Archive for November, 2010

Don’t Raise the Debt Ceiling! By Ron Paul

Don’t Raise the Debt Ceiling! By Ron Paul

Max Keiser show on soaring US debt!:

Keiser: Report №98: Markets! Finance! Scandal!

Iran vs Israel: What The Media Wants You To Forget

Iran vs Israel: What The Media Wants You To Forget

Who Voted for More War (by Philip Giraldi)?

Who Voted for More War?

Posted By Philip Giraldi On November 24, 2010 @ 11:00 pm In Uncategorized | 15 Comments

Something strange has occurred in the aftermath of the November 2nd midterm election.  Even though the United States is fighting two major wars and is involved as well in a number of lesser military conflicts in Africa and the Middle East, foreign and security policy was not on the ballot anywhere.  Apart from a couple of candidates in Illinois trying to outdo each other in terms of affirmation of loyalty to Israel, not a word was heard about America’s international engagements and their consequences.  Yet, we find ourselves only three weeks later learning that the election and its Republican Party triumph is an affirmation of the foreign policy of the Bush Administration and a sign that the American people want a more assertive role for the United States internationally.  More torture by all means but let’s call it something else, keep Guantanamo open, and don’t forget that pat down at the airport.  As the great George Orwell put it, freedom is slavery and war is peace.  Ain’t it hell?

Not being able to vote on major issues because one is not offered the choice by the two dominant parties is nothing new in the United States.  Searching for the antiwar vote is somewhat akin to the curious case of the dog that didn’t bark. The inside the beltway consensus on foreign policy, that the US is a force for good and should be involved everywhere and at all times, is deeply ingrained in the system even if the voters often don’t quite get it.  Even when Americans do think they are voting for change they are invariably disappointed.  One need only recall the Barack Obama electoral victory, obtained through an antiwar vote that was subsequently discounted when the Democratic version of the Great Decider ascended to the throne in the Emerald City.  Today, under Obama, we have more war, more citations of state secrets, and a justice system that has been so perverted that a recent federal jury trial of terrorist suspect Ahmed Ghailani is being roundly condemned on both sides of the political aisle because it failed to convict on all counts.  Congress will no doubt soon move to dispense with trials altogether, opting instead to declare verdicts in advance, avoiding all the expense of defense attorneys and summoning juries.  The money saved can be used to reconstruct Afghanistan or to build more prisons here at home to accommodate the surge in convictions.

But absence of evidence that Americans want more war is not necessarily evidence of absence, as the sagacious Donald Rumsfeld once put it.  The subliminal desire to kill more ragheads could well have been there, quite possibly expressed through oblique references to mosques defiling the sacred soil of ground zero or rumors of Sharia law emerging full blown in Oklahoma.  Sensing the possible mood swing, we now have a number of leading Republicans and at least one independent charging full speed ahead, sounding as if they had just emerged victorious from a national referendum calling on congress to declare war on those parts of the world that are not already under assault by US forces.  Senators Lindsey Graham and John McCain discern a new will to go toe to toe with Islamofascism while Sarah Palin, from her bully pulpit, is calling for victory in both Iraq and Afghanistan and using force to support America’s “friends” all around the world.  Joe Lieberman is talking openly of a possible congressional resolution that would endorse war against Iran.  Barack Obama has responded to the challenge characteristically by surrendering on all fronts, announcing that the US will be in Afghanistan until 2014, not leaving in 2011 as he had previously pledged.  The date is providential as it promises eventual departure to the delusional who still believe that the president is a man of his word while offering an end strategy where nothing actually has to happen before the next presidential election in 2012.  He will also be giving Israel a whole lot of new warplanes in exchange for absolutely nothing, making it more likely that Joe Lieberman’s dream of an Iran reduced to a bubbling puddle by Zionist nukes might come about.

Just as Bristol Palin’s lead footed performance on television’s Dancing with the Stars proves that you don’t actually have to know how to dance to enter the finals of a dance competition in the United States, so too has it proven unnecessary to know anything at all to wind up in congress or to aspire to even higher office. The dittoheads from both parties have taken control of Washington.  Being voted into office by a largely ignorant electorate that has been led by the nose for years appears to have become something close to sanctification, turning a used car salesman into a latter day Palmerston.  Both voters and those they elect confuse the ability to bomb the crap out of half of the world with sound judgment and statesmanship.  What goes through the brain of someone who casts a vote for a Lindsey Graham or a John McCain or a Joe Lieberman?  Or, God help us all, a Sarah Palin?  Is it a form of mental illness or some kind of Armageddonite impulse that is seeking a war that will terminate the world as we know it?  Well, with the new Republican majority and a cipher in the White House they just might get their chance to end everything. 

But as it is Thanksgiving, it is perhaps appropriate to ditch the gloom for just one day and look on the bright side.  There has been no war against Iran in spite of the best efforts of Graham, McCain, Lieberman, Palin, the Israel Lobby, and the mainstream media.  That is largely due to the intelligence community’s having developed a backbone in its 2007 Iran NIE, but it is also the product of alternative media sites like that make sure that the downside of yet another military adventure is made clear to an increasingly well informed and vocal public.  Antiwar has a stable of staff and contributors who put in long hours to produce unique content for the site, reflecting a wide range of viewpoints even if neocons are not generally welcome, thank you very much.  On Thanksgiving I personally want to thank the many contributors whom I read and listen to every week:  Justin Raimondo, Kelley Vlahos, Scott Horton, Ivan Eland, Chuck Pena, Jeff Huber, Jim Lobe, Gareth Porter, Paul Craig Roberts, and so many others.  And I particularly will drink a toast later today to my fellow former spooks who have done so much to rip the veil of secrecy that surrounds the National Security State and its bankrupt policies:  Ray McGovern, Michael Scheuer, and the Christisons.  Floreat in aeternum!

Read more by Philip Giraldi

Article printed from Original:

Robert Fisk: Now we know. America really doesn’t care about injustice in the Middle East


Robert Fisk: Now we know. America really doesn’t care about injustice in the Middle East:

Robert Fisk: An American bribe that stinks of appeasement

Inside Story – WikiLeaks and the craft of journalism (Robert Fisk interviewed)

WikiLeaks blows cover off Israel’s covert Gulf states ties

Wikileaks blows cover off Israel’s covert Gulf states ties

  • Published 23:19 29.11.10
  • Latest update 23:19 29.11.10
  • Diplomatic cable dating from 2009 indicates that then FM Tzipi Livni had a good working, personal relationship with U.A.E. Foreign Minister Abdullah Ibn Zayed.

    By Barak Ravid Tags: Israel news Tzipi Livni UAE WikiLeaks

    Israel’s covert relations with the United Arab Emirates were yet another issue exposed by the recent leak of 250,000 diplomatic cables by the whistle-blowing website WikiLeaks on Sunday.

    In a cable dating to March of 2009, Marc Sievers, the political advisor of the U.S. embassy in Tel Aviv, provides an overview of Israel’s relations with the Gulf states, following a meeting with the head of the Middle East division of the Foreign Ministry, Yaakov Hadas.

    The overview details a “good and personal relationship” to have been developed between then Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni and U.A.E. Foreign Minister Abdullah Ibn Zayed, adding, however, that the two officials would not “do in public what they say behind closed doors.”

    While Israel and the U.A.E. do not have official diplomatic relations, the diplomatic cable exposed by WikiLeaks uncovers the secret and persistent dialogue between the two countries during the administration of former Prime Minster Ehud Olmert.

    In addition to the Foreign Ministry, which was reportedly in charge of most of these covert contacts, reports have also emerged that the Mossad Meir Dagan chief was entrusted with secret talks with Saudi Arabia.

    Another part of the cable also addressed Israel’s ties with Qatar, which were severed several months prior to the reported meeting over Israel’s war against Hamas in early 2009.

    Hadas is quoted as pointing out that there were signs that pressure on Qatar to renew its relations with Israel was beginning to bear fruit. The Israeli officials also indicated that he had been invited to talks at Doha by Qatari officials geared at discussing the possibility of reopening the Israeli mission in the country.

    “The Qataris need to understand that they cannot expect Israeli cooperation without agreeing to reopen the Israeli mission,” Hadas is quoted as saying.

    Wikileaks: Mossad chief wanted to enlist opposition groups against Iranian government

    The following confirms the ‘divide and conquer’ strategy for Israel’s enemies that Dr. Stephen Sniegoski discusses in his ‘The Transparent Cabal’ book (see which is based on  Israeli Likudnik Oded Yinon’s plan (see comments section at bottom of,7340,L-3991099,00.html

    Various secret documents released on Iran, showing Mossad chief wanted to enlist Iranian opposition groups to revolt against government while Arab leaders, including Mubarak, asked US to stop nuclear program with military strike

    Latest Update:  11.29.10, 00:37 / Israel News

    Secret documents leaked by the controversial Web entity WikiLeaks say Iran used ambulances to smuggle weapons into Lebanon during Hezbollah’s 2006 war with Israel. 

    Additional documents exposed Sunday say Mossad chief Meir Dagan suggested the US make use of local fringe groups to try and topple the Iranian regime.

    Other documents show that Iran had acquired far more advanced missiles than the US had previously supposed it had in its arsenal.

    According to a memo from August 2007, Dagan described to Under-Secretary of State Nicholas Burns the five pillars of Israel’s Iran policy, among them the desire to spark a revolution.

    The memo says Dagan wanted to enlist the student unions supporting democratic views in order to undermine the government’s rule, the British Guardian reported Sunday.

    The Mossad chief also wanted to enlist local ethnic minorities to the task, including the Kurds and Balochis. These groups – especially the Balochis – have carried out terror attacks in Tehran for which the Islamic Republic has consistently blamed Israel.


    WikiLeak document: Israel’s Barak tells US to attack Iran, N. Korea

    WikiLeak document: Israel’s Barak tells US to attack Iran, N. Korea
    Seems like the corrupt Saudis are on the same page as Israel yet again:

    Saudi king urged US to attack Iran: WikiLeaks – Reuters

    Corrupt Saudis pushing for Iran war seems to fit with following interview:

    Press TV talks to James Morris on US-Saudi Arms Deal (coming war with Iran discussed):

    Additional at following URL:

    Israeli Nuke Double Standard:


    Even Michael Scheuer says that Saudi Arabia/Israel isn’t worth an American dollar or an American life:

    Former CIA Bin Laden unit head Michael Scheuer slams Israel lobby on C-SPAN

    How did neoconservatism come to dominate Republican foreign-policy thinking?

    How did neoconservatism come to dominate Republican foreign-policy thinking?

    Republican foreign policy and the New START treatyPower and ideas 

    Nov 23rd 2010, 17:09 by D.L. | PHILADELPHIA

    YESTERDAY I wrote that Republican opposition to ratification of the New START treaty with Russia could be traced to the influence of delusional neoconservative ideas about America’s strength—or rather, its invincibility. Instead of formulating policies suited to “a world governed by economic, budgetary, military, and diplomatic limits”, neocons indulge in magical thinking, pretending that America is so exceptional that it need never “sit at a negotiating table, entertain a mutually beneficial compromise, or ratify a treaty with any nation that would dare to pursue interests contrary to our own in any region of the world.” This is a fantasy dangerously detached from the reality of a world in which “the United States is very powerful but far from free to do whatever it wants without constraint.”

    Shortly after my post appeared, Stephen Walt wrote a post at Foreign Policy that made something close to the opposite argument. According to Mr Walt, Republicans are opposing ratification not because they believe America is more powerful than it is; they are opposing ratification because America is in fact more powerful than it should be. The US is, in Mr Walt’s words, “too secure for its own good.” Facing no serious external threat, being “as secure as any state could ever expect to be”, America has grown reckless, permitting “politicians to use foreign policy as a partisan political football, and to indulge special interests and other ideological fixations.” The problem isn’t delusional ideas, in other words, but rather the practical consequences of the country’s status as a hyperpower.

    Mr Walt is surely right, up to a point. The international context—and above all America’s enormous military and economic might within that context—is a necessary condition for explaining Republican opposition to the New START treaty. But it is far from sufficient. To go further, we must take ideas more seriously than Mr Walt and his fellow realists typically do. We need to ask why neoconservative ideas about the proper exercise of American power have won out among Republicans over the far more sober and sensible ideas of realists like Richard Luger, Henry Kissinger, James Baker, Brent Scowcroft, and, yes, Stephen Walt.

    Since the attacks of September 11th, neocons have found a receptive audience for their ideas within the Republican Party in Washington and among its populist base. That audience is receptive because the neocons are telling it what it wants to hear: America is both powerful and good—so powerful and good, in fact, that the ordinary rules of international relations need not and ought not apply to us. But neoconservatism doesn’t just encourage the “perpetual utterance of self-applause” to which Alexis de Tocqueville said Americans are always prone. It also gives voice to intense anxiety about America’s capacity to defend itself against a handful of stateless terrorists, which neocons judge, beyond all plausibility, to be an existential threat to the United States. Many Americans clearly share that anxiety while also finding comfort in the nationalist bravado that neoconservatism offers as an antidote.

    Mr Walt laments the foolishness that would lead us to undermine relations with a major power (Russia) while vastly overreacting to the threat of Islamic extremism. I share his concern and dismay. But the source of America’s foolishness isn’t its strength—or, at least, not simply. The source is a constellation of ideas about American national identity that neoconservative intellectuals have masterfully marketed to a portion of the public which seems all-too-eager to swallow it whole. If we wish to see these ideas exercise less influence, it is our responsibility to provide a more persuasive and compelling alternative.




    ‘US not interested in Iran’s nuclear program – it’s all about oil’



    How could you push the Chomsky line (in following RT interview) with US going after Iran for oil when it is all about Israel (Chomsky has tried to downplay the neocon/pro-Israel lobby influence for Iraq and Iran for years) as you need to read Bamford’s ‘A Pretext for War’ and Steve Sniegoski’s ‘The Transparent Cabal’ book along with the Mearsheimer/Walt book as well (see my Press TV interview about such via if interested further)?

    ‘US not interested in Iran’s nuclear program – it’s all about oil’