buzzing
Fly in a carefully closed
Hand

And walked to the backdoor.

He opened his fist
And threw its bright blue buzzing
At the full moon

And Christ was born
The next morning.

Thursday, December 24, 2009

JOSE JESUS AND MARIA




This is a story about three illegal Mexican squirrels…Jose, Jesus and Maria.
A hidden microphone recorded their words as they made their way into the United States.


Jose:
Jesus and Maria, it sure is getting stuffy inside these coat pockets.

Maria:
Si.

Jesus:
Si.

Jose:
I wonder where we are going?

Maria:
Maybe Disneyland?

Jesus:
Maybe the Holy Land…Or the place that’s called the Big Apple.

Jose:
Don't mention food. I'm starving!

Maria:
Yes, me too.

Jesus:
If I had a fish and some bread I’d make enough for all of us.

Jose:
Oh, come on Jesus, don't play that game again.

Maria:
Right. You aren't the messiah you think you are. You’re just another rodent.

Jesus:
O.K. I know I've got some hang ups, but getting hanged isn't one of them.

Jose:
Oh, now he's the comedian.

Maria:
Hey, be quiet. I hear something.

Jose:
Me too!

Jesus:
I think we're at the border crossing. Quick! Deeper into the pockets!

Immigration Official:
Hello, sir. Your nationality?

Man:
Mexican.

Immigration Official:
Anything to declare?

Man:
Yes. I have three striped squirrels.

Immigration Official:
What is the purpose of their visit?

Man:
Jose and Maria are going to Disneyland.
Jesus wants to visit the Holy Land and your Big Apple.

Immigration Official:
My Big Apple? Oh, you mean New York.

Man:
Si.

Immigration Official:
O.K. Welcome to the United States.

Jose, Jesus and Maria:
Gee, that was a breeze. How did you do it?

Man:


You forget. I’m the son of God.


MeRRy
ChrisTmAs!

Wednesday, December 23, 2009

SEASON'S GREETINGS



President Obama is trying to do good.

Bush didn't try very hard at much of anything.

Except for taking vacations.

One could say that Bush was on a death panel and death trip the entire time of his Decidership.

***

Bush laughed and lied.

President Obama has the world supporting him.

Bush did not.

Bush got "support" from Islamic suicide bombers.

***

Both Presidents used our tax dollars to bail out "financial institutions" so that they could continue to give us OUR money.

"What? What!!"

as David Letterman says.

But only one so far deserves to be placed in a "mental institution".

***

Bush depressed the world.

Obama IS trying to make it a little more hopeful.

(Except for the escalation in Afghanistan.)

Just being able to speak English better than the Decider
makes us less hateful and sad.

Fewer people want to kill us.

Go Obama!

Hang in there!

Time for 0ne more
What!

Dick Cheney...

Conservative of the Year?

Just what did he *conserve?

LIES AND DECEPTION?

[*conserve: verb=save, protect]

Thursday, December 17, 2009

OLD FEATHERS NEW PECKERS AND THE SAME OLD HAT




WAR


"WAR is a racket. It always has been. It is possibly the oldest, easily the most profitable, surely the most vicious. It is the only one international in scope. It is the only one in which the profits are reckoned in dollars and the losses in lives."

Smedley Butler, Major General, United States Marine Corps [Retired], awarded two congressional medals of honor and the distinguished service medal.

Hardly any squeaks, squeals, or squawks were made when George W. Bush---The Liar-Decider---Pre-Emptively bombed Iraq based on false and fabricated propaganda [that Bush and his minions constantly "catapulted"], nor was there any noise when Bush awarded Congressional Medals to his war dogs.

Granted, Barack Obama hasn't brought peace and prosperity (yet) to America or the World...but WHO could have, after 8 long years of corruption, lies, and bankrupting the country and the ecosystem.

So, the Nobel Prize was given, I believe, on the basis of the enormous effect that Barack Obama's vision and words have had on the world which George W. Bush and cabal had poisoned and decimated for 8 years.

September 11 was allowed to happen on Bush & Cabal's WATCH...warnings of this attack were ignored by Bush…AND Clinton.

Don't blame it on the rain or cards.

The country wasn't too safe prior to 9-11, and some believers think that the attack was some kind of false-flag operation to ENABLE Bush & Cabal to do what they did.

Obama is trying to undo, turn around, and rectify what the Bush gang (O.K. I meant Cabal) did to our nation and the world…AND HE GAVE US change:
He changed the war from Iraq to Afghanistan.

Uh-oh.

Hope just flew out the window and left town.

War is Big Business.




DRUGS


1.

Money!
Money!
Money!

Governments constantly talk about fighting the war on drugs.

But drugs and guns are more profitable than bread and butter.

A lot of money is made from NOT legalizing or decriminalizing drugs.

Drug cartels and pharmaceutical companies do not want ANY interference or competition with their legitimized and legalized drug trade.

Organized crime is not much different from disorganized crime.


2.
The Pharmaceutical companies (with hands inside the lined pockets of the FDA) are one of the main reasons that the other drugs are prohibited.

Drug Cartels and Drug companies dwell in similar and shameful beds of profits.

"You sell your new, fancy-named drugs with all of their horrible side-effects---and make your billions---and we'll continue to sell our 'drugs'".

3.
Congress seems intimidated by the powerful lobbies of the Pharmaceutical Corporations and the Drug Cartel "lords".

Barack Obama could be a turning point in this old argument about ending this prohibition of illegal drugs, but we shouldn't hold our breaths.

4.
The FDA approves legal drugs even when adequate testing is not made.

Example:

Aspartame=
a.k.a. NutraSweet)
a.k.a. PHENYLALAINE
a.k.a. PHENYLKETONURICS.

This last strange-sounding ingredient is so small on packaging where it lies (with an emphasis on lies) that you can barely see it.
Just hearing the word PHENYLKETONURICS makes me feel as if I'm hearing an extraterrestrial language.

Google Apartame dangers and your consciousness will be awakened to its dangers.

I am not so much condoning or encouraging the use of marijuana [or any drug for that matter], as I am condemning the obscene reality of what drug prohibition is doing to Afghanistan, Mexico...THE WORLD!


Legalize ALL DRUGS...
Not just the ones that the rich Dr. Jekylls approve, regulate, and sell.

Don't get me wrong, there are some honest doctors and scientists, and there are some very useful and life-saving "legal" medicines.

But end the "PROHIBITION".

I heard someone say that if the poppy-growers in Afghanistan were under International controls and regulations, then the entire world would benefit from cheaper and safer opiates.

The "poppy farmers" would survive...
The Taliban would die.

But to stay alive and in business---and to continue making their billions and billions---pharmaceutical companies and military corporations want to continue fighting their wars on drugs and "terrorists", and the Drug Cartel thugs continue to be ecstatic and murderous.

And so the insidious serpent continues to eat its inveterate tail.



POLITICS


GOD only knows what is going to happen.

The President of the United States could have been Mr. McCain, Mr. Magoo, or Donald Duck, and the U.S. and the world would still be about where each is right now.

At first, Obama gave more hope than the previous dissembling Cheney-Bush cabal.

Barack was eloquently placating and reasoning, not pre-emptively boasting and bombing.

But the escalation in Afghanistan has changed hope into despair.

The invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan were approved by both U.S. political parties after being bred and hatched by NeoCons.

These wars (and others) are produced and sponsored by the Military-Industrial-Petroleum Complex.

They have put America where it is.

I began to be more hopeful when Barack Obama was elected than I had been with the dissembling Cheney-Bush gang.

We have inherited the sins, bad deeds, and deep debts of our fathers.

We are reaping what we have sowed.

Blame is easy.

Change is not.

The banks, the credit card companies, the Vatican, Saudi Arabia, Iran, China..
Any country...

Any individual---

In fact, the entire pageantry and history of the world has been "beholden" to gold, riches and MONEY.

I would be disingenuous to say that I was any different, though I treasure poetry more.

America has trod a treacherous and murderous road for decades.

We benefit at the marketplace because goods are so cheap.

Commodities are made "cheaply" in Indonesia, China etc, in order for us to buy them cheaply here.

When I was growing up the joke was always to point out the "Made in Japan" labels.

Today I am glad when I see anything that is Made in America!

This country is borrowing (and has borrowed) itself to near economic collapse in order to finance its wars (big and small).

It is not good that we have become less self-sufficient over-consumers.

Is Globalization Democratization?
(Is Democratization really a word?)

America has helped many nations.

America has been both a benevolent and bellicose nation---

For Good and Bad---
Beautiful and ugly.

All empires rise and fall.

America is (or was?) an empire.



Saturday, December 12, 2009

READING BETWEEN THE LINES OF WAR AND PEACE




Following is a very abbreviated and edited version of President Obama's speech at the Nobel Peace Prize ceremony in Oslo on Wednesday, December 9, 2009. Words between brackets are by Mad Plato.

NOTE:
Yes, President Obama's speech was well-written,
"But he has unwittingly stacked the deck in favor if [sic] the military-industrial complex by adopting Bushian rhetoric at key junctures--speaking of enemies as 'evil,' militarizing the response to terrorism, and asserting false equivalences that help make war seem inevitable. Obama has yet to decide whether he is a visionary or a technocrat. The prize committee hoped for the former. In this speech they got the latter."
Professor Juan Cole


Your Majesties, Your Royal Highnesses, distinguished members of the Norwegian Nobel Committee, citizens of America, and citizens of the world
[And all extraterrestrials]:

I receive this honor with deep gratitude and great humility. It is an award that speaks to our highest aspirations---that for all the cruelty and hardship of our world, we are not mere prisoners of fate. Our actions matter, and can bend history in the direction of justice
[Or tragedy, more blood, and more death].

And yet I would be remiss if I did not acknowledge the considerable controversy that your generous decision has generated.
(Laughter.)
In part, this is because I am at the beginning, and not the end, of my labors on the world stage
[Thank you Mr. Shakespeare].
Compared to some of the giants of history who've received this prize
[Am I saying that I'm a giant?]
---Schweitzer and King; Marshall and Mandela---my accomplishments are slight
[But not slanted].

But perhaps the most profound issue surrounding my receipt of this prize is the fact that I am the Commander-in-Chief of the military of a nation in the midst of two wars. One of these wars is winding down. The other is a conflict that America did not seek [But whose seeds were planted and then once sown, the devastating debris of fallen NY Towers quickly removed to conceal evidence. Why?];
one in which we are joined by 42 other countries---including Norway---in an effort to defend ourselves and all nations from further attacks.
[Is this accurate? Are we a world power who cannot protect our own borders, but must invade, occupy, and fight others in their own country? Can’t we stop insurgents at our ports and borders? Why should we expend dollars and blood on foreign soil instead of keeping both on our own shores?].

Still, we are at war [and making war], and I'm responsible for the deployment of thousands of young Americans to battle in a distant land. Some will kill, and some will be killed. And so I come here with an acute sense of the costs of armed conflict---filled with difficult questions about the relationship between war and peace, and our effort to replace one with the other.
[But War will be the Victor over Peace…and I will wax poetic and philosophical about this.]

Now these questions are not new. War, in one form or another, appeared with the first man
[Well, men made it appear. It wasn’t just spontaneous magic].

At the dawn of history, its morality was not questioned
[But how can we know this? You and I weren’t there];
it was simply a fact, like drought or disease---the manner in which tribes and then civilizations sought power and settled their differences.

And over time, as codes of law sought to control violence within groups, so did philosophers and clerics and statesmen seek to regulate the destructive power of war [Here we go again, the government regulating something!].

The concept of a "just war" emerged, suggesting that war is justified only when certain conditions were met: if it is waged as a last resort or in self-defense
[But is the current “war” in Afghanistan either of these?];
if the force used is proportional,
[Proportional to what and whom? Are drones which kill citizens a proportional

force?];
and if whenever possible civilians are spared from violence
[This is the same thing that is always droned about when discussing the topic of war].

Of course, we know that for most of history, this concept of "just war" was rarely observed
[And we seem to continue to practice this concept].

The capacity of human beings to think up new ways to kill one another proved inexhaustible, as did our capacity to exempt from mercy those who look different or pray to a different God. Wars between armies gave way to wars between nations
[And in the not so distant future…between other worlds!]---
total wars in which the distinction between combatant and civilian became blurred.
In the wake of such destruction, and with the advent of the nuclear age, it became clear to victor and vanquished alike that the world needed institutions to prevent another world war.
[But what was really needed was to throw the Masters of War INTO INSTITUTIONS!]

And so, a quarter century after the United States Senate rejected the League of Nations---an idea for which Woodrow Wilson received this prize---America led the world in constructing an architecture to keep the peace: a Marshall Plan and a United Nations, mechanisms to govern the waging of war, treaties to protect human rights, prevent genocide, restrict the most dangerous weapons
[And how successful was this architecture?].

Yes, terrible wars have been fought, and atrocities committed. But there has been no Third World War.
[But this is because it might mean the end of Civilization as we know it.]
The Cold War ended with jubilant crowds dismantling a wall
[Just not Pink Floyd’s Wall].

Commerce has stitched much of the world together.
[But Frankenstein is still ALIVE!]

And yet, a decade into a new century, this old architecture is buckling under the weight of new threats. The world may no longer shudder at the prospect of war between two nuclear superpowers, but proliferation may increase the risk of catastrophe. Terrorism has long been a tactic, but modern technology allows a few small men with outsized rage to murder innocents on a horrific scale
[And, if necessary, allows a few big men with outsized rage to murder innocents on an even more horrific and technological scale].

Moreover, wars between nations have increasingly given way to wars within nations. The resurgence of ethnic or sectarian conflicts; the growth of secessionist movements, insurgencies, and failed states---all these things have increasingly trapped civilians in unending chaos.
[And trapped us as we continue to invade, occupy, and inspire new insurgents in these nations.]

In today's wars, many more civilians are killed than soldiers; the seeds of future conflict are sown, economies are wrecked, civil societies torn asunder, refugees amassed, children scarred
[But we shall remain in Afghanistan!].

I do not bring with me today a definitive solution to the problems of war.
[I am not a Messiah as some have accused me to be.]

What I do know is that meeting these challenges will require the same vision, hard work, and persistence of those men and women who acted so boldly decades ago. And it will require us to think in new ways about the notions of just war and the imperatives of a just peace
[But not just to think, but to continue to act upon these new ways of war. It’s peace that we’re thinking about.]

We must begin by acknowledging the hard truth: We will not eradicate violent conflict in our lifetimes.
[Let’s be realists, not pessimists, optimists, or pacifists.]

There will be times when nations---acting individually or in concert
[with music blasting loud and ugly]---will find the use of force not only necessary but morally justified
[But is force necessary, moral, or effective in Afghanistan?].

I make this statement mindful of what Martin Luther King Jr. said in this same ceremony years ago: "Violence never brings permanent peace. It solves no social problem: it merely creates new and more complicated ones."
[Won’t this also occur in Afghanistan?]

As someone who stands here as a direct consequence of Dr. King's life work, I am living testimony to the moral force of non-violence. I know there's nothing weak---nothing passive ---nothing naïve---in the creed and lives of Gandhi and King.
[But their creeds will not win wars!]

But as a head of state sworn to protect and defend my nation, I cannot be guided
[Or ruled]
by their examples alone. I face the world as it is, and cannot stand idle in the face of threats to the American people. For make no mistake: Evil does exist in the world. A non-violent movement could not have halted Hitler's armies. Negotiations cannot convince al Qaeda's leaders to lay down their arms. To say that force may sometimes be necessary is not a call to cynicism---it is a recognition of history
[And historical inevitability];
the imperfections of man and the limits of reason.

Furthermore, America---in fact, no nation---can insist that others follow the rules of the road if we refuse to follow them ourselves.
[Rules like not using WMD whether they be Nuclear Weapons or Depleted Uranium].

For when we don't, our actions appear arbitrary
[Are you listening Dick Cheney and George W. Bush?]
and undercut the legitimacy of future interventions, no matter how justified.

And this becomes particularly important when the purpose of military action extends beyond self-defense or the defense of one nation against an aggressor
[When it is for securing the flow of oil and the protection of Israel].

More and more, we all confront difficult questions about how to prevent the slaughter of civilians by their own government, or to stop a civil war whose violence and suffering can engulf an entire region.
[Why do WE have to confront these questions that are not our problem, but ones which we in fact may have engendered?]

I believe that force can be justified on humanitarian grounds, as it was in the Balkans, or in other places that have been scarred by war. Inaction tears at our conscience and can lead to more costly intervention later. That's why all responsible nations must embrace the role that militaries with a clear mandate can play to keep the peace.

[The foregoing was again a variation on the theme of War is Peace and Peace is War.]

I understand why war is not popular, but I also know this: The belief that peace is desirable is rarely enough to achieve it. Peace requires responsibility.
[And War]
Peace entails sacrifice.
[And DEATH]

Let me make one final point about the use of force. Even as we make difficult decisions about going to war, we must also think clearly about how we fight it [Drones…Depleted Uranium…Phosphorous bombs…].

The Nobel Committee recognized this truth in awarding its first prize for peace to Henry Dunant---the founder of the Red Cross, and a driving force behind the Geneva Conventions.
Where force is necessary, we have a moral and strategic interest in binding ourselves to certain rules of conduct. And even as we confront a vicious adversary that abides by no rules, I believe the United States of America must remain a standard bearer in the conduct of war.
[If we can be number one in Basketball we can be number one in War.]

That is what makes us different from those whom we fight. That is a source of our strength. That is why I prohibited torture. That is why I ordered the prison at Guantanamo Bay closed. And that is why I have reaffirmed America's commitment to abide by the Geneva Conventions. We lose ourselves when we compromise the very ideals that we fight to defend.
[We can fight, and will. We can fight with dignity and "by the rules."]
(Applause.)

And we honor ---we honor those ideals by upholding them not when it's easy, but when it is hard.
[Just like the saying says, "War is Hell."]

I have spoken at some length to the question that must weigh on our minds and our hearts [And our wallets] as we choose to wage war. But let me now turn to our effort to avoid such tragic choices, and speak of three ways that we can build a just and lasting peace.
.
One urgent example is the effort to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons, and to seek a world without them. In the middle of the last century, nations agreed to be bound by a treaty whose bargain is clear: All will have access to peaceful nuclear power; those without nuclear weapons will forsake them; and those with nuclear weapons will work towards disarmament.
[And so why did we allow and help India to obtain Nuclear Weapons?]

Let us reach for the world that ought to be---that spark of the divine that still stirs within each of our souls
[And which will continue to ignite, combust, and fuel War as we wax philosophical and poetical on Peace].
(Applause.)

Clear-eyed, we can understand that there will be war, and still strive for peace.
[Hold these two thoughts in your mind at the same time...War and Peace…War is Peace…Peace is War.]

We can do that---for that is the story of human progress; that's the hope of all the world; and at this moment of challenge, that must be our work here on Earth
[Heaven can and must wait].

Thank you very much.
(Applause.)



IT'S THE ELECTION STUPID!


***




The Road to Re-Election Runs Through Kabul?

Comment

By Christian Parenti

December 7, 2009


The real goals of the Afghanistan escalation are domestic and electoral. Like Lyndon Johnson, who escalated in Vietnam, Obama lives in mortal fear of being called a wimp by Republicans.

To cover his flank and look tough in the next US election, Obama is expanding the war in Afghanistan. To look strong in front of swing voters, he will sacrifice the lives of hundreds of US soldiers, allow many more to be horribly maimed, waste a minimum of $30 billion in public money and in the process kill many thousands of Afghan civilians.
It is political theater, nothing else. What are the other possible explanations for Obama's escalation? And why has he pledged to start drawing down the new deployment after only a year of fighting?
Is it to get the job done? To rebuild Afghanistan? To kill Osama bin Laden and crush Al Qaeda? No, all those goals are nearly impossible. And Al Qaeda is too small and internationally defused to destroy.
Some say the Afghanistan war and the escalation are about building a pipeline to export gas from Central Asia. Nonsense--only a maniac would invest large sums of money in building a pipeline there. In the late 1990s the Argentine firm Bridas and the US firm Unocal jockeyed for the right to build such a project. But that dream, always tentative, has evaporated. It will be many decades, at best, before Afghanistan is safe enough to host a new, foreign-owned gas pipeline.
Others say the Afghanistan war is about establishing US military bases to menace China, Russia and Iran. Indeed, because of its occupations in Iraq and Afghanistan, the US now has bases on either side of Iran and small bases in Central Asia. But these do not require this escalation.
The real purpose of these 30,000 soldiers is to make Obama look tough as he heads toward the next US presidential election.
As a landlocked, underdeveloped, fragmented buffer state with few resources, Afghanistan has long served as a means to get at other issues. Consider the history of how the United States has used Afghanistan.
First, during the cold war Jimmy Carter and then Ronald Reagan used the country as the Soviet "bear trap." Later, George W. Bush used it to trampoline into Iraq. The Bush administration discussed regime change in Iraq at one of its first cabinet meetings. Among other things, the administration wanted direct economic control, and indirect geostrategic control, over Iraq's vast oil wealth. That has been partially accomplished, as witnessed by the recent Exxon and Royal Dutch Shell deals there.
The only credible way into Iraq was via Afghanistan. On September 15, 2001, Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz actually suggested that the United States skip an invasion of Afghanistan and go directly to Iraq. But that would have made coalition-building impossible. After all, Al Qaeda was in the Taliban's Afghanistan.
So, the Afghan invasion was done--but on the cheap, fast and light. And then for eight years Afghanistan festered as the forgotten other war.
Then came the US presidential elections of 2008. Obama promised to end the Iraq War. But living in fear of being called a wimp, he too used Afghanistan. It became a rhetorical charm, political mojo in his masculine war dance: he promised to lose Iraq (withdrawal, or redeployment if you prefer) but to do so while salvaging our national honor by winning the "necessary" war in Afghanistan. In short, he used Afghanistan to show that we was not the soft, meek, scared little Democrat portrayed in GOP spin.
Wait, you say, most Americans want out of Afghanistan! So what?
Presidential elections are not decided by the majority of voters but rather by swing voters, in swing states. By "Reagan Democrats" and "Clinton conservatives." By a sliver of older, whiter, middle- and working-class men and (less so) women, in rural and suburban Ohio, Pennsylvania, Missouri, Tennessee, Michigan, etc.
This demographic has a strong sense of national honor, a fondness for the military, a traditional sense of masculinity and the role of violence in ordering the world, and perhaps a too-simple view of international politics. Obama feels he must go to the polls able to tell them he was not afraid to fight, that he made a good effort in Afghanistan.
Never mind the reality of the war. What will it look like? Nay, what will it feel like to swing voters? Will they believe that the young black president with the funny Muslim name cut and ran?
There is nothing else to Obama's Afghanistan strategy. The war is a lost cause but a useful story. Victory in Afghanistan is re-election in 2012.
But the ghost of LBJ's re-election surrender in 1968 stalks the young president. The irony is that if Obama cannot claim progress and begin drawing down in time, his Afghanistan gamble may backfire and cost him a second term in the White House. And, if the escalated war grinds on and on, the expense--which some speculate could reach hundreds of billions of dollars over ten years--would badly damage Obama's ability to invest in progressive domestic spending.
Whatever the outcome, Obama has made it clear: he is willing to kill to get re-elected.






Thursday, December 10, 2009

SARAH PALIN RICK PERRY AND GLOBAL WARMING




Top Image: McCarty Glacier 1909. (Ulysses Sherman Grant, courtesy of the U.S. Geological Survey)
Bottom Image: McCarty Glacier 2004. (Bruce F. Molnia, courtesy of the National Snow and Ice Data Center/World Data Center for Glaciology, Boulder)
Northwest-looking photograph taken from about 5 miles north of the mouth of the McCarty Fjord, Kenai Fjords National Park, Alaska.



The soccer-moose mom is now a scientist.

At least in her own blinking mind.

Sarah Palin's carbon footprints are now as large as her eye winks.

Here is Sarah saying that climate change is NOT from humans' own muddy and sooty footprints:

"Kinda doesn't matter at this point...it's real and we need to do something about it."

Actually, Miss Palin is correct.

We do INDEED need to do SOMETHING about it.

But first Sarah needs to do something about her own lack of awareness.

Her opinions on Global Climate Changes are just like her:

fluffy and apocryphal.

Her running mate in 2012 will probably be Texas governor Rick Perry.

They're two green peas in the same pathetic pod.


IT'S THE OIL STUPID!




P.S.

Giant iceberg the size of Luxemberg has broken off from Antarctica

An iceberg the size of Luxembourg - as seen above - has sheared off from the Antarctic - threatening global weather chaos.

Scientists fear it could mean bitterly cold winters in Britain, and the north Atlantic generally, within a decade.

Australian glaciologist Dr Neal Young warned production of cold salty water, which keeps the earth's climate temperate, could be badly hit by the melting ice.

And flooding could become a major problem if the 965-square mile glacier, which holds enough water to fill the River Thames 100 times, moves north and begins to melt.


Wednesday, November 25, 2009

THE ECONOMY OF WAR





There was never a good war or a bad peace.
Benjamin Franklin

If women ran the world we wouldn't have wars, just intense negotiations every twenty eight days.
Robin Williams



***

December 9, 2009

An Open Letter to the Nobel Committee

On Obama's Peace Prize

On December 10, you will award the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize to President Barack Obama, citing “his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between people.” We the undersigned are distressed that President Obama, so close upon his receipt of this honor, has opted to escalate the U.S. war in Afghanistan with the deployment of 30,000 additional troops. We regret that he could not be guided by the example of a previous Nobel Peace Laureate, Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., who identified his peace prize as “profound recognition that nonviolence is the answer to the crucial political and moral question of our time -- the need for man [sic] to overcome oppression and violence without resorting to violence and oppression.”

President Obama has insisted that his troop escalation is a necessary response to dangerous instability in Afghanistan and Pakistan, but we reject the notion that military action will advance the region’s stability, or our own national security. In his peace prize acceptance speech, Dr. King observed that “Civilization and violence are antithetical concepts…man [sic] must evolve for all human conflict a method which rejects revenge, aggression and retaliation.” As people committed to end the occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan, we are filled with remorse by this new decision of our president, for it will not bring peace.

Declaring his opposition to the Vietnam War, Dr. King insisted that “no one who has any concern for the integrity and life of America today can ignore the present war…We must continue to raise our voices and our lives if our nation persists in its perverse ways… We are at the moment when our lives must be placed on the line if our nation is to survive its own folly. Every man [sic] of humane convictions must decide on the protest that best suits his convictions, but we must all protest.”

We pledge ourselves to mobilize our constituencies in the spirit of Dr. King’s nonviolent and committed example. His prophetic words will guide us as we assemble in the halls of Congress, in local offices of elected representatives, and in the streets of our cities and towns, protesting every proposal that will continue funding war. We will actively and publicly oppose the war funding which President Obama will soon seek from Congress and re-commit ourselves to the protracted struggle against U.S. war-making in Iraq and Afghanistan.

We assume that the Nobel Committee chose to award President Obama the peace prize in full awareness of the vision offered by Dr. King’s acceptance speech. We also understand that the Nobel committee may now regret that decision in light of recent developments, as we believe that the committee should be reluctant to present an Orwellian message equating peace with war. When introducing the President, the Committee should, at the very least, exhibit a level of compassion and humility by drawing attention to this distressing ambiguity.

We will do all we can to ensure that popular pressure will soon bring President Obama to an acceptance of the duties which this prize, and even more his electoral mandate to be a figure of change, impose upon him. He must end the catastrophic policies of occupation and war that have caused so much destruction, so many deaths and displacements, and so much injury to our own democratic traditions.

This prize is not a meaningless honor. We pledge, ourselves obeying its call to nonviolent action, to make our President worthy of it.

Jack Amoureux- Board of Directors, Military Families Speak Out
Medea Benjamin- Co-Founder, Global Exchange
Frida Berrigan – Witness Against Torture
Elaine Brower- World Can’t Wait
Leslie Cagan- Co-Founder, United for Peace and Justice
Bob Cooke-Regional Coordinator, Pax Christi USA, Pax Christi Metro, DC and Baltimore
Tom Cornell- Catholic Peace Fellowship
Matt Daloisio – War Resisters League
Marie Dennis – Maryknoll Office for Global Concerns
Laurie Dobson, Director, End US Wars
Mike Ferner- President, Veterans for Peace
Joy First- Convener, National Campaign for Non-Violent Resistance
Sara Flounders – International Action Center
Diana Gibson, Christian Peace Witness
Rabbi Lynn Gottlieb- Shomer Shalom Network for Jewish Nonviolence
David Hartsough- Peaceworkers, San Francisco
Mike Hearington- Georgia Peace & Justice Coalition
Kimber J. Heinz- Organizing Coordinator, War Resisters League
Mark Johnson- Director, Fellowship of Reconciliation
Kathy Kelly- Co-coordinator, Voices for Creative Non-Violence
Leslie Kielson – United for Peace and Justice
Malachy Kilbride- National Campaign for Nonviolent Resistance
Kevin Martin- Executive Director-Peace Action and Peace Action Education Fund
Linda LeTendre – Saratoga [New York] Peace Alliance
Michael McPhearson- Veterens for Peace
Gael Murphy – Co-Founder, Code Pink
Sheila Musaji – The American Muslim
Michael Nagler- Founder, Metta Center for Nonviolence
Max Obuszewski- Pledge of Resistance Baltimore and Baltimore Nonviolence Center
Pete Perry- Peace of the Action
Dave Robinson, Executive Director, Pax Christi
David Swanson- AfterDowningStreet.org
Terry Rockefeller – Families for Peaceful Tomorrows
Samina Sundas – Founding Executive Director, The American Muslim Voice
Nancy Tsou- Coordinator, Rockland Coalition for Peace and Justice
Diane Turco- Cape Codders for Peace and Justice
Marge Van Cleef – Womens International League for Peace and Freedom
Jose Vasquez, Executive Director, Iraq Veterans Against the War
Craig Wiesner- Multifaith Voices for Peace and Justice
Scott Wright, Pax Christi Metro DC - Baltimore
Kevin Zeese- Executive Director, Voters for Peace

Along with delivering this open letter to the Nobel Peace Committee, activists will present it at a rally in Lafayette Square, Washington, D.C. on Saturday, December 12th, 11 – 4, www. enduswar.org



***


December 10, 2009

The Peace Candidate Myth

Yeswecanistan

By WILLIAM BLUM

All the crying from the left about how Obama "the peace candidate" has now become "a war president" ... Whatever are they talking about? Here's what I wrote in this report in August 2008, during the election campaign:

We find Obama threatening, several times, to attack Iran if they don't do what the United States wants them to do nuclear-wise; threatening more than once to attack Pakistan if their anti-terrorist policies are not tough enough or if there would be a regime change in the nuclear-armed country not to his liking; calling for a large increase in US troops and tougher policies for Afghanistan; wholly and unequivocally embracing Israel as if it were the 51st state.

Why should anyone be surprised at Obama's foreign policy in the White House? He has not even banned torture, contrary to what his supporters would fervently have us believe. If further evidence were needed, we have the November 28 report in the Washington Post: "Two Afghan teenagers held in U.S. detention north of Kabul this year said they were beaten by American guards, photographed naked, deprived of sleep and held in solitary confinement in concrete cells for at least two weeks while undergoing daily interrogation about their alleged links to the Taliban." This is but the latest example of the continuance of torture under the new administration.

But the shortcomings of Barack Obama and the naiveté of his fans is not the important issue. The important issue is the continuation and escalation of the American war in Afghanistan, based on the myth that the individuals we label "Taliban" are indistinguishable from those who attacked the United States on September 11, 2001, whom we usually label "al Qaeda". "I am convinced," the president said in his speech at the United States Military Academy (West Point) on December 1, "that our security is at stake in Afghanistan and Pakistan. This is the epicenter of violent extremism practiced by al Qaeda. It is from here that we were attacked on 9/11, and it is from here that new attacks are being plotted as I speak."

Obama used one form or another of the word "extremist" eleven times in his half-hour talk. Young, impressionable minds must be carefully taught; a future generation of military leaders who will command America's never-ending wars must have no doubts that the bad guys are "extremists", that "extremists" are by definition bad guys, that "extremists" are beyond the pale and do not act from human, rational motivation like we do, that we — quintessential non-extremists, peace-loving moderates — are the good guys, forced into one war after another against our will. Sending robotic death machines flying over Afghanistan and Pakistan to drop powerful bombs on the top of wedding parties, funerals, and homes is of course not extremist behavior for human beings.

And the bad guys attacked the US "from here", Afghanistan. That's why the United States is "there", Afghanistan. But in fact the 9-11 attack was planned in Germany, Spain and the United States as much as in Afghanistan. It could have been planned in a single small room in Panama City, Taiwan, or Bucharest. What is needed to plot to buy airline tickets and take flying lessons in the United States? And the attack was carried out entirely in the United States. But Barack Obama has to maintain the fiction that Afghanistan was, and is, vital and indispensable to any attack on the United States, past or future. That gives him the right to occupy the country and kill the citizens as he sees fit. Robert Baer, former CIA officer with long involvement in that part of the world has noted: "The people that want their country liberated from the West have nothing to do with Al Qaeda. They simply want us gone because we're foreigners, and they're rallying behind the Taliban because the Taliban are experienced, effective fighters."

The pretenses extend further. US leaders have fed the public a certain image of the insurgents (all labeled together under the name "Taliban") and of the conflict to cover the true imperialistic motivation behind the war. The predominant image at the headlines/TV news level and beyond is that of the Taliban as an implacable and monolithic "enemy" which must be militarily defeated at all costs for America's security, with a negotiated settlement or compromise not being an option. However, consider the following which have been reported at various times during the past two years about the actual behavior of the United States and its allies in Afghanistan vis-à-vis the Taliban, which can raise questions about Obama's latest escalation:

The US military in Afghanistan has long been considering paying Taliban fighters who renounce violence against the government in Kabul, as the United States has done with Iraqi insurgents.

President Obama has floated the idea of negotiating with moderate elements of the Taliban.

US envoy to Afghanistan and Pakistan, Ambassador Richard Holbrooke, said last month that the United States would support any role Saudi Arabia chose to pursue in trying to engage Taliban officials.

Canadian troops are reaching out to the Taliban in various ways.

A top European Union official and a United Nations staff member were ordered by the Kabul government to leave the country after allegations that they had met Taliban insurgents without the administration's knowledge. And two senior diplomats for the United Nations were expelled from the country, accused by the Afghan government of unauthorized dealings with insurgents. However, the Afghanistan government itself has had a series of secret talks with "moderate Taliban" since 2003 and President Hamid Karzai has called for peace talks with Taliban leader Mohammed Omar.

Organizations like the International Committee of the Red Cross as well as the United Nations have become increasingly open about their contacts with the Taliban leadership and other insurgent groups.

Gestures of openness are common practice among some of Washington's allies in Afghanistan, notably the Dutch, who make negotiating with the Taliban an explicit part of their military policy.

The German government is officially against negotiations, but some members of the governing coalition have suggested Berlin host talks with the Taliban.

MI-6, Britain's external security service, has held secret talks with the Taliban up to half a dozen times. At the local level, the British cut a deal, appointing a former Taliban leader as a district chief in Helmand province in exchange for security guarantees.

Senior British officers involved with the Afghan mission have confirmed that direct contact with the Taliban has led to insurgents changing sides as well as rivals in the Taliban movement providing intelligence which has led to leaders being killed or captured.

British authorities hold that there are distinct differences between different "tiers" of the Taliban and that it is essential to try to separate the doctrinaire extremists from others who are fighting for money or because they resent the presence of foreign forces in their country.

British contacts with the Taliban have occurred despite British Prime Minister Gordon Brown publicly ruling out such talks; on one occasion he told the House of Commons: "We will not enter into any negotiations with these people."

For months there have been repeated reports of "good Taliban" forces being airlifted by Western helicopters from one part of Afghanistan to another to protect them from Afghan or Pakistani military forces. At an October 11 news conference in Kabul, President Hamid Karzai himself claimed that "some unidentified helicopters dropped armed men in the northern provinces at night."

On November 2, IslamOnline.net (Qatar) reported: "The emboldened Taliban movement in Afghanistan turned down an American offer of power-sharing in exchange for accepting the presence of foreign troops, Afghan government sources confirmed. 'US negotiators had offered the Taliban leadership through Mullah Wakil Ahmed Mutawakkil (former Taliban foreign minister) that if they accept the presence of NATO troops in Afghanistan, they would be given the governorship of six provinces in the south and northeast ... America wants eight army and air force bases in different parts of Afghanistan in order to tackle the possible regrouping of [the] Al-Qaeda network,' a senior Afghan Foreign Ministry official told IslamOnline.net."

There has been no confirmation of this from American officials, but the New York Times on October 28 listed six provinces that were being considered to receive priority protection from the US military, five which are amongst the eight mentioned in the IslamOnline report as being planned for US military bases, although no mention is made in the Times of the above-mentioned offer. The next day, Asia Times reported: "The United States has withdrawn its troops from its four key bases in Nuristan [or Nooristan], on the border with Pakistan, leaving the northeastern province as a safe haven for the Taliban-led insurgency to orchestrate its regional battles." Nuristan, where earlier in the month eight US soldiers were killed and three Apache helicopters hit by hostile fire, is one of the six provinces offered to the Taliban as reported in the IslamOnline.net story.

The part about al-Qaeda is ambiguous and questionable, not only because the term has long been loosely used as a catch-all for any group or individual in opposition to US foreign policy in this part of the world, but also because the president's own national security adviser, former Marine Gen. James Jones, stated in early October: "I don't foresee the return of the Taliban. Afghanistan is not in imminent danger of falling. The al-Qaeda presence is very diminished. The maximum estimate is less than 100 operating in the country, no bases, no ability to launch attacks on either us or our allies."

Shortly after Jones's remarks, we could read in the Wall Street Journal:

"Hunted by U.S. drones, beset by money problems and finding it tougher to lure young Arabs to the bleak mountains of Pakistan, al-Qaida is seeing its role shrink there and in Afghanistan, according to intelligence reports and Pakistan and U.S. officials. ... For Arab youths who are al-Qaida's primary recruits, 'it's not romantic to be cold and hungry and hiding,' said a senior U.S. official in South Asia."

From all of the above is it not reasonable to conclude that the United States is willing and able to live with the Taliban, as repulsive as their social philosophy is? Perhaps even a Taliban state which would go across the border between Afghanistan and Pakistan, which has been talked about in some quarters. What then is Washington fighting for? What moves the president of the United States to sacrifice so much American blood and treasure? In past years, US leaders have spoken of bringing democracy to Afghanistan, liberating Afghan women, or modernizing a backward country. President Obama made no mention of any of these previous supposed vital goals in his December 1 speech. He spoke only of the attacks of September 11, al Qaeda, the Taliban, terrorists, extremists, and such, symbols guaranteed to fire up an American audience. Yet, the president himself declared at one point: "Al Qaeda has not reemerged in Afghanistan in the same numbers as before 9/11, but they retain their safe havens along the border." Ah yes, the terrorist danger ... always, everywhere, forever, particularly when it seems the weakest.

How many of the West Point cadets, how many Americans, give thought to the fact that Afghanistan is surrounded by the immense oil reserves of the Persian Gulf and Caspian Sea regions? Or that Afghanistan is ideally situated for oil and gas pipelines to serve much of Europe and south Asia, lines that can deliberately bypass non-allies of the empire, Iran and Russia? If only the Taliban will not attack the lines. "One of our goals is to stabilize Afghanistan, so it can become a conduit and a hub between South and Central Asia so that energy can flow to the south ...", said Richard Boucher, Assistant Secretary of State for South and Central Asian Affairs in 2007.

Afghanistan would also serve as the home of American military bases, the better to watch and pressure next-door Iran and the rest of Eurasia. And NATO ... struggling to find a raison d'être since the end of the Cold War. If the alliance is forced to pull out of Afghanistan without clear accomplishments after eight years will its future be even more in doubt?

So, for the present at least, the American War on Terror in Afghanistan continues and regularly and routinely creates new anti-American terrorists, as it has done in Iraq. This is not in dispute even at the Pentagon or the CIA. God Bless America.

William Blum is the author of Killing Hope: U.S. Military and CIA Interventions Since World War II, Rogue State: a guide to the World's Only Super Power. and West-Bloc Dissident: a Cold War Political Memoir.


***

Label me as a liberal, left-wing Democrat---which I'm not.

I'm actually an independent, investigative, free-thinker.

Or I at least attempt to be.

And here's what I've been thinking.

The continuation and escalation of the "war" in Afghanistan is mostly about making money.

Yes, I know, the U.S. and NATO are a buffer between nuclear-armed India and Pakistan.

But the U.S. is not fighting terrorism in Afghanistan as much as it is keeping a foothold and defensive presence in this oily section of the world.

The American economy---at least in the area of jobs---is dismal.

War pumps up an economy.

War creates jobs and destruction.

More jobs for construction result from destruction.

Bombs and bullets.

Tanks and missiles.

Drones, drones, drones...

Use 'em or lose 'em.

Use them in order to make more.

It's good for business.

You can't make a lot of money if you don't make a lot of war.

War is a perpetual monster.

A country has wars not only to keep its rich masters of war rich, but also to keep its citizens employed, fed, clothed, and most importantly---

Distracted and Entertained
!

"Go ahead, tax me, fight your wars...as long as I can keep my computer and TV!"


By M.L. Squier


IT'S THE OIL STUPID!


***


War, it ain't nothing but a heartbreaker
War, it's got one friend

That's the undertaker
Ooooh, war, has shattered
Many a young mans dreams

Made him disabled, bitter and mean
Life is much too short and precious
To spend fighting wars these days

War can't give life

It can only take it away

Ooooh, war, huh
Good God y'all
What is it good for
Absolutely nothing Say it again...

From WAR by Edwin Starr



***



From Wrestling With the Question of Afghanistan

Obama as Hamlet

By GARY LEUPP

November 24, 2009

http://www.counterpunch.org/leupp11242009.html

It would be so easy, and there would be enormous support for a clear statement of a withdrawal plan. But it’s widely predicted that Obama will bow to the demand of Gen. Stanley McChrystal, U.S. commander in Afghanistan, for tens of thousands of more troops, raising the issue of who really runs this country and what issues are really involved in Afghanistan. Does the Turkmenistan-Afghanistan-Pakistan-India natural gas pipeline from the Caspian Sea to the Indian Ocean, bypassing both Russia and Iran, have anything to do with it?

All the wrestling with the arguments about the absence of al-Qaeda in Afghanistan and the increase in U.S. forces actually strengthening the Taliban and the distastefulness of having American soldiers dying for Karzai’s bogus regime ends when the pale cast of thought turns to serious imperialist geopolitics. Forgive my language but Obama is a traditional bourgeois politician who with his State Department identifies corporate U.S. interests as “national” interests and probably can be persuaded that they’re worth fighting for. Or rather, using U.S. troops to fight and die for.

Whether he gives McChrystal the 40,000 he wants or a smaller force, it will be doomed to contribute to the current 922 military fatality figure. Soon 1000 will have died fighting illiterate tribesman deeply angered at their presence in their valleys which have resisted countless ill-considered incursions for over 2300 years. Will the standard-bearer of change and hope still be pacing his office, wrestling with the question then?


***


From “Who Will Protest Obama’s War?”
by Justin Raimondo
November 25, 2009

Here’s Matt Yglesias, over at the Center for American Progress---the epicenter of Obama worship---musing over the prospect of a "war surtax":

"I’d like to see Paul Krugman or other advocates of more stimulus weigh-in on whether debt-financed escalation of military effort would have a beneficial impact on the labor market situation. I think it’s deplorable that U.S. political culture tends to regard military-related appropriations as exempt from normal budgetary considerations, but it’s possible that that’s a loophole worth taking advantage of in this case. All those new weapons purchases the Pentagon doesn’t want to estimate are manufacturing jobs for someone, right? Obviously this shouldn’t the primary consideration in dictating military strategy, but I do think a comprehensive look at the macroeconomic impact of defense policy choices – both the costs and benefits of hugely expensively military undertakings – is a necessary element of the strategic consideration."

How to balance the costs of the Afghan war – the thousands of Afghan and American lives lost, the horrific destruction wreaked on Afghan society, the screams of the horribly wounded, and the tears of mourners – against what Yglesias and his fellow Keynesians imagine will be the "benefits" of spending all that government moolah and doling it out to their political allies and corporate patrons?
These soulless policy wonks may believe this kind of calculus has no moral import, but for the rest of the human race the profoundly immoral and frankly repulsive nature of this arithmetical exercise is readily apparent. Yglesias himself has criticized our policy in Afghanistan and is skeptical of plans to escalate the conflict, yet he unhesitatingly unpacks the doctrine of military Keynesianism in order to advance his big-government agenda. He may think this is harmless, but as John T. Flynn presciently pointed out as World War II was ending:

"The great and glamorous industry is here – the industry of militarism. And when the war is ended the country is going to be asked if it seriously wishes to demobilize an industry that can employ so many men, create so much national income when the nation is faced with the probability of vast unemployment in industry. All the well-known arguments, used so long and so successfully in Europe … will be dusted off – America with her high purposes of world regeneration must have the power to back up her magnificent ideals; America cannot afford to grow soft, and the Army and Navy must be continued on a vast scale to toughen the moral and physical sinews of our youth; America dare not live in a world of gangsters and aggressors without keeping her full power mustered … and above and below and all around these sentiments will be the sinister allurement of the perpetuation of the great industry which can never know a depression because it will have but one customer – the American government to whose pocket there is no bottom."

The economic benefits Yglesias points to, however, come with some strings attached. As Flynn accurately predicted:

"Embarked … upon a career of militarism, we shall, like every other country, have to find the means when the war ends of obtaining the consent of the people to the burdens that go along with the blessings it confers upon its favored groups and regions. Powerful resistance to it will always be active, and the effective means of combating this resistance will have to be found. Inevitably, having surrendered to militarism as an economic device, we will do what other countries have done: we will keep alive the fears of our people of the aggressive ambitions of other countries and we will ourselves embark upon imperialistic enterprises of our own."

Keynesian militarism means a foreign policy shaped by a constant propaganda of fear. In order to justify outsized military spending, it is necessary to conjure threats of comparable stature, but once we take this path, there is no return to normalcy. For our own economic normalcy will come more and more to depend on generating a constant stream of foreign crises and an ever ready supply of enemies who cannot be safely ignored.

There are, in the long run, no net benefits to be had from the policy of military Keynesianism: our debt-driven military buildup can only end in bankruptcy and universal ruin. Yes, in the short run, certain workers and employers do indeed derive benefits from our foreign policy of unrelenting aggression, but their "jobs" are not in any sense productive: indeed, they are engaged in the "business" of wholesale destruction – of human lives and resources – so while their "work" benefits them, it hurts the rest of us immeasurably.

Of course, the Keynesians will have none of this. They believe that if the government pays us to build pyramids, blows up the finished product, and pays us to rebuild them, then they’re "kick-starting" the economy. So why not start a world war – wouldn’t that deliver a swift kick to our stubbornly mulish economy and save the Obamaites’ rapidly sinking political fortunes?

Well, because that would be morally indefensible, now wouldn’t it? Yet that is precisely what the administration is getting ready to do, as the announcement of Obama’s Afghan "surge" looms closer. The president won’t argue that the war will be good for the economy; he’ll leave that dirty job to his proxies over at the Center for American Progress, who, if they do good work, just might get invited to the latest "must attend" White House event.