Mark Stapleton

Ffs! Gulf of Tonkin here we come.

http://www.worldtribune.com/worldtribune/W...n0105_05_01.asp

Thursday, May 1, 2008

Second carrier group deployed to Gulf as U.S. approves plans for Iran counterstrike

LONDON — The U.S. military has drafted and won approval for attack plans ir response to an Iran attack.

Western diplomatic sources said the U.S. military's Central Command has submitted plans for an air and naval strike on Iran. The sources said the plan envisioned escalating tensions that would peak with an Iranian-inspired insurgency strike against U.S. military assets in the Gulf.

Meanwhile, on April 29, a second American aircraft carrier, USS Abraham Lincoln, steamed into the Gulf in what officials termed a show of force. They said the U.S. Navy plans to withdraw a carrier group, USS Harry S. Truman, from the region.

"There is tremendous tactical benefit to us to operate the two side-by-side in restricted space," Lt. Gen. Carter Ham, director of operations at the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said on Wednesday. "We can generate more sorties, some of them strike, some of them reconnaissance, some of them to perform other operations."

"This is not some grand scheme to destroy the Iranian regime and its nuclear program," a source said. "It is a practical plan on how to respond to an Iranian strike or a provocation."

Officials said the Defense Department has sought an update for plans to attack Iran amid what they term its "increasingly hostile role" against the United States. The officials cited the weapons flow to insurgency groups in Iraq as well as confrontations with U.S. ships in the Gulf.

"I have reserve capability, in particular our navy and our air force so it would be a mistake to think that we are out of combat capability," Adm. Michael Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said.

Under the plan approved by the Defense Department, Central Command would be allowed to retaliate for an Iranian attack with U.S. air strikes. The sources said the plan contained a series of options that range from a limited to full-scale attack.

"We are not taking any military elements off the table," Mullen said.

The most comprehensive retaliation would target all Iranian military assets in the Gulf. The sources said the aim of Central Command was to prevent any Iranian attempt to block the Straits of Hormuz, the passage of 40 percent of global oil.

In the second stage, the U.S. Navy and Air Force would strike missile centers and command and control facilities deep in Iran. Much of the strikes would be conducted from the two U.S. Navy carrier strike groups in the Gulf.

If the second stage of the plan is implemented, the sources said, the U.S. military would also target Iran's nuclear weapons program. The sources said all major facilities, including Arak, Bushehr and Isfahan, would be destroyed.

The sources said the Pentagon has not approved a Centcom option to initiate a U.S. strike on Iran's nuclear program. They said that at this point the Pentagon was concern with protecting the huge U.S. Navy presence in the Gulf.

"I believe recent events, especially the Basra operation, have revealed just how much and just how far Iran is reaching into Iraq to foment instability," Mullen said.

Thanks for that post, Jan.

'Western diplomats' and 'Defence Department Officials' kiss my arse.

It's blatant provocation with a desire for war.

America is not fooling anyone except the gullible.

Holland are also a strong chance to win. I'm surprised they are such longshots.

The last Euro held in Germany was won by Holland (1988) and current coach van Basten scored a goal in that game.

Arjen Robben holds the key to their chances. Martin Jol has claimed he is the best Dutch player since Cruyff

http://www.a2bworldcup.com/arjen_robben.html

8 goals in 31 caps is a pretty good strike rate for a midfielder/winger and he has 50 career goals overall.

They've drawn the group of death with Italy and France, but if they catch one of those teams on an off day they could go through and would benefit from the experience, imo.

It took the best part of 200 years for the law to catch up. In Barack Obama's candidacy we are now learning how far America's political culture has come in this regard and how far it still has to go. Because, for all the misty-eyed liberal talk of him ushering in a post-racial era, the past few weeks have seen Obama fighting not just for the nomination but for his patriotic legitimacy. Constantly questioning his national loyalty and obfuscating his religious affiliation, both the media and his opponents have sought to cast him not only as anti-American but un-American and at times even non-American. His bid to transcend race appears to be crashing on the rocks of racism.

"Race is intertwined with a broader notion that he is not one of us," Andrew Kohut, director of the Pew Research Centre, told the New York Times. Pew conducted an extensive examination of voter attitudes, particularly among Democrats who have an unfavourable view of Obama. "They react negatively to people who are seen as different."

The point here is not whether white people are prepared to vote for him. First, they clearly are. Of the 10 whitest states to have voted so far, Obama has won nine. And there are countless reasons why people don't back him that have nothing to do with race - not least that they prefer another candidate on their merits.

At issue is the insidious and racist manner in which his candidacy is now being framed as that of a nefarious, foreign interloper whose allegiance to his country is inherently inauthentic and instinctively suspect.

Some of these charges have long emerged from familiar and predictable places. As early as last year, Rupert Murdoch's Fox News falsely claimed that he had attended an Islamist madrasa while a young boy in Indonesia. When rightwing radio hosts refer to him they generally emphasise and repeat his middle name - Hussein - even though Obama rarely uses it.

But soon these attacks shifted from the political margins to the mainstream. During the recent ABC debate, Obama was grilled about his refusal to wear an American flag tiepin. One of the moderators asked Obama of his former pastor, Jeremiah Wright: "You do believe he's as patriotic as you are?"

Having given up on the African-American vote, the Clintons have clearly decided that it makes more electoral sense to collude with these attacks than it does to raise the tenor of the discussion and challenge them. During the ABC debate, Hillary applauded the line of questioning. "You know, these are problems, I think these are issues that are legitimate and should be explored."

Being foreign, Muslim or unpatriotic should not be treated as slurs. But in a post 9/11 framework, the Clintons know full well how these allusions will be understood and what the consequences might be. When asked whether Obama was a Muslim, Hillary said that he wasn't: "There is nothing to base that on - as far as I know."

Three days after Obama made his landmark speech on race, Bill Clinton said of a potential match-up between Hillary Clinton and McCain: "I think it would be a great thing if we had an election year where you had two people who loved this country and were devoted to the interest of this country. And people could actually ask themselves who is right on these issues, instead of all this other stuff that always seems to intrude itself on our politics." The implication was that Obama doesn't love his country and all this "racial" stuff is just getting in the way.

All this does have an effect. By February, 80% of Americans had heard rumours that Obama was Muslim. Even after the furore over the Rev Wright, one in 10 Democrats still believed this. A recent Pew poll showed that the only character trait on which Obama loses to Clinton is patriotism. Exit polls in Pennsylvania revealed that 18% of Democrats said that race mattered to them in this contest - and just 63% of them said that they would support Obama in a general election.

Unable to beat Obama on delegates and still unlikely to beat him in the popular vote, Hillary Clinton has just one strategy left - to persuade superdelegates that Obama is unelectable. She has tried branding him as inexperienced and slick-tongued, and neither of those have worked. At this stage she has just one argument left: his race. For several months now, her aides have been whispering to whoever would listen that America would never elect a black candidate. In desperation, some are now raising their voices.

But their accusations are not only cynical - by most accounts they also seem to be wrong. It seems they have underestimated the potential of the American electorate. Polls show that in the states won with less than a five-point margin in 2004 Obama does far better than Clinton against McCain.

The problem is not that Hillary Clinton is still in the race. She has every right to be. It is that she is running the kind of race that she is. Having failed to convince voters of the viability of her own candidacy, she is now committed to proving the unviability of his.

Hillary once said it takes a village to raise a child. Now she seems determined to destroy the village in order to save it.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/20...laryclinton.usa

Thanks for this important piece, Gary.

HRC is revealing her character and few people see it. She's already behaving like a dictator who won't accept the verdict of the voters. I haven't seen a US politician lusting for power like this before.

If she becomes #44, it's a worse result than McCain, imo. This is despite the fact that the Republicans are more right wing than the Democrats. HRC doesn't have a shred of integrity while McCain has some.

She has the same duplicitous character as LBJ and she's smart enough to realise that anyone who follows Bush will look good, at least for a while. She would be the final proof that America's political system has failed--and needs urgent change.

An important and terrifying article on the potential consquences of US-Israeli bombing of nuclear facilities in Iran:

Consider the Consequences of Bombing Iran’s Nuclear Power Plants, and Pray

by Floyd Rudmin

Global Research, April 29, 2008

The US government has recently increased the belligerence of its tone towards Iran.

A string of reports in a variety of newspapers suggest war is on the way: the Mail & Guardian April 1, the Rutland Herald April 4, the Telegraph April 7, the International Herald Tribune April 11, the Washington Post April 12, the Washington Times April 16, the Progressive April 24, the Santa Monica Mirror April 24, Asia Times April 25, the International Herald Tribune April 25, the Toronto Star April 25, the Christian Science Monitor April 25, the Washington Post April 26, the Washington Times April 26, First Post April 26, Los Angeles Times April 26, the Washington Times April 26, and the Telegraph April 26.

Two offensive aircraft carriers fleets are now on station near Iran and another is reportedly en route. In late March, Saudi Arabia practiced how it will cope with nuclear fallout following a US attack on Iran. In early April, Israel practiced how it will cope with retaliatory missiles following a US attack on Iran. Everyone in the region is getting ready for the bombing of Iran’s nuclear power plant and enrichment facilities. Iran, too, is ready for war.

The US is said to have 10,000 targets in Iran. Primary among these are all nuclear facilities, including the nuclear power plant at Bushehr on the Persian Gulf coast near Kuwait, and the nuclear enrichment facilities in Natanz near Esfahan. Bushehr is an industrial city, with nearly 1 million residents. As many as 70,000 foreign engineers work in the region, which includes a large gas field. Natanz is Iran’s primary enrichment site, north of Esfahan, which also has nuclear research facilities. Esfahan is a world heritage city with a population of 2 million.

Iran’s Bushehr nuclear reactor has 82 tons of enriched uranium (U235) now loaded into it, according to Israeli and Chinese news reports. The plant is scheduled to become operational this summer, producing electricity. The Natanz enrichment facility is operating a full capacity, enriching uranium for use in reactors according to IAEA reports.

According to the Center for Disease Control, the uranium 235 used in nuclear reactors has a half life of 700 million years. As nuclear reactor fuel is used, it turns into uranium 238, which has a half life of 4.5 billion years. These radioactive isotopes are dangerous to health because they emit alpha particles and because they are chemically toxic. When inhaled, they damage lung tissue. When ingested, they damage kidneys and cause cancer in bones and in liver tissues. According to a recent review of medical research, uranium exposure causes babies to be deformed or born dead.

Never in history has it happened that nuclear power plants and nuclear enrichment facilities have been deliberately bombed. Such facilities, everywhere in the world, operate under severe safety conditions because the release of radioactive materials is deadly, immediately and also long after exposure. If the USA or Israel deliberately bomb a fully fueled nuclear power plant or nuclear fuel enrichment facilities, containment will be breached; radioactive elements will be released into the environment. There will be horrific deaths for families in the surrounding vicinity. The Union of Concerned Scientists has estimated 3 million deaths would result in 3 weeks from bombing the nuclear enrichment facilities near Esfahan, and the contamination would cover Afghanistan, Pakistan, all the way to India.

Reactors and enrichment facilities are built of extra strong concrete, often with multiple layers of containment domes, often built underground. Bombing such facilities will require powerful explosives, earth penetrator war heads, maybe nuclear warheads. The explosions will blow the contamination high into the atmosphere. Where will it go is a question that is difficult to predict.

During the January 1991 Gulf War, many oil wells in Kuwait were set afire. According to the US State Department, “black rains were reported in Turkey, and black snow fell in the foothills of the Himalaya Mountains”. The radioactive plumes from bombing Iran’s nuclear facilities would reach the same destinations, in the same weather conditions. But the radioactive plume might go north, into Europe. During the March 2003 invasion of Iraq by the USA, UK, Australia, and others, armour piercing shells and bombs tipped with depleted uranium (U238) were used. It took 9 days for uranium particles from these weapons in Iraq to reach England, where air sample filters showed a 300% increase in uranium particles attributable to the war. The weather patterns at the time that carried the particles to England passed over central Turkey, the Ukraine, Austria, Poland, Germany, Sweden, and Denmark, to England, then over Norway and Finland to the Arctic. This was reported by The Times, summarizing a study in European Biology and Bioelectromagnetics.

The nuclear fallout from bombing Iran will have a half life of 700 million years. That is a duration difficult to comprehend. Jesus Christ was preaching a mere 2 thousand years ago. In the evolution of humans, our earliest ape-like ancestors were walking upright a mere 5 million years ago. The Bush administration and its Israeli advisors are now planning to contaminate the planet for 700 million years. From the rhetoric of Presidential candidates John McCain and Hillary Clinton, they, too, think that is a good idea. The US media seem to applaud.

Either Americans do not understand what it is they are preparing to do, or they think themselves immune to the consequences. The planet is not large. What goes around, comes around. Smoke from the Gulf War oil fires went around the world and was detected in South America. Radioactive fallout from bombing a nuclear reactor will also go far, especially considering that it has millions of years to make the trip.

The Persian Gulf nations of Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Iraq, and Iran have more than half the world’s known oil reserves. The 1981 study by Fetter and Tsipis in Scientific American on “Catastrophic Releases of Radioactivity” estimated that bombing a nuclear reactor would cause 8600 square miles around the reactor to be uninhabitable, depending on which way the wind blows. Bombing the Bushehr reactor will mean half of the world’s oil is instantly inaccessible. Bombing Iran means that Americans will not be driving cars any where, any more, for a long, long time. The American Way of Life will be finished. An economic collapse unimagined by Americans will follow. Mechanized farming and food transport will be finished. Famine is a possibility. Food riots are a certainty, in the land of plenty, with the fuel gauge on empty.

The nations of the world cannot rely on the USA and its Israeli advisors to be rational about bombing reactors. It is insane to say, “All options are on the table”, and it is a crime against humanity. The USA and Israel are preparing the public to accept such insanity by announcing that they successfully bombed a Syrian nuclear reactor, with no ill effects. Israel has also recently released video of its 1981 bombing of the Osiraq nuclear reactor in Iraq. See, it’s easy. Nothing bad happens. But those were both construction sites, not loaded reactors full of tons of enriched uranium.

Peoples and governments in the Persian Gulf, in the Middle East, in Europe, and down wind in India and China need to take effective actions now to stop this insanity. Once radiation is released, UN resolutions cannot put it back in containment.

Americans with family and friends serving in the military forces in the Persian Gulf, in Iraq, and in Afghanistan need to wonder how expendable the Bush administration considers them to be.

The planet pleads, “Do not bomb nuclear reactors”.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?con...va&aid=8839

Terrifying.

The US/Israel axis is prepared to risk global contamination to destroy Iran's nuclear capability. In other words, habitability of the planet itself has been demoted to collateral status. They've lost their minds.

Not far away now.

Most commentators are tipping Italy, France or Germany. I read one a few months ago predicting Greece might win again. I'm fairly sure England won't win

It is true that England was knocked out of the European Cup but we had three of the four sides in the semi-finals of the Champions League.

Hmm...is that a selection, John, or a thinly disguised attempt at thread hijacking .

Not far away now.

Most commentators are tipping Italy, France or Germany. I read one a few months ago predicting Greece might win again. I'm fairly sure England won't win

I think France will win, even without Zidane.

There's also this:

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/babylonbey...-war-fears.html

It's hard to imagine they would do it.

However,....................................?

Looks like it's nearly go time:

http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/04/25/8529/

I like the bloggers suggestion---millions should take to the streets.

I had another thought.

When the summer time clocks change, there is often one week when the time difference between US Eastern Seaboard Time and UK time is six hours, rather than five.

I don't think September 11 is, or has been, within that summer time transition period when the time differences are out of kilter, Jan.

April to October uniformly in the US in 2001:

http://webexhibits.org/daylightsaving/e.html

The UK in 2001 was March to October, adopted by the EU in 1996.

I concur with the others in thanking you for sharing your info and experiences on this. (and links).

The idea that HRC would retrieve the image of an unthinkable 'worst case scenario' and use it to win the primary is the lowest of tactics. She's a shameless cheap shot artist and worse besides.

But the media's uncritical reporting of this is even worse, imo. It's as if they totally agree with HRC.

And what's wrong with the voters in Pennsylvania? You might be right, John---the Clintons may be right in thinking the electorate has reached a point where bloodlust trumps common sense.

9/11 and the Neo-Con Agenda

Jim Fetzer

Abstract. During a “Freedom Rally” in recognition of Ron Paul, (R-TX) and in opposition to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the founder of Scholars for 9/11 Truth explained why the anti-war movement and the 9/11 truth movement should be more closely linked, since exposing the truth about 9/11 destroys the justification for those wars. While a clip of a part of his presentation has been posted on YouTube, here is a summation (with corrections) of his remarks in Washington, D.C., 15 April 2008. When it comes to 9/11, however, Ron Paul himself, alas!, doesn’t have a clue.

We cannot support the troops by “staying the course” when the Commander-in-Chief is marching them over a cliff.

—Jim Fetzer (15 April 2008)

I speak in praise of Ron Paul, who believes in the Constitution and in ending these illegal and immoral wars, which the Bush administration obviously does not.

There is a crucial link between the anti-war movement and the 9/11 truth movement, because exposing the truth about 9/11 destroys the justification for those wars.

We are told not to discuss conspiracy theories, but if 19 Islamic fundamentalists hijacked four planes, outfoxed the most sophisticated air defense system in the world, and perpetrated these atrocities under the control of a guy in a cave in Afghanistan, then 9/11 involved a conspiracy.

If we can’t talk about conspiracies, we can’t talk about 9/11. Why would this administration want to suppress public discussion of 9/11? To conceal the truth about the war or to conceal the truth about 9/11?

Lies about the War

We were told big lies about the war, including, first, that Saddam was responsible for 9/11. But during a press conference, Bush himself had to admit that Saddam had “nothing” to do with 9/11.

We were told, second, that Saddam was in cahoots with al Qaeda. But several investigations have revealed that not only was Saddam not in cahoots with al Qaeda, but he was actively tracking down its leaders to incarcerate or even kill them.

Moreover, honest generals have told us al Qaeda is not responsible for more than 10% of the opposition to US presence in Iraq and that our presence there is the greatest recruiting tool al Qaeda possesses.

In fact, an admiral—who may face imminent demotion—was quoted in The New York Times (11 April 2008) observing that no more than 40-50 foreign fighters were entering the country each month. How great a threat can that represent?

Political hacks tell us differently. Compare what General William Odom, who is retired, has said, with the words of General David Petraeus, who is not.

Third, we were told that Osama bin Laden was responsible for 9/11. But our FBI—our own FBI!—has acknowledged that it has “no hard evidence” connecting Osama bin Laden to the events of 9/11.

You thought there was “a confession tape”? But in his first video, which is the only one that appears to be authentic, Osama said that he had nothing to do with 9/11 and that the killing of innocent women and children is contrary to the tenets of Islam.

He said that he opposed the presence of US forces in Saudi Arabia, the home of Mecca and Medina—the two most holy sites in Islam—and our one-sided stance regarding the Israeli-Palestinian issue.

The so-called “confession tape” involves a different “Osama” who does not look the same and has a different voice. It is the product of an intelligence agency.

Lies about 9/11

And we have been told lesser lies about 9/11. You don’t have to have read the books of David Ray Griffin to know these things, but it helps.

At the Twin Towers, the fires burned neither long enough nor hot enough to cause the steel to weaken, much less melt. Jet fuel is primarily kerosene, most of which burned up in those spectacular fireballs. If it could have such effects, our Coleman lanterns and camping stoves would melt when we use them.

The towers were pulverized from the top down. Each floor stands motionless awaiting its destruction. They were turned into very fine dust and the buildings were destroyed to below ground level. There were no “pancakes”.

WTC-7 was destroyed by a classic controlled demolition at 5:20 PM. All of its floors fell together in a complete, abrupt, and symmetrical collapse in about 6.5 seconds. When it was over, there was a stack of about 7 floors of “pancakes”. Their modes of demolition were quite different.

Earlier, at 4:57 PM, the BBC reported that WTC-7 had collapsed, 23 minutes before the event occurred. If anyone wonders whether there is any collusion between the intelligence agencies, the government, and the mass media, I cannot imagine a better example.

The Pentagon presents many oddities. Pilots for 9/11 Truth has taken the black box data that the National Transportation Safety Board says came from the plane that hit the building and discovered that the data corresponds to a flight with a different approach and altitude than the official account describes.

It was too high at 300 feet to have taken out any lampposts and, one second from the building, it was 100 feet too high to have impacted with it. Such a plane may have swooped over the Pentagon, but it could not have hit it.

Moreover, two lime-green civilian fire trucks were on the scene almost immediately and extinguished the fires in the first 15-20 minutes. The billowing black clouds that were later observed from the Capitol came from a series of enormous dumpsters in front of the building rather than from the building itself. They were a special effect. We are being played for saps.

Apologists for the government insist that there is so little debris at the crash site in Shanksville because the plane crashed into an abandoned mine shaft!

Well, we know what to do with miners trapped in mine shafts: We bring out the heavy equipment and work non-stop in the hope that someone may have miraculously survived. But that was not done in Shanksville.

An Air Force officer who is an expert on plane crashes, Colonel George Nelson (retired), has told me that it looked to him as though someone had taken a bulldozer, dug a trench, filled it with trash, and blown it up!

We are not alone in our concerns with what we have been told by our government about 9/11. Jesse Ventura and Ralph Nader are two of the latest to join us. If you want to know why hundreds of military officers, intelligence experts, pilots, scientists, and members of the families of survivors support 9/11 truth, visit Patriots Question 9/11.

Why All These Lies?

According to the Center for Public Integrity, prominent members of the administration made nearly 1,000 lies to induce Americans to support a war in Iraq. These were made by George W. Bush, Richard Cheney, Condoleezza Rice, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, and others. Why were they lying to us?

One reason may be because real national security depends upon (a) a sound economy, ( military strength, and © our moral standing in the world. Bush has vitiated all three. (a) The war alone is estimated to run $1-3 trillion and the nation is bankrupt.

These ongoing rotations are ( weakening our military and are not sustainable, as general after general has observed. And if you doubt the morality of this practice, view the film “Stop-Loss”.

By launching wars of aggression in violation of international law, the UN Charter, and the US Constitution, combined with the practice of torture, © the US has lost its moral standing in the eyes of the world. Instead of being the most admired and respected of nations, we are now—together with our ally, Israel—the most despised and reviled.

Since our greatest source of security from attack has been our moral standing, for Bush to describe himself as “the security president” is no more than a sick joke.

The Real Reasons for War

Do they want to conceal the real reasons for going to war? There appear to be three: oil, Israel, and ideology.

OIL: It’s easier to steal their oil than it is to find it ourselves. For a war that was supposed to pay for itself, we are shelling out $1 billion a week for gasoline to move our equipment around in Iraq.

I haven’t heard that ExxonMobile is offering to provide that gas for free to support our troops! Where do you suppose those profits are going?

After Dick Cheney’s latest visit to the Middle East, al Maliki rushed to Basra to oversee an attack on the militia forces of al Sadr. Basra is not just the second largest city in Iraq but sits astride the large oil fields in south and eastern Iraq.

Without pacifying the conflict there, ExxonMobile, Shell, BP and other companies will not be comfortable taking oil from that region. I have no doubt that the Bush-Cheney “benchmark” for success in Iraq is that the country has been pacified sufficiently for that purpose. That’s their bottom line.

ISRAEL. Israel has had a long-standing interest in weakening the influence of its political rivals in the region. Before 9/11, Iraq was the most modern and sophisticated among the Arab states, with a fine national health-care system, a strong program of public education, and an excellent infrastructure.

Anyone who wants to appreciate one of the real reasons for 9/11 should think about a clip of cheering Palestinians that played as the towers were being destroyed.

I asked myself, “Is there an enormous large-screen, outdoor television in the West Bank that would enable Palestinians to view these events as they are happening?”

It turns out to be archival footage from 1993 of rejoicing after some students had given an olive branch to Israeli soldiers and thought that peace was “just around the corner”, which just happened to be introduced at the point of maximum revulsion about what we were seeing on the screen.

IDEOLOGY. An influential group known as “Project for the New American Century” has formulated a plan for creating an empire greater than any the world has ever seen.

Now that the US is the only superpower, they advocated moving aggressively into the Middle East to seize control of its oil, support Israel, and exerting influence outward from that geopolitically strategic area.

Those who signed on to its principles included Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Eliott Abrams, Paul Wolfowitz, “Scotter” Libby, Eliot Cohen, and even Jeb Bush, many of whom assumed powerful positions in the Bush administration.

To get a handle on the “mind set” that drives this conception, which is now being justified as part of the “war on terror”, try reading The Shell Game. It is undemocratic, anti-American, and perverted.

Yet it exerts a powerful grip upon this administration. It is a mind set that must not just be changed but completely destroyed!

When Basra is pacified and that oil is transported, it will be through a series of pipelines that reach the Mediterranean Sea by way of Israel.

“Follow the Money”

The motives for mass murder must have been powerful. What happens when we “follow the money”?

Larry Silverstein took control of the World Trade Center on 24 July 2001 and promptly insured it for $3.5 billion against terrorist attacks. When there were two planes, he claimed “double indemnity” and asked for $7 billion, settling for $4.6. Not bad for a six week’s investment of $114 million.

Security and Exchange Commission records stored in WTC-7 were destroyed when that building was brought down. They not only included documents from the Enron case but many other major investigations of financial and banking interests.

The fines and penalties could have totaled hundreds of millions, even billions. But information necessary to conduct those investigations has now been destroyed.

Donald Rumsfeld acknowledged the day before 9/11 that the Pentagon had lost track of $2.3 trillion. He did that on a Monday, which was very odd for an experienced politician, who would know that reporters would dog him all week and the story would “grow legs”.

Ordinarily, you would wait until Friday with a story like this, hoping that it might be lost among weekend sports and other news. It is as if he knew that something would occur to wipe this from consciousness so he could waltz back into the halls of Congress and ask for hundreds of billions more in defense spending—which is exactly what he did!

Halliburton of course is profiting mightily from $100 billion, no bid, cost-plus contracts, which means that, no matter how much you spend on a project, you can add your profit on top of it.

Dick Cheney still has some 400,000 shares of stock in Halliburton in a not so blind “trust”.

And the gas and oil industry is benefiting immeasurably. Consider the case of Afghanistan as an illustration.

Before 9/11, we negotiated on behalf of Unocal with the Taliban over a pipeline to be built in northern Afghanistan, telling them that if they allowed it, we would bathe them in gold, and if not, we would bathe them in bombs. They didn’t and, after 9/11, we did.

Today that pipeline is under construction, there are two permanent bases ideally positioned to support it, the President of Afghanistan is a former Unocal oil official, and our Ambassador to Afghanistan is another Unocal oil official. This is not rocket science.

Condoleezza Rice asked the Taliban to turn Osama over to the United States for prosecution. They replied that they would do that on the condition that she produce proof that he had been involved. She said she would but never got around to it. She must have more pressing engagements.

What about Israel?

But could Israel have been involved? There are disturbing indications. The five “dancing Israels” were observed on a roof across the Hudson in New Jersey drinking and celebrating as they filmed the destruction of the Twin Towers.

Complaints by neighbors led to their apprehension in a van. The driver told the arresting officer, “We are not your problem. The Palestinians are your problem!” They would be incarcerated for 71 days until an assistant to then-Attorney General John Ashcroft directed that they be released.

They returned to Israel where three of them appeared on Israeli TV and explained they were there to document the destruction of the Twin Towers. Obviously, they could not have done that without knowing the Twin Towers were going to be destroyed.

The man who directed their release was Michael Chertoff, now our Director of Homeland Security, who is a joint US/Israeli citizen.

The Controller of the Pentagon at the time $2.3 trillion went missing was Dov Zokheim, another joint US/Israeli citizen.

Others in the administration with dual citizenship include Paul Wolfowitz, Elliot Abrams, Richard Pearle, Douglas Feith, “Scooter” Libby, Eliot Cohen, and John Bolton. Do any of these names sound familiar?

An especially interesting case is Michael Mukasey, our new Attorney General, who was also the judge on litigation between Larry Silverstein and insurance companies over the events of 9/11.

Who runs this country? About two weeks after 9/11, Ariel Sharon said, “We own America, and the Americans know it”.

If Israel was involved in 9/11, the American people are entitled to know.

Conflicting Loyalties

I will be accused of anti-Semitism for telling you facts in the public domain. But it is not “anti-Semitic” to criticize the state of Israel, the government of the state of Israel, or the policies and actions of the state of Israel.

Anti-Semitism involves discounting or belittling persons on the basis of their religious orientation or their ethnic origins.

It is not anti-Semitic to object to the expansion of illegal settlements, the starvation and killing of the Palestinian people, or the butchering of a peace activist with a bulldozer! For these gross violations of human rights, we have the government of Israel to thank.

We need laws to keep dual citizens from decision-making and policy-shaping positions in the US government. Who knows whose loyalty they respect?

I call upon those with joint citizenship to resign their positions in the interests of the nation—the United States of America!

If you think that’s “in your face”, consider this. Michael Hayden, our Director of the CIA, like General Petraeus, still wears his uniform. That means he is still in the chain of command and under the control of the President as Commander-in-Chief. We are being played for suckers!

I call upon him to resign his commission or to resign his position!

An Attack on Iran?

We who support Ron Paul want to end this war. They want to expand it.

The last time Cheney visited the Middle East, we attacked Iraq. This time may presage an attack on Iran. A Saudi newspaper has reported that the kingdom has been warned to prepare to cope with “sudden nuclear and radioactive hazards”, the source no doubt Cheney himself.

Estimates of casualties run as high as 1 million dead Iranians and as many as 35 million collateral casualties in Afghanistan, Pakistan, and India, who will incur cancer as a result of exposure to radioactivity.

If we—or “our ally”, Israel—undertake such an action, it will be the greatest act of mass murder in history, which will inevitably lead to attacks in kind on the US and on Israel, leading to its annihilation.

Those who would attack Iran are betraying this country. As a former Marine Corps officer, I remind commissioned officers of the American military that they not only have an obligation to refuse illegal orders but have the duty to take into custody those who issue them.

Iran is not in Iraq. Our own National Intelligence Estimate concluded that Iran abandoned its development of nuclear weapons in 2003. It has the right to develop nuclear energy.

Even if it had a bomb, Iran could not use it for offensive purposes without committing national suicide. Israel alone has more than 200 nuclear weapons. Did we learn nothing from the Cold War?

I call upon the officers of our armed forces to take into custody those who would direct the commission of further war crimes.

Parting Reflections

Here in Washington, we have a crime syndicate masquerading as an administration.

And Bush is talking about another 9/11, even suggesting its source!

Someone should sit down and ask him how he could possibly know.

I say, Support the Constitution! Stand with Ron Paul! End these wars! Study 9/11!

And remove these liars, cutthroats, and thieves from office!

The Commander-in-Chief is marching our troops off a cliff!

Enough is enough! Enough is enough!

James H. Fetzer is McKnight Professor Emeritus at the University of Minnesota, Duluth.

James,

You might have the notorious nit picker from hell squawking in the background, but it sounds just about spot-on to me.

I can't help but notice that Jimmy Carter's unilateral mission to visit Hamas, which extracted a promise by Hamas to agree in principle to a two-state solution to the Israel-Palestine problem, has been largely ignored by MSM. Or alternately covered by the likes of Paxman asking Carter: "Would you speak to Al-Qaeda as well?", and an emphasis on Condi Rice's ad hominem attacks on Carter himself for undertaking this initiative. In other words, MSM has largely ignored the momentous, unprecedented, substance of Hamas' statements and concentrated instead on criticizing the process.

Whereas Hillary Clinton gets entirely uncritical top billing for threatening to "obliterate" the men, women and children of Iran.

"In the next 10 years, during which they might foolishly consider launching an attack on Israel, we would be able to totally obliterate them. That's a terrible thing to say but those people who run Iran need to understand that because that perhaps will deter them from doing something that would be reckless, foolish and tragic."

Who needs psyops when MSM's coverage of these crucial matters is framed in such a patently biased manner.

Yes, I agree Jan. The MSM doesn't want any real negotiations or peace for Palestine because the MSM represents the views of the neocons in Washington and Tel Aviv.

How utterly disgraceful and gutless are the mainstream media.

In the West Bank, the Jewish settlements continue at great pace, with Israeli Government approval:

http://mlyon01.wordpress.com/2007/11/09/je...-roadmap-talks/

The justification cited by these cruel and insane fanatics? It's in the bible--God wants us to have this land. Kudos to Jimmy Carter for having a go, at least, but a predictable cold shoulder from the murderers in Tel Aviv and Washington.

As for HRC's tough words, well we all know Iran is planning no such thing and she clearly insulted the intelligence and decieved the voters of Pennsylvania, while sending a plain message to her fellow power elites that it would be business as usual, but with perfume. So what did the voters do? Elected her.

The mainstream media should answer for this.

According to the report issued by the National Academies, the U.S. Climate Change Research Program spends just $30 million a year on examining the impact of global warming on humans. To put that figure in perspective, the United States is spending an estimated $275 million per day on the Iraq war and occupation.

Spending cuts have also resulted in the grounding of earth-observing satellites. The authors of the report state, “The loss of existing and planned satellite sensors is perhaps the single greatest threat to the future success” of climate research.

That says it all. Talk about screwed up priorities. I share your concerns about all these issues, Peter.

Another worry is the possibility of the Gulf Stream shutting down, which could usher in a mini ice age in Northern Europe, possibly as early as 2010:

http://discovermagazine.com/2002/sep/cover

Why did we suddenly appear, a mere 60.000 odd years ago (barely yesterday on the evolutionary timeline) and proceed to destroy the ecological harmony of the planet? Worth it's own thread, imo. The ultimate conspiracy theory.

Mark, I hesitate to mention this because Steve Turner hails from Lowestoft and that, alone, is more than enough of a burden to load on his shoulders.

But the earliest evidence of civilization in the UK (long since evaporated, I know) and, indeed Europe, dates back 700,000 years. This early humanid is known affectionately as "LOWESTOFT MAN".

You see the cause of my concern.

So to summarize, man irrupted in Lowestoft, proceeded to inhabit the planet, killing it with the infection he inherently carried as he went.

If you've ever been to Lowestoft on a saturday night you'll understand...

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article764618.ece

Ha. Thanks for that info, David.

Homo heidelbergensis, Homo antecessor, Homo sapiens etc. Why do scientists insultingly refer to us all as Homos?

I still don't understand why evolution would propel our intelligence so far, so quickly and much further than we need to survive.

I guess this thread had ventured far off course. Thankfully this has escaped censure from Homo Moderatus. I'll save further rambling prognostications for later while I sally forth to work lest I be reclassified as Homo Unemploydus.

I removed an offensive word, Jack. The phrase removed was "the *$#@*" and I replaced it with "Clinton".

"*$#@*" in the previous sentance is a swear word, which has one meaning of a female dog.

Give Jack a break, Evan.

 Short of that, we are only documenting, for far

into 

the future, to some visiting alien civililization, the endgame of Homo ovis.

Ah yes, now there's an interesting topic. Perhaps they have already visited and will return for a review. Why are we so much more intelligent than all other species we share the planet with? Why is this massive disparity in intelligence required? Why would evolution do such a thing? Perhaps it has a sense of humor. Why do humans have so much trouble giving birth, potentially life-threatening, while the other species rarely have a problem? Why hasn't the evolutionary link connecting homo sapiens and apes ever been positively established? Why did we suddenly appear, a mere 60.000 odd years ago (barely yesterday on the evolutionary timeline) and proceed to destroy the ecological harmony of the planet? Worth it's own thread, imo. The ultimate conspiracy theory.

Getting back to the topic of politics, I tend to share the pessimism expressed by David. A harmonious global civilisation seems to be an idealistic goal which none of the current political systems can deliver. Human nature itself appears to be the problem--the greed and stupidity Maggie alluded to. It's part of our genetic makeup, unfortunately.

Previous generations had the luxury of discussing politics under the backdrop of a stable planet yielding virtually unlimited energy and wealth. Things have changed. We know the planet can't sustain the existing population, let alone the extra 3 billion projected by 2050. We've hit the wall. The energy and climate crisis have to be factored into the global political debate--the first order of business. We know the causes--energy guzzling lifestyles and too many people. Religion and nation states are also dangerous extravagances, imo. Political solutions to these problems threatening the survival of all the planet's species can be found only by thinking well outside the box, imo. I think we owe it to future generations to give it a go, since we seem to have had massive intelligence gifted to us.

There are plenty of men that do not judge a woman by her legs.

Yes. A woman's ass is often disgracefully undervalued. I notice Connie Rice always seems to have hers well covered. Hilary too.

It's a sure sign.

Ever since the emergency of democracy there has been a strong attempt to introduce socialism. After all, any system based on equality is bound to be popular with the vast majority of the population who are forced to share a small proportion of the national wealth. However, this movement has been continuously undermined. At first, the ruling class kept the majority of people from voting. When that failed they concentrated on the distortion of the socialist message via the mass media. Combined with this was the corruption of leading members of the socialist movement. In the case of Blair and Brown, they were “turned” before they became leaders.

Despite this history I remain an optimist and still believe that sometime in the future I will see a socialist society in Britain. Any ideas on how this could be achieved?

John-

There is a difference between equality of opportunity and equality of results.

To the extent that the government reduces one person's ability to fail, it reduces another person's ability to succeed.

I was born in East St. Louis, Illinois (check it out on Wiki). We lived in an adjoining "smokestack" industrial town, where not only did we not have money, but there was no money to be had.

I am a graduate of a heavily integrated public high school and 3 state universities.

Along the way, I cut grass, cleaned tables, washed dishes, worked in factories, washed cars, worked in funeral homes (doing everything), and worked retail. I have been denied a job as a result of the color of my skin. These experiences have helped shape and mold me.

The opportunity to have a successful career doing good work for people who need legal assistance (in my case, as a tax lawyer) has driven me for the last 29 - 30 years, when I started law school.

I don't want the government deciding what I am worth and compensating me accordingly.

I respect people, like you, who think differently, but the above is my philosophy and my motivation.

It has been a lot of work and a lot of fun.

I regard myself as more blest than deserving, and I am happy to have had the opportunity to experience the journey, including the many lean times and the numerous menial low-paying jobs.

I continue to work long hours, because I like what I do for a living.

I don't want the government reducing my opportunity to succeed by taking even more of my earnings and redistributing them to someone who doesn't share my work ethic.

Taxation is nothing more than the governmental taking of the earnings of one person's efforts, at the threat of imprisonment, and spending and re-distributing such person's earnings as it sees fit.

I concur with the holding of the Supreme Court (I forget the decision, but it is quite old) that the power to tax is the power to destroy.

I think that the government should use it more sparingly.

I don't see how someone can argue that the goverment is overreaching in most matters (with which I certainly agree), while, at the same time, arguing that the government should take more money from its citizens on the threat of imprisonment.

Taxation is an onerous and omnipresent form of governmental intrusion.

It drains our national productivity.

It keeps our levels of living down much more than it enhances them.

If I wanted help with anything, the last party I would turn to would be the government.

I don't want to pretend to work, while the government pretends to pay me.

I want to have the ability to succeed or fail without any governmental "help".

You've got to be kidding, Chris.

While I admire your tenacity and work ethic, do you really expect everyone in society to emulate your feat---and to hell with them if they can't? Government is probably the wrong word because it is often associated with waste and mismanagement, but public investment in schools and other utilities greatly benefits society. As the recipient of a public school education, you should be the first to acknowledge that.

So what's your alternative to taxation? Collect no taxes and privatise everything, including the police? Hey, maybe the police force's financial sponsors will determine who gets arrested? Why not go all the way and privatise the Government? Think of the taxes you'll save.

In any case, the energy crisis will soon transform the global political and economic landscape and make the left versus right argument redundant. Unless we change from a 'me' to a 'we' society, it's all over:

http://www.alternet.org/audits/82476/?page=entire

http://www.alternet.org/democracy/82339/?page=entire

No great mystery. At one time - circa 1989 - the accused appears to have worked for CIA-MI6

So Paul, do you actually have any evidence for that?

Funny if he were part of some 'spooky' plot that wouldn't have managed to get away

Provocation contrived to alter the tone and content of this thread.

I think you might be onto something, Paul. The sudden tsunami of anti-China, pro-Tibet sentiment has the familiar ring of insincerity and opportunism, imo.

Aussie PM Kevin Rudd recently gave China a blunt message regarding human rights in Tibet--in Mandarin, no less:

http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,2...546-661,00.html

Alas, if our fearless, recently elected PM was really concerned about human rights, he would surely send an equally blunt message to the Israelis about their treatment of the Palestinians.

He won't, of course.

Iran might have the answer. The rest of the world should take note:

http://www.infowars.net/articles/april2008/080408Iran.htm

Iran proposes missile shield against U.S., Israel

RIA Novosti

Tuesday, April 8, 2008

Iran's defense minister said on Monday the world needs a missile shield to protect against threats from Israel and the United States.

Tehran has joined Russia in opposing U.S. plans to deploy elements of its missile defense system in Central Europe to counter possible strikes from "rogue states," specifically Iran.

"If the world needs an anti-missile shield, it must be used to counter missiles and the nuclear menace coming from the U.S. and Israel, which directly or indirectly threaten different countries with aggression and war," Mostafa Mohammad Najjar said.

(Article continues below)

The minister said U.S. claims that the European missile shield would defend against Iran's missiles were nothing but a sham.

"Our country's missile arsenal is purely defense-oriented and is only a threat to aggressors," the minister said.

Washington plans to deploy interceptor missiles in Poland in addition to installing radars in the Czech Republic. The ten missiles in Poland could be placed on duty by 2013.

Najjar said Tehran was open to cooperation with every country except Israel, which Iran does not recognize, to ensure stability and security in the Middle East.

To paraphrase King Bush I, "America's example is the one to which the world expires."

Beautiful. Surely the Shrub family's most profound statement.

George Bush has used a charm offensive during the current NATO summit in Bucharest to gain approval for the missile defence deployments in Poland and the Czech Republic, it appears.

If it wasn't so serious it would be very funny. NATO (read the US) signing up former Warsaw Pact members. But NATO's original target was communism via the USSR. Now the big threats are supposedly Iran and North Korea (read Iran). And 'terrist threats' (insert any name the US wishes to mention).

It's perfect. The little fish each get a bag of lollies and the US makes billions through another masterpiece of weapons technology marketing. It's clear the US, as it stands today, needs war, or the threat of war, in order to survive. It needs to start a war, cause a war, fund a war and or supply arms for war. America is structurally incapable of participating in an environment of substantive global peace. WW2 ended 63 years ago but the US has never stopped fighting wars and it seems it never will, until its inevitable demise, which will probably take a good chunk of modern civilisation with it.

http://georgewashington.blogspot.com/2008/...s-have-now.html

In my best Michael Holding rasta accent:

"And now Len Colby emerges from the pavillion".

I'm in full agreement with Peter and Don.

I hope Charles and Myra reconsider. Two of the sharpest, most lucid, and wittiest minds on the case. Everyone can become agitated once in a while, especially under hostile provocation. That's only human. And sane and rational voices like theirs are at a premium in the real world and the cyberworld.

America's going to turn the page in November, imo. It could mean Government resistance to real investigations into the asassinations of the sixties may weaken. This might be a little optimistic but I think it could be a chance with Obama in the WH. Probably the last chance. So it's a bad time to leave, imo.

Please reconsider, Charles and Myra.