The New War in Iraq
May 23, 2012 by Jack Blood
Filed under Commentary
War is over when you want it... NOT because CNN says it is!
May 23, 2012 - Since the withdrawal of US military forces from Iraq, there has been an ongoing campaign of demonization and subversion of Prime Minister Maliki. Though this effort likely began with an assassination attempt in December of 2011, it has come to a head in recent months with the warrant, flight, and subsequent trial of Vice President Hashemi. This conflict illustrates not only the deep divides that exist within the ruling power structure in Baghdad, but also the attempts by foreign powers to exert control and influence over the future of Iraq.
Prime Minister Maliki came to power by overcoming the opposition of US puppet figures such as Allawi and Chalabi who, despite incredible financial support and propaganda, were unable to establish coalitions or even legitimate bases of support. Instead, Maliki emerged as the Shiite leader who was able to unify officials from a variety of ethnic and religious groups. At the time, this seemed a positive development for US military leadership and the Bush administration, anxious to have anyone who could exert control over Iraq.
However, in the years since then, Maliki has developed into a strong, nationalist leader who, in the interests of the Shiite majority and Iraq more generally, has exponentially expanded relations with Tehran, consolidated political control (particularly in the Kurdish North), and broken with the United States and its proxies in the GCC on issues such as Libya, Syria, and oil contracts. Naturally, this is anathema to US designs for Iraq and has lead to this concerted effort to remove, by any means necessary, Prime Minister Maliki.
Assassination Attempt a Warning To Maliki
In the midst of the withdrawal of US troops from Iraqi soil last December, a very rare event took place: a bomb exploded inside the heavily fortified Green Zone of Baghdad. Although the event garnered little international attention against the backdrop of the so-called “end of the Iraq War”, it sent a very clear message to the leadership in Baghdad – toe the US line or suffer the consequences. In the aftermath of the bombing, Maliki stated publicly that the plot was clearly an attempt on his life. However, instead of capitulating to such threats, the Prime Minister immediately denounced the episode and proceeded to meet with Iranian President Ahmadinejad. Undoubtedly, this decision conveyed to the United States that idea that Maliki would not succumb to pressure and threats.
The lessons learned from this failed assassination were significant. First and foremost, the United States and its proxies in Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and elsewhere came to recognize that Maliki and his Shiite base of support in Baghdad had become more than just a thorn in the side of imperial ambitions. Rather, they were forced to admit that he and his ruling coalition had become a legitimate nationalist force. Secondly, those nations with designs to control Iraqi oil wealth, among other natural resources, were forced to admit that the traditional, strong-arm tactics of assassination and physical violence would not be effective against the entrenched and popular Maliki. Instead, they had to change the strategy from overt attacks to covert subversion.
The Hashemi Affair
When the story of Iraqi Vice President Hashemi being implicated in the operation of an assassination death squad first broke, it was immediately apparent that the issue was going to become an attempt to divide the government and destroy Prime Minister Maliki. Not only was Hashemi a representative of the Iraqiya bloc, an integral part of the fragile coalition ruling the country, but he was a Sunni. This meant that Iraq would be divided along political and religious lines. Naturally, the evolution of the crisis only furthered these initial conclusions.
Upon receiving news that an arrest warrant had been issued, Hashemi immediately fled to the Kurdish territory, seeking asylum in the arms of the Barzani government in Arbil. This initial move by Hashemi signaled to the world that this conflict was part of a much larger political struggle that would pit the Shiite majority led by Maliki against much of the Sunni and Kurdish minorities. It is no secret that these divisions have been, and continue to be, the locus of power maintained in Iraq by Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and their paymasters in Washington. In order to maintain their domination of Iraq’s wealth and resources, they needed to get rid of Maliki and they were determined to use their agent Hashemi to do so.
Any lingering doubts about the role of Saudi Arabia and Qatar in fostering this conflict were erased when Hashemi left Arbil in the semi-autonomous Iraqi Kurdistan for Qatar followed by Saudi Arabia. It was during these trips where Hashemi met with various power brokers, essentially receiving his orders from the reactionary Sunni leaders of those two nations. Hashemi had proven to be a useful pawn on the chessboard of the Middle East, in which the Gulf monarchies, always acting in the interests of their masters in Washington, seemed intent on exerting their dominance over Iraq at all costs.
The final stop on Hashemi’s destabilization tour was Turkey, where he resides today. Ankara, which has its own strategic interests in Iraq, for which Maliki presents an obstacle, has provided Hashemi with safe haven, even after Interpol issued a warrant calling for Hashemi’s arrest. Turkey, with its large Kurdish minority and ambitions of becoming a dominant regional power, has maintained that they will not extradite Hashemi back to Baghdad where his trial continues. By providing safe haven to an international fugitive, Turkey is playing a dangerous political game, one that threatens not only their own stability, but that of the entire region.
The Propaganda of “Dictatorship”
In the last two months, as the various forces have aligned to subvert the Maliki government, the talking point has been that Maliki is consolidating power into a dictatorship. Naturally, the propaganda function of such absurdities is to conflate Maliki with Saddam Hussein, thereby delegitimizing him in the eyes of an uninformed public. In fact, as Maliki has been attacked seemingly from all sides, he has moved to consolidate control so as to maintain the fragile coalition that rules Iraq despite (not thanks to) the weak, decentralized government established by the US-imposed Iraqi Constitution. In so doing, Maliki has won many enemies while, simultaneously working to restore Iraq’s reputation internationally.
The cries of “dictator” must be directly attributed to the forces of Western imperialism that control much of the international media and who seem to have no issue whatsoever with the dictatorships of Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Bahrain and other proxy states. Of course, this demonization of Maliki is a last-ditch effort at destabilizing his government in the wake of the string of failures already mentioned.
Having fought an aggressive and illegal war, committed billions of dollars to a reconstruction process that favored corporate and financial interests, and sought to exploit natural resources, the United States and its regional proxies have seemingly exhausted all avenues to rid themselves of the disease of Prime Minister Maliki. However, diseases often mutate, changing their form to become resistant to cures and antidotes – surviving even under extreme circumstances. To accept this analogy, we must see Maliki and his relations with Iran as having infected the imperial body and, as anti-imperialists interested in peace, prosperity and freedom for all, not just some, we must support Maliki and the Iraqi people in their ongoing struggle for true independence.
Eric Draister is an independent geopolitical analyst that maintains StopImperialism.com which hosts his weekly podcast. He has been a guest on Dr. Webster Tarpley’s World Crisis Radio and has provided analysis on Russia Today.
Who’re the Kool-Aid Drinkers Now?
May 22, 2012 by Szandor Blestman
Filed under Commentary
The concept of “drinking the Kool-Aid” came from an event in 1978 where over 900 people died in a place called Jonestown in Guyana. Most of them supposedly died from drinking cyanide laced Kool-Aid. While questions have been raised as to the voracity of these reports, the term drinking the Kool-Aid has become synonymous with people who trust the sources of their information without question. I will stretch this out a bit and make the claim that Kool-Aid drinkers are those who trust anyone or any institution without question and do as they are told because of that trust. Read more
Penn Jillette goes OFF on Obama Drug War Hypocrisy (video)
May 21, 2012 by Jack Blood
Filed under Commentary
Language Warning – please excuse kids from the room before playing clip…
In a recent episode of his podcast “Penn’s Sunday School,” comedian Penn Jillette laid his opinions on the Obama drug policies out on the table.
Jillette, who has never done drugs or drank alcohol in his life, expressed particular concern over the policies’ broad-sweeping, all-inclusive nature. Namely, that people are going to prison because of marijuana use.
“Now, he has not left this to states’ rights,” Jillette posited. “As you know, medical marijuana… you can get in California, and the feds are coming in to try to stop this. States’ rights don’t mean jack sh*t to the Obama administration on anything except gay marriage.”
Another point of contention for Jillette was the fact that President Obama mentioned that he had smoked “weed” and done “maybe a little blow” in his 1995 book “Dreams from my Father.”
Jillette cited it as a prime example of the fact that not all drug users turn out to be menaces to society:
What troubles me about this… I think it’s beyond hypocrisy. I think it’s something to do with class. A lot of people have accused Obama of class warfare, but in the wrong direction. I believe this is Obama chortling with Jimmy Fallon about lower class people. Do we believe, even for a second, that if Obama had been busted for marijuana — under the laws that he condones — would his life have been better? If Obama had been caught with the marijuana that he says he uses, and ‘maybe a little blow’… if he had been busted under his laws, he would have done hard f*cking time. And if he had done time in prison, time in federal prison, time for his ‘weed’ and ‘a little blow,’ he would not be President of the United States of America. He would not have gone to his fancy-a** college, he would not have sold books that sold millions and millions of copies and made millions and millions of dollars, he would not have a beautiful, smart wife, he would not have a great job. He would have been in f*cking prison, and it’s not a god damn joke. People who smoke marijuana must be set free. It is insane to lock people up.
Jillette and co-host Michael Goudeau then went on to discuss statistics from uncited sources, but with the general suggestion that the number of people currently locked up in federal prisons for marijuana-related crimes is too high. Both men posited that Obama changing his drug policies would lighten the load on the prison system and give recreational drug users a chance to contribute to society.
Watch the full clip above.
Life in Occupied Chicago
May 20, 2012 by Jack Blood
Filed under Commentary
…Coming to a theater Near YOU!
Through Monday, downtown residents live in occupied Chicago.
Secret Service agents, NORTHCOM and National Guard forces, as well as thousands of state and local police seem everywhere.
Getting around feels hazardous. Anyone may be stopped, searched, interrogated, even arrested.
Residents were advised to hunker down and stay out of harm’s way as best as possible. For many, it’s not easy. More on a city under siege below.
NATO is the world’s first global war-making alliance. Largely a US imperial tool, it’s a killing machine. Its 28 members and dozens of partner states comprise about one-third of the world’s nations.
Article 4 of its charter calls for members to “consult together whenever, in the opinion of any of them, the territorial integrity, political independence, or security of any” is threatened.
Article 5 considers an armed attack (real or otherwise) against one or more members, an attack against all, and calls for collective self-defense.
Imperial conquests are planned. Wars are launched. Fundamental laws are violated. Nonbelligerent states are targeted. Vast destruction follows. Millions die. Human misery is incalculable. One conflict follows another in an endless cycle of worldwide collective punishment.
NATO’s a global menace, a killing machine, a weapon of mass destruction threatening humanity, an alliance for war, conquest and dominance, not peace.
Enemies don’t exist so they’re invented. Wealth and power interests alone benefit. Humanitarian intervention is code language for aggressive wars. Pretexts are contrived to wage them.
NATO plans global dominance. China’s being encircled. Encroachment approaches Russia’s borders. It’s targeted by strategic missiles for offense, not defense. At the 2010 Munich Conference, Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said:
After the Soviet Union and Warsaw Pact dissolved, “a real opportunity emerged to make the OSCE (Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe) a full-fledged organization providing equal security for all states of the Euro-Atlantic area.”
“However, the opportunity was missed, because the choice was made in favor” of expanding NATO eastward to Russia’s borders.
Russian President Vladimir Putin sent a message. He cancelled plans to attend the May 18 and 19 G8 summit. He won’t be with NATO states in Chicago. Prime Minister Dmitri Medvedev represents him. Both leaders are justifiably concerned.
Putin participated in the Moscow Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO) summit with most former Soviet Republics.
On May 3 and 4, 50 nations attended the Moscow missile defense conference. Representatives from NATO’s 28 states came. So did China, Japan, and South Korea.
At issue was America’s so-called missile shield. It represents major friction between Moscow and Washington. So is concern about war on Syria and Iran, as well as Obama administration officials fomenting and backing anti-government protests in Russia.
Putin’s not silent. He opposes America’s aggressive wars. In February 2007 at Munich’s 43rd Conference, he said:
He’d “avoid excessive politness.” He said “what (he) really (felt) about international security problems.”
What is a unipolar world, he asked? “(A)t the end of the day it refers to one type of situation, namely one center of authority, one center of force, one center of decision-making.”
It’s a world with “one master, one sovereign. And at the end of the day this is pernicious not only for all those within this system, but also for the sovereign itself because it destroys itself from within.”
“And this certainly has nothing in common with democracy. Because, as you know, democracy is the power of the majority in light of the interests and opinions of the minority.”
“Incidentally, Russia – we – are constantly being taught about democracy. But for some reason those who teach us do not want to learn themselves.”
He categorically rejected unipolarity.
“Today we are witnessing an almost uncontained hyper use of force – military force – in international relations, force that is plunging the world into an abyss of permanent conflicts.”
“We are seeing a greater and greater disdain for the basic principles of international law.”
“One state and, of course, first and foremost the United States, has overstepped its national borders in every way.”
He “unequivocally” advocates “non-proliferation.” He opposes imperial wars. He favors international cooperation, not confrontation.
He seeks “responsible and independent partners” for peace in a “fair and democratic world order that (will) ensure security and prosperity not only for a select few, but for all.”
He’s out of sync with warrior NATO states.
His remarks didn’t go down well in Washington. At the time, Bush was still president. Since 2009, Obama exceeded his worst policies. He threatens global war. Putin and other leaders are concerned. So are tens of thousands protesting on Chicago streets.
On May 18, The New York Times headlined “Chicago Protests Draw Thousands Before NATO Event,” saying:
On Friday, they filled a downtown city plaza. Throughout the weeked, other protests and marches will follow. Police lined downtown streets.
Busloads of out-of-town participants arrived. Police confirmed 13 arrests. Protest groups added another nine seized earlier in the week. Police declined “to comment or even confirm additional arrests, saying the case is continuing.”
On May 18, the Chicago Sun Times said three protesters were “charged with conspiracy to commit terrorism.”
They’re accused of three felony crimes. They include alleged possession of an explosive or incendiary device, conspiracy to commit terrorism, and providing material support to terrorism.
No evidence whatever proved it.
According to National Lawyers Guild (NLG) attorney Sarah Gelsomino:
“We cannot say enough that we believe that these charges are absolutely….very trumped up charges. (They’re) clearly an attempt to continue this intimidation campaign on activists.”
“Charging these people who are here to peacefully protest against NATO for terrorism, when in reality the police have been terrorizing activists in Chicago, is absolutely outrageous.”
Accusations claimed Molotov cocktail preparations. Gelsomino added:
Police “provided no evidence of criminal intent or wrongdoing on the part of the activists.”
The men were driving. Police squad cars stopped them. They were “detained for no apparent reason and asked questions about why they were in Chicago and what they planned to do during the NATO summit.”
Other arrests were made. On Friday, some were released. Police had no comment. They prepared months before NATO’s arrival. Crowd control training using special equipment is involved.
Sound cannon use is planned. They emit ear-splitting chirping noise. Called LRAD (long range acoutic device), it’s able to cause permanent hearing loss and other ill effects. The Illinois ACLU and other groups protested against using military technology on peaceful civilian demonstrators.
Chicago’s version mounts mid-sized satellite dishes on vehicles or atop high poles. They focus intense sound beams on targets. They cover a 30 degree arc up to 1,600 feet away. They reach 150 decibels.
According to the National Institute of Deafness, noise above 85 decibels can cause permanent hearing loss. University of Missouri Professor Karen Piper participated in an earlier G20 protest. LRAD sound cannons were used. She partially lost hearing and sued. She said:
“The intensity of being hit at close range by a high-pitched sound blasts….is indescribable. The sound vibrates through you and casues pain throughout your body, not only in the ears.”
“I thought I might die. It is shocking that (this) device is being promoted for use on American citizens and the general public.”
Police deny clear dangers. Official statements call LRAD a “risk management tool.”
Cops are also equipped with new armor, shields, “hippie-beaters,” surveillance cameras, and other devices and equipment.
On Friday, thousands marched through downtown streets. NLG lawyer Ben Meyer denounced what he called an excessive police presence. Dozens of officers milled through crowds. Some videotaped activities.
“It’s frustrating that the state needs to come out and show this much force,” he said. At issue was a nurses’ rally. Occupy Chicago and other OWS activists joined them. “They have everyone from from the superintendent on down there. It’s just ridiculous.”
Dozens of protesters blocked Michigan Avenue traffic peacefully. It’s close to where this writer lives. Confrontations with police followed. One or more arrests were made for “aggravated battery of a police officer.”
Bogus charges like this occur often. Cops commit violence. Victims are blamed. Justice is denied. The Chicago Tribune called Friday a “peaceful start to NATO protests.”
In fact, scattered confrontations occurred. Roads were blocked. Demomstrators chanted “these are our streets (and) parks.”
Larger-scale Saturday rallies and marches followed. Others are planned for Sunday. NLG’s Gelsomino said arrests made are done to scare protesters. “This is playbook. (It’s) “shoddy police work. It’s a fear campaign.”
The Chicago Sun Times headlined “What does an anarchist look like – or stand for?” saying:
They “don’t conform to dress codes.” They resemble “ordinary” people.
They oppose war and resent being called anarchists.
The Sun Times also published a “NATO Survival Guide.” It advised staying home. For those traveling around the city, it said “good luck.”
Expect traffic, bus and train delays. Some roads are closed. Open ones will be congested. Expect patdowns, searches and other screenings. Forget about local museums and other downtown attractions.
Stay far away from McCormick Place NATO headquarters. Avoid the South Side entirely. Major arteries will be closed. Even side streets north of the Chicago River in this writer’s neighborhood are affected.
To accommodate heads of state entourages, Kennedy Expressway to O’Hare airport will experience unannounced “rolling closures” over its entire route.
Through Monday, expect delays, discomfort, disruptions, and unprovoked police confrontations. Hopefully peaceful rallies and marches won’t become battlegrounds.
Given Chicago PD’s odious reputation, odds are long against avoiding what some longtime residents fear.
NATO doesn’t arrive anywhere peacefully. Why should Chicagoans expect otherwise?
Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago and can be reached at lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net.
His new book is titled “How Wall Street Fleeces America: Privatized Banking, Government Collusion and Class War”
http://www.claritypress.com/Lendman.html
Visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com and listen to cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on the Progressive Radio News Hour on the Progressive Radio Network Thursdays at 10AM US Central time and Saturdays and Sundays at noon. All programs are archived for easy listening.
http://www.progressiveradionetwork.com/the-progressive-news-hour.
Something Stinks: John Edwards and a Thirty Year Jail Term?
May 20, 2012 by Jack Blood
Filed under Commentary
EDITOR NOTE: Last paragraph NAILS it – dont mess with the establishment if you mess with the ladies. (also: never get caught with a live boy or a dead girl) – in the latter case, reference MSNBC host (with z big’s little girl) former Rep Joe Scarborough. Joe seems somewhat above the phrase – BUT did lose his seat over the “Non scandal” of his dead secretary.
Edwards is tougher to figure. He was a CFR / Bilberberg darling. His “tough talk” on the 1% preceded an oncoming and astroturfed movement. (.01% LOVE OWS because they know it largely will exclude them IMO.. Who writes the laws?)
NO, John Edwards had a bigger problem…. Cousin Barry O. It was destined for BO to be POTUS, and Edwards was definitely in the way. I am guessing some PTB came to him or his handlers and made an offer they couldnt refuse.
Stand Down, endorse Barry, and the rewards will be there after the election. Obviously they didnt, and plan B destroyed Edwards as a message to all who might disobey orders.
~ Jack Blood
Judging by the groupies we saw at the 04 DNC - Edwards could've done better. Why Hunter? Set up!
(CONTAINS EXCERPTS OF THE STORY – TO READ THE ENTIRE ARTICLE, GO TO SOURCE AT WhoWhatWhy.com )
By Russ Baker
Does no one else find the very fact of John Edwards being on trial curious? Does no one else wonder about the criminal basis for the prosecution? About who in politics does and does not end up being destroyed by matters related to sexual behavior?
But first, the specifics of the Edwards case. He faces a potential $1.5 million fine, but, far more seriously, up to thirty years imprisonment. Thirty years. His crime? Not murder, not torture, not armed robbery, not stealing money from clients. No, his crime was his failure to report campaign contributions. While preparing for his second presidential bid, in 2006, he got caught up in an extramarital affair that produced a child. And, not exactly able to announce that fact or ask his sick wife to sign off, the wealthy Edwards turned to some wealthy backers to take care of the woman and the baby and hide the whole thing from Elizabeth Edwards and presumably everyone else. Two people gave him a total of $900,000.
* -Edwards became enamored of a woman who approached him—and who was well aware that he was married, and how exposure of the affair could impact his future if it became public.
-Hunter in some ways is reminiscent of other women who came forward to ruin or nearly ruin Democratic politicians with accusations of sexual improprieties—while personally profiting from their actions–including Donna Rice (Hart), Gennifer Flowers (Clinton) and Ashley Dupre (Spitzer). Meanwhile, some of those who turned on Edwards, notably his former aide Andrew Young and his wife, have by their own admission done well financially for doing Edwards in.
-Though Hunter was their entire case, prosecutors were sufficiently wary of her (or perhaps of drawing additional attention to her precise role in the matter) that they did not call her to the witness stand.
This investigative reporter smells a rat in Edwards’s downfall. Maybe I’m wrong. I’m not sure exactly who decided what, when, but consider that Hunter was down on her luck when she happened to bump into Edwards while he was in a hotel bar. The following excerpt is instructive. It comes from a book by Edwards’ former aide Andrew Young, now a prosecution witness against Edwards (The Politician):
The senator first met Rielle in early 2006 when he was in New York during a cross-country speaking tour with actor Danny Glover on behalf of hotel workers who wanted his help at union rallies. As she eventually told me herself, she saw Edwards in the lounge of the Regency, a five-star hotel on Park Avenue…..
By the time she saw John Edwards, she had lived much of her life on the edge of glamour, wealth, and enlightenment but was, at forty-one, divorced, unemployed, and living rent- free with a friend in New Jersey named Margaret “Mimi” Hockman.
When she made eye contact with the senator…she asked him if he was the candidate she had seen on television. After he identified himself, she said, “You’re so hot, but on television that doesn’t come through. You seem distant. I can help you with that.”…
Rielle …decided immediately that she would devote herself to helping him reach this potential. This assistance would begin later, after she arranged to bump into him on the sidewalk, where she would flirt some more.
What’s even more interesting is that Hunter wasn’t really in a position to do what she promised. Partnering with her roommate, the two had to recruit still others to execute rudimentary video and editing work. Soon she and her crew were traveling with the politician, filming him in cinema verite style for online “webisodes.”
Message: If You Mess With the Establishment, Don’t Mess With the Ladies
The Spitzer story featured a cast of corporate kingpins angry at his actions as attorney general, and the GOP “dirty tricks” specialist Roger Stone. Exactly how Spitzer’s financial transactions drew federal attention has been inadequately explored, as has why so big a deal was made of his extracurricular activities (the central federal legal “issue” was that he arranged for a prostitute to cross state lines). As for Anthony Weiner, he was targeted by the late provocateur Andrew Breitbart and fellow Right-wing activists who used fake email addresses and pretended to be underage girls.
Probably the most interesting thing is how many of these guys who went down—or in Clinton’s case nearly did—were messing with powerful interests. Excepting perhaps Clinton, they all had a streak of populism—going after bankers, and the one percent, and, in at least one case, the CIA. Hart and Edwards both had stirred class-conscious politics prominently into their broader messaging. Hart was on the investigative Senate committee that looked into CIA abuses in the 1970s, and became an outspoken critic of the excesses of the spy establishment—just as Richard Nixon was secretly battling the CIA, the Pentagon, and corporate interests at the time that the Watergate scandal began to undo his presidency. Weiner was a liberal and a close ally of the Clintons with an eye on the New York mayor’s office. Spitzer was a leading figure in targeting Wall Street, insurance industry and other corporate abuses. He was one big problem for some tough customers, and had his eye on the White House next.
Is all this worth another look? This reporter thinks so.
“EXPECT THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA TO COME BACK AT YOU!” Eleanor Holmes Norton BEST SPEECH EVER!
May 19, 2012 by Kristen
Filed under Commentary
F* it all up in Tampa! Adam IS “the man” – What the REAL rEVOLution is thinking
May 18, 2012 by Jack Blood
Filed under Commentary
We just do not have time to be polite and accept crumbs from O’Bombney’s table. This is YOUR chance… Make it count! Forget Rand Paul etc… the future is NOW!
To hear the full podcast: http://adamvstheman.com/podcast
Please address hate mail to adam@adamvstheman.com
Invest here to keep ADAM VS THE MAN ad-free!
http://adamvstheman.com/invest
Obama’s Literary Agent in 1991 Booklet: ‘Born in Kenya and raised in Indonesia and Hawaii’
May 18, 2012 by Jack Blood
Filed under Commentary
We have no Idea if this is a set up – or disinfo… Since it has been posted in the MSM – we are compelled to repost here. Thanks.
Note from Senior Management:Andrew Breitbart was never a “Birther,” and Breitbart News is a site that has never advocated the narrative of “Birtherism.” In fact, Andrew believed, as we do, that President Barack Obama was born in Honolulu, Hawaii, on August 4, 1961.
Yet Andrew also believed that the complicit mainstream media had refused to examine President Obama‘s ideological past, or the carefully crafted persona he and his advisers had constructed for him.
It is for that reason that we launched “The Vetting,” an ongoing series in which we explore the ideological background of President Obama (and other presidential candidates)–not to re-litigate 2008, but because ideas and actions have consequences.
It is also in that spirit that we discovered, and now present, the booklet described below–one that includes a marketing pitch for a forthcoming book by a then-young, otherwise unknown former president of the Harvard Law Review.
It is evidence–not of the President’s foreign origin, but that Barack Obama’s public persona has perhaps been presented differently at different times.
The booklet, which was distributed to “business colleagues” in the publishing industry, includes a brief biography of Obama among the biographies of eighty-nine other authors represented by Acton & Dystel.
It also promotes Obama’s anticipated first book, Journeys in Black and White–which Obama abandoned, later publishing Dreams from My Father instead.
Obama’s biography in the booklet is as follows (image and text below):
Barack Obama, the first African-American president of the Harvard Law Review, was born in Kenya and raised in Indonesia and Hawaii. The son of an American anthropologist and a Kenyan finance minister, he attended Columbia University and worked as a financial journalist and editor for Business International Corporation. He served as project coordinator in Harlem for the New York Public Interest Research Group, and was Executive Director of the Developing Communities Project in Chicago’s South Side. His commitment to social and racial issues will be evident in his first book, Journeys in Black and White.
The booklet, which is thirty-six pages long, is printed in blue ink (and, on the cover, silver/grey ink), using offset lithography. It purports to celebrate the fifteenth anniversary of Acton & Dystel, which was founded in 1976.
Read More HERE
Israel’s Nuclear, Biological and Chemical Weapons
May 17, 2012 by Jack Blood
Filed under Commentary
Israel’s long known open secret is its formidable nuclear arsenal. Less is known about its chemical and biological weapons (CBW) capability. More on that below.
In 1986, Dimona nuclear technician Mordechai Vanunu revealed documents showing what many long suspected. Israel had been secretly developing, producing and stockpiling nuclear weapons for years.
Experts called his information genuine. They revealed sophisticated technology able to amass a formidable nuclear arsenal. Today it’s more potent than ever.
In his 1991 book titled “The Samson Option: Israel’s Nuclear Arsenal and America Foreign Policy,” Seymour Hersh discussed its strategy to launch massive nuclear counterattacks in response to serious enough threats.
In his 1997 book titled “Open Secrets: Israeli Nuclear and Foreign Policies,” Israel Shahak said Israel won’t hesitate using nuclear or other weapons to advance its “hegemony over the entire Middle East.”
In 2006, former Prime Minister Ehud Olmert told Germany’s Sat. 1 channel:
“Iran, openly, explicitly and publicly, threatens to wipe Israel off the map. Can you say that this is the same level, when they are aspiring to have nuclear weapons, as America, France, Israel and Russia?”
Later he denied what viewers clearly heard him say. Calls for him to step down followed. So did accusations of ineptitude for acknowledging Israeli nuclear weapons publicly.
Israel always stuck to its nuclear ambiguity position. Olmert later backtracked. Damage control didn’t assuage criticism. Opposition party members called him irresponsible.
Meretz party member Yossi Beilin said:
“The prime minister’s amazing statement regarding nuclear capability indicates a lack of caution bordering on irresponsibility.”
Olmert’s approval rating plunged. Aides tried frantically to limit damage. His spokesman, Miri Eisin, said his comments didn’t mean Israel had or wants nuclear weapons.
Of course, the cat was out of the bag after Mordechai Vanunu revealed it 20 years earlier. Damage control made things worse. Vanunu welcomed Olmert’s admission, accidental or otherwise. He hoped he said it intentionally, saying:
“For 20 years, they tried to deny me and my story, but the policy of cheating and lying didn’t succeed.”
Changes are taking place, he added. He hoped his situation would improve. It didn’t. He still chafes under repressive Israeli policies. Practically under house arrest, he’s harassed. His fundamental rights are denied. He wants his citizenship revoked and permission to leave, but Israel won’t grant either right.
He’s a legend in his own time. He only wants to live free. After what Israel put him through for decades, he deserves that much and more.
Israel refuses to discuss its nuclear capability. Others are less reticent. On May 4, Haaretz headlined “Israel’s atomic arsenal could fall victim to a new US nuclear policy,” saying:
Visiting Hiroshima last February, escorts “drew (Israeli Defense Secretary Ehud Barak’s) attention to a map of the world listing the number of nuclear warheads in the possession of the atomic powers. There is a number next to Israel’s name, too: ’80.’ Barak did not respond.”
Most experts believe Israel has hundreds of warheads and sophisticated long-range delivery systems.
“According to a (late 1990s) secret document of the Pentagon’s Defense Intelligence Agency….leaked during the period of the George W. Bush administration, Israel had ’60 to 80′ nuclear warheads in 1999.”
The Pentagon updates its data regularly. It keeps close watch on all nuclear powers and suspected ones like North Korea.
Israel never signed the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT). In 1969, Nixon and Prime Minister Golda Meir mutually agreed that Israel’s nuclear capability wouldn’t harm relations. In 1998, so did Clinton and Netanyahu. In 2009, Obama continued past policy.
Expect change eventually. Israel’s belligerency over Iran’s peaceful nuclear program may “boomerang” on its military one.
Israel’s Chemical and Biological Weapons (CBW)
Israel signed the 1993 Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC), but didn’t ratify it. It never signed the 1972 Biological Weapons Convention (BWC). Its policy is CBW ambiguity.
In 1993, the US Congress Office of Technology Assessment WMD proliferation assessment included Israel as a nation having undeclared offensive chemical warfare capabilities. In 1998, former Deputy Assistant Defense Secretary Bill Richardson said:
“I have no doubt that Israel has worked on both chemical and biological offensive things for a long time. There’s no doubt they’ve had stuff for years.”
Israel tests new weapons in combat. Against Lebanon in 2006 and Gaza during Cast Lead, it used direct energy weapons, chemical and/or biological agents, and others producing injuries and symptoms medical professionals never previously saw.
For example, bodies with dead tissue had no apparent wounds. Corpses were found shrunken. Civilians had heavy lower limb damage requiring amputations. Nonetheless, unstoppable necrosis followed (death of cells and living tissue) followed by death.
Internal wounds had no trace of shrapnel. Corpses were blackened but not burned. Some badly wounded victims didn’t bleed. The Palestinian health ministry said Israel used a new type explosive in Gaza. It contained toxins and radioactive materials. They burned and tore victims’ bodies from the inside. They also left long term deformations.
A Palestinian doctor accused Israel of using chemical ammunition that burns and injures soft tissue, but can’t be traced by X-rays. Severe internal wounds were reported. Unknown gases believed to be nerve agents were used. Those affected lost consciousness for about 24 hours. They experienced high fevers and muscle rigidity. Some needed urgent blood transfusions.
In Gaza, white phosphorous was used. It burns flesh to the bone. Depleted uranium spread radioactive contamination. Close-range explosives caused severe injuries, requiring amputations. Children had legs cut off, abdomens sliced open, or died because nothing could save them.
In June 2011, CounterPunch contributor Saleh El-Naami headlined “Exposing Israel’s Most Dangerous Secret,” saying:
Only authorized personnel have access to the Israeli Institute for Biological Research (IIBR). Israel calls it “a governmental, applied research institute specializing in the fields of biology, medicinal chemistry and environmental sciences.”
Others reveal IIBR is “where Israel develops its biological and chemical weapons and prepares for any eventuality of biological or chemical warfare.” Its facility is Israel’s “most top-secret military installation….”
Official censorship prohibits anything discussed about it. One exception only occurred after long-term employee Avisha Klein sued “for harassment and emotional abuse.”
She was part of a team developing mustard gas protective ointment. During proceedings, more information came out.
IIBR has hundreds of scientists and technicians. Its many departments specialize in chemical and biological weapons research, development and production. One is a poison used for assassinations.
In 1977, Prime Minister Menachem Begin ordered Mossad to eliminate Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine leader Wadie Haddad. He was fond of Belgian chocolates. Mossad coated some with “a slow-acting poison, and had them delivered to Haddad….”
The substance had “undetectable properties.” Haddad’s health deteriorated. Flown to East Germany for treatment, he was diagnosed with leukemia and died on March 29, 1978. Thirty-two years later, the truth came out. IIBR’s poison killed him.
Other assassinations were conducted the same way. IIBR specializes in toxic substances and protective vaccines. Anthrax research got attention. Israel feared enemies might use it.
IIBR works closely with Israeli military and intelligence operations. They list priorities. IIBR works on them.
“For example, information that has come to light during the coverage of Klein’s suit reveals that many years ago the Israeli military establishment was concerned that Arab states might use such chemical agents as mustard gas in an potential assault against Israel and, therefore, instructed the institute to develop a chemical substance to minimise the effects of the gas.”
Israeli soldiers were used to test vaccines. Some experienced “permanent physical damage.” Lawsuits for damages were filed. Victims want recognition as disabled veterans and appropriate compensation. Pressure got IDF officials to announce experiments on Israeli personnel would end.
The Nuremberg Code prohibits medical experiments without human subjects voluntarily consenting. Recruitment must exclude “coercion, fraud, deceit, and (provide) full disclosure of known risks.”
Experiments are prohibited “where there is an a priori reason to believe that death or disabling injury will occur.” Those permitted must be expected “to yield fruitful results for the good of society, unprocurable by other methods or means of study….”
In 1948, Prime Minister David Ben-Gurion ordered European Jewish scientists recruited who could “either increase the capacity to kill masses or to cure masses; both are important.”
Avraham Marcus Klingberg became a chemical and biological weapons (CBW) expert and IIBR deputy director.
Avraham Marcus Klingberg was also recruited. He became the father of Israel’s nuclear weapons program in charge of the Israeli Atomic Energy Commission (IAEC). Ben-Gurion was determined to have a nuclear option and other non-conventional weapons to counter numerical Arab advantage.
In his farewell address to the Israeli Armaments Development Authority (RAFAEL), he defended the strategy saying:
“I am confident, based not only on what I heard today, that our science can provide us with the weapons that are needed to deter our enemies from waging war against us.”
He and Shimon Peres became leading forces behind Israel’s nuclear, biological, and chemicals development program. Strict secrecy was maintained. Staff were forbidden to discuss anything related to their work. Prohibitions remain strict.
Truths eventually leak out. One day much more will be known. Vanunu was harshly punished to deter other whistleblowers. Bradley Manning faces similar treatment. In his case, life in prison may result.
Nonetheless, some who know tell others. Suppressing vital truths everyone needs to know remains hard to do forever. Much is known about Israel’s nuclear program. Perhaps CBW disclosures will expose secrets too important to hide.
Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago and can be reached at lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net.
His new book is titled “How Wall Street Fleeces America: Privatized Banking, Government Collusion and Class War”
http://www.claritypress.com/Lendman.html
Visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com and listen to cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on the Progressive Radio News Hour on the Progressive Radio Network Thursdays at 10AM US Central time and Saturdays and Sundays at noon. All programs are archived for easy listening.
http://www.progressiveradionetwork.com/the-progressive-news-hour.
Watergate Revelations: The Coup Against Nixon, (Part 3 of 3)
May 17, 2012 by Jack Blood
Filed under Commentary
This is the third installment of a three-part series, featuring chapters related to Nixon and Watergate from WhoWhatWhy editor Russ Baker’s book, Family of Secrets: The Bush Dynasty, America’s Invisible Government and the Hidden History of the Last Fifty Years.
Notes: (1) Although these excerpts do not contain footnotes, the book itself is heavily footnoted and exhaustively sourced. (2) To distinguish between George Bush, father and son, George H.W. Bush is sometimes referred to by his nickname Poppy, and George W. Bush by his, W. (3) Additional context can be found in the preceding chapters.
Before you read this third and final installment, please read the first and second installment.
*************************************************************************
CHAPTER 11
Downing Nixon, Part II: The Execution
If, as it appears, Watergate was indeed a setup, it was a fairly elaborate covert operation, with three parts: 1) creating the crime, 2) implicating Nixon by making him appear to be knowledgeable and complicit in a cover-up, and 3) ensuring that an aggressive effort would be mounted to use the “facts” of the case to prosecute Nixon and force him from office. The third area is where Lowell Weicker was absolutely indispensable.
The very day after Dean went to see Nixon to deliver his “cancer on the presidency” speech, Weicker, preparing for the hearings, received a visitor.
According to Weicker’s memoir, the visitor was Ed DeBolt, a Republican national committeeman from California. “DeBolt opened my eyes wide,” Weicker writes, “In sum, what he said was that many people in California politics considered Nixon to be a ‘chronic gutter fighter.’ If that had reached the East, I didn’t know about it.”
As presented in the memoir, this visit played a major role in convincing Weicker that Watergate might be more serious than he had understood— and that it would have been in character for Nixon himself to have sanctioned the break-ins.
At a minimum, Weicker comes across as oddly sheltered, having missed a good two decades of acclaimed Herblock cartoons characterizing Nixon as a gutter fighter, beginning with a 1954 comic showing him crawling out of a sewer. Indeed, by 1973 Nixon had been widely represented as a political smear artist.
In fact, the DeBolt-Weicker story turns out to be more complicated than the senator indicates in his memoir. In a 2008 interview, DeBolt told me that it was actually Weicker who called and summoned him, and that Weicker knew DeBolt was not merely a party activist from California, but a Washington insider. During the 1972 campaign, DeBolt had been one of the Nixon campaign’s key operatives. By the time Weicker called him, in March 1973, DeBolt was a high-ranking staffer for the party—on the payroll at Poppy Bush’s RNC.
“He called me up one day—he knew where I was because he had my phone number at the RNC—and he asked if I would come see him for a few minutes,” recalled DeBolt, who served as the RNC’s deputy chairman for research and campaigns. They met in the Senate cafeteria.
DeBolt said that he characterized Nixon to Weicker as a complicated individual, a mix of good and bad: “I liked [Nixon] . . . He was very, very smart, and he really cared about me and the staff; he just didn’t show it . . . I would see this man who knew so much but he was more insecure than my puppy. So, I always felt sorry for him. I just think he got in over his head.”
The most curious aspect of DeBolt’s interaction with Weicker was that when he responded to the senator’s summons, he found him sitting with a prepared list of detailed questions, based on information that only someone high up in the White House or RNC could have known about DeBolt. “I don’t remember volunteering a whole lot of stuff. He had a list in front of him, of questions, and he was going down the list and checking them off. He was clearly asking questions that his staff had put together . . .”
In Weicker’s memoir, he suggests that DeBolt’s purported revelation about Nixon’s “gutter fighter” reputation caused him to spring into action. One thing he did, according to DeBolt, was to enter a part of DeBolt’s comments into the committee records.
After DeBolt’s visit, the senator excitedly called his staff and met with them over the weekend. His press secretary, Dick McGowan, started to devote “enormous amounts of time” to the scandal. McGowan, who, intriguingly, would himself later go to work for Poppy Bush, would turn Weicker’s office into what he called “a gold mine” of information. At times, reporters were stumbling over each other as they waited for their daily handout. Many of the “exclusives” that appeared in the media were from the Weicker team’s own investigation.
On March 29, barely nine days after he had met with Nixon and recommended having Dean testify, Poppy called the White House with an even more urgent request. As recounted in Haldeman’s diaries, the purpose of Bush’s call was to get the president to start talking about Watergate publicly:
George Bush just called. It [i.e., disclosure] must be from the President at the President’s earliest possible convenience. This is the most urgent request he has ever made of the President . . . This is an outgrowth of conversations he’s had with Gerry Ford and Bryce Harlow . . . He doesn’t necessarily have solutions but feels that this political advice . . . is of the utmost urgency. [emphasis added]
Poppy Bush was almost frantic to get Nixon’s ear—again claiming to be carrying input from influential Republicans. And his message was always the same: it’s urgent that you confess White House misdeeds.
DeBolt, who worked at the RNC from 1971 to 1973, said he found Bush’s presence at the party’s helm bizarre. “I wondered how in the heck Bush got to be RNC chairman,” he said. “He had been a flop in everything he had done, and he had nobody at the RNC who was rooting for him—nobody. [The order to install Bush] came directly from Nixon, and we always wondered about that.”
And who had the best access to intelligence overall in and between the FBI, the White House, the RNC, and the reelection campaign? One guess. “Dean got copies of every single report,” DeBolt recalled. “We were led to believe that Dean was keeping us out of trouble; he was checking on stuff, for Nixon.”
