The Obama Puppet

The World’s Least Powerful Man – The Obama Puppet

By PAUL CRAIG ROBERTS

It didn’t take the Israel Lobby very long to bring President Obama to heel regarding his prohibition against further illegal Israeli settlements on occupied Palestinian land. Obama discovered that a mere American president is powerless when confronted by the Israel Lobby and that the United States simply is not allowed a Middle East policy separate from Israel’s.

Obama also found out that he cannot change anything else either, if he ever intended to do so.

The military/security lobby has war and a domestic police state on its agenda, and a mere American president can’t do anything about it.

President Obama can order the Guantanamo torture chamber closed and kidnapping and rendition and torture to be halted, but no one carries out the order.

Essentially, Obama is irrelevant.

President Obama can promise that he is going to bring the troops home, and the military lobby says, “No, you are going to send them to Afghanistan, and in the meantime start a war in Pakistan and maneuver Iran into a position that will provide an excuse for a war there, too. Wars are too profitable for us to let you stop them.”

And the mere president has to say, “Yes, Sir!”

Obama can promise health care to 50 million uninsured Americans, but he can’t override the veto of the war lobby and the insurance lobby. The war lobby says its war profits are more important than health care and that the country can’t afford both the “war on terror” and “socialized medicine.”

The insurance lobby says health care has to be provided by private health insurance; otherwise, we can’t afford it.

The war and insurance lobbies rattled their campaign contribution pocketbooks and quickly convinced Congress and the White House that the real purpose of the health care bill is to save money by cutting Medicare and Medicaid benefits, thereby “getting entitlements under control.”

Continue reading: COUNTER PUNCH

Paul Craig Roberts was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury in the Reagan administration. He is coauthor of The Tyranny of Good Intentions. His new book, How the Economy was Lost, will be published in January by AK Press / CounterPunch. He can be reached at: PaulCraigRoberts[a]yahoo[dot]com

Is Obama Poised to Cede US Sovereignty?

On October 14, Lord Christopher Monckton gave a presentation in St. Paul, MN on the subject of global warming. In this 4-minute excerpt from his speech, he issues a dire warning to all Americans regarding the United Nations Climate Change Treaty that is scheduled to be signed in Copenhagen in December 2009.

A draft of the treaty can be read here:

http://www.globalclimatescam.com/docu…

Page 18: Section 38 of the “Share vision for long-term cooperation action plan” contains the text for forming the new government.

Page 44-45: Section 46 “Objectives, scope, and guiding principles” contains the text for enforcement and establishment of the rule of law.

There has been considerable debate raised about Monckton’s conclusion that the Copenhagen Treaty would cede US sovereignty. His comments appear to be based upon his interpretation of the The Supremacy Clause in the US Constitution (Article VI, paragraph 2). This clause establishes the Constitution, Federal Statutes, and U.S. TREATIES as the supreme law of the land. Concerns have been raised in the past that a particularly ambitious treaty may supersede the US Constitution. In the 1950s, a constitutional amendment, known as the Bricker Amendment, was proposed in response to such fears, but it failed to pass. You can read more about the Bricker Amendment in a 1953 Time Magazine article:

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/art…,9171,806676-1,00.html

Lord Monckton served as a policy adviser to Margaret Thatcher. He has repeatedly challenged Al Gore to a debate to which Gore has refused. Monckton sued to stop Gore’s film “An Inconvenient Truth” from being shown in British schools due to its inaccuracies. The judge found in-favor of Monckton, ordering 9 serious errors in the film to be corrected. Lord Monckton travels internationally in an attempt to educating the public about the myth of global warming.

Sequential Destruction of Muslim Nations

Now Pakistan

By LIAQUAT ALI KHAN

A conspiratorial view of the world is frequently inaccurate, exposing more the paranoia of the view rather than the reality of the world. The sequential destruction of Muslim nations — Palestine, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, (and Iran is on the list) — may or may not be a conspiracy hatched in Washington D.C., but it is becoming an international reality.  It is no secret that the United States and Europe, with varying degree of mutual cooperation and some make-believe internal discord, superintend the sequential destruction of Muslim nations. This War of Sequential Destruction (WSD), despite Nobel-Laureate Barack Obama’s denials, refuses to go away.

The WSD is multi-frontal. It crosshairs Al-Qaeda, Taliban, Hezbollah, Hamas, Al-Bashir,  Ahmadinejad, Sunni, Shia, Wahabi, Gaza, Iraq, Syria, Sudan, Iran, Afghanistan, and now Pakistan. Many Western policymakers rarely see Muslim nations, including allies, with any inherent respect.  Vice President Dick Cheney described the Muslim world as “brute and nasty.” Obama advisers, though more guarded in their word choices, see Muslim nations no differently. The idea that Islam is inherently violent, openly expressed during the Bush administration, continues to animate foreign policy. The White House holds a new President but Congressional leadership and Washington policymakers are more or less the same. Anti-Islamic policies of warfare and destabilization are intact.

Therefore, the WSD will continue and gather momentum. The picture is not pretty. Palestinians are penned in misery and their territorial cage is constantly shrinking to meet the “natural growth” of vociferous settlers. Oil-rich Iraq is under American occupation and its communities have been torn apart with irreversible harm. Afghanistan, one of the poorest nations in the world, is placed under the boots of Western armies. Thousands of Afghans have been murdered, their houses bombed, their villages devastated. The International Criminal Court headquartered in Holland has indicted the first sitting head of the state, the Muslim President of Sudan. The United States and Europe, themselves armed with thousands of nuclear heads, are strategizing to punish Iran for asserting a treaty-based right to produce nuclear energy, leaving open the option of attacks on Iranian nuclear facilities.

After razing Iraq and Afghanistan, the WSD has now turned to ravage an ally, Muslim Pakistan. Pakistan is a nation that the British, in 1947, carved out of India and that India, in 1971, broke into two, liberating Bangladesh from the murderous clutch of the Pakistani military. Over the past sixty-two years, Pakistan’s military and civilian rulers, one after the other, and without exception, have turned to America for military training, weapons, money, and strategic instructions.  Eager to send their sons and daughters to Western cities for education and employment, Pakistani politicians, generals, and bureaucrats all look for ways, and create the ways, to oblige Western capitals, particularly Washington D.C.  Partly for personal interests and partly out of faulty readings of geopolitical situations, Pakistani rulers, like most rulers in Muslim nations, frequently compromise national sovereignty and public welfare.

The Pakistani orientation for self-destruction serves American interests. Facing a failing campaign in Afghanistan, Obama advisers decided to expand the war into Waziristan and other parts of Pakistan.  The United States desperately solicited the Pakistani military to join the Afghan war. Pakistani rulers, this time a democratically elected government, listened to the American call. They first permitted the CIA to fly drones armed with missiles, which killed a few militants but hundreds of civilians in the tribal areas. The United States later urged Pakistan to invade Swat to kill militants. Pakistan did. Millions of civilians were made homeless.

Source// COUNTERPUNCH

Why Lie?

Western hypocrisy – elections in Iran vs elections in Afghanistan

The “evidence” that Iranian election were stolen was the fact that the results were released too quickly.

This was enough for Western politicians and media to condemn the Iranian regime and cause rage and protests of the Western public.

On the other hand, the overwhelming evidence that Hamid Karzai, the Western puppet in Afghanistan, has clearly stolen the election is not causing any rage and protests.

Nearly 20 percent of the voters registered for the recent Afghan election were under age – in many cases as young as 12 years old.

This amounts to nearly 3.5 million cards issued to children.

Thousands of voting cards have been offered for sale and thousands of dollars offered in bribes to buy votes two days before the elections.

According to the most recent allegations, “up to 800 fake polling stations were set up by Hamid Karzai’s supporters to give him thousands of fraudulent votes.”

Continue reading: GATHER

Probe in to C.I.A. torture

“President Obama banned torture but officials say terrorist interrogation techniques prevented attacks, Bob Orr reports. Analyst Dan Bartlett spoke on the possibility of a criminal prosecution.”

0:42 – A C.I.A. contractor beat a prisoner with a heavy flash light and that prisoner died in custody.

…Since when do we call murder a “harsh tactic”? and the point that some (i.e. Dick Cheney) try to push down our throats that these “harsh tactics” saved lives is just plain silly and really belongs only on the 24. It’s silly for two reasons; we are Americans and do not torture, well at least not until Bush II. As a global power in this unipolar world we set the standard for the rest of the world–and what type of standard is this anyways. Secondly, if one were tortured while under investigation it is only logical to satisfy the your interrogators by answering with whatever they wanted to hear as to end the torture process. Eventually everyone will break if they are tortured for an extended period of time (like Khalid Sheik Mohammad being waterboarded 183 times), by break I don’t mean they will necessarily give actual, true insight into their activities. Indeed, KSM later boasted that he wasted our time/resources by giving false information and therefor sending agents after empty events.

Tom Ridge: I Was Pressured To Raise Terror Alert To Help

In a new book, former Secretary of Homeland Security Tom Ridge reveals new details on politicization under President Bush, reports US News & World Report’s Paul Bedard. Among other things, Ridge admits that he was pressured to raise the terror alert to help Bush win re-election in 2004.

HUFFINGTON POST

Where Is the Outrage?

By Robert Scheer

Are we Americans truly savages or merely tone-deaf in matters of morality, and therefore more guilty of terminal indifference than venality? It’s a question demanding an answer in response to the publication of the detailed 370-page report on U.S. complicity in torture, issued last week by the Justice Department’s inspector general.

Because the report was widely cited in the media and easily accessed as a pdf file on the Internet, it is fair to assume that those of our citizens who remain ignorant of the extent of their government’s commitment to torture as an official policy have made a choice not to be informed. A less appealing conclusion would be that they are aware of the heinous acts fully authorized by our president but conclude that such barbarism is not inconsistent with that American way of life that we celebrate.

But that troubling assessment of moral indifference is contradicted by the scores of law enforcement officers, mostly from the FBI, who were so appalled by what they observed as routine official practice in the treatment of prisoners by the United States in Afghanistan, Iraq and Guantanamo that they risked their careers to officially complain. A few brave souls from the FBI even compiled a “war crimes file,” suggesting the unthinkable—that we might come to be judged as guilty by the standard we have imposed on others. Superiors in the Justice Department soon put a stop to such FBI efforts to hold CIA agents and other U.S. officials accountable for the crimes they committed.

That this systematic torture was carried out not by a few conveniently described “bad apples” but rather represented official policy condoned at the highest level of government was captured in one of those rare media reports that remind us why the Founding Fathers signed off on the First Amendment.

“These were not random acts,” The New York Times editorialized. “It is clear from the inspector general’s report that this was organized behavior by both civilian and military interrogators following the specific orders of top officials. The report shows what happens when an American president, his secretary of defense, his Justice Department and other top officials corrupt American law to rationalize and authorize the abuse, humiliation and torture of prisoners.”

One of those top officials, who stands revealed in the inspector general’s report as approving the torture policy, is Condoleezza Rice, who in her capacity as White House national security adviser turned away the concerns of then-Attorney General John D. Ashcroft as to the severe interrogation measures being employed. Rice, as ABC-TV reported in April, chaired the top-level meetings in 2002 in the White House Situation Room that signed off on the CIA treatment of prisoners—“whether they would be slapped, pushed, deprived of sleep or subjected to simulated drowning, called water boarding. …” According to the report, the former academic provost of Stanford University came down on the side of simulated drowning.

As further proof that women are not necessarily more squeamish than men in condoning such practices, the report offers examples of sexual and religious denigration of the mostly Muslim prisoners by female interrogators carrying out an official policy of “invasion of space by a female.” In one recorded instance observed by startled FBI agents, a female interrogator was seen with a prisoner “bending his thumbs back and grabbing his genitals … to cause him pain.” One of the agents testified that this was not “a case of a rogue interrogator acting on her own.” He said he witnessed a “pep rally” meeting conducted by a top Defense Department official “in which the interrogators were encouraged to get as close to the torture statute line as possible.”

(Continue reading: Truthdig)

Scott McClellan on the “liberal media”

In a minimally rational world, this extraordinary passage, from the new book by Scott McClellan, would forever slay the single most ludicrous myth in our political culture: The “Liberal Media”:

If anything, the national press corps was probably too deferential to the White House and to the administration in regard to the most important decision facing the nation during my years in Washington, the choice over whether to go to war in Iraq.The collapse of the administration’s rationales for war, which became apparent months after our invasion, should never have come as such a surprise. . . . In this case, the “liberal media” didn’t live up to its reputation. If it had, the country would have been better served.

Just consider how remarkable that is. George Bush’s own Press Secretary criticizes the American media for being “too deferential” to the Government. He lays the blame for Bush’s ability to propagandize the nation on the media’s uncritical dissemination of the Republican administration’s falsehoods. And most notably of all, McClellan actually uses cynical scare quotes when invoking the phrase which, in conventional political discourse, is deemed the most unassailable truth of all: The Liberal Media.

How much longer can this preposterous myth be sustained when even the White House Spokesman not only mocks the phrase but derides the media for being “too deferential” to the right-wing Government “in regard to the most important decision facing the nation during [his] years in Washington”? If one were to set about with the goal of debunking the “Liberal Media” myth — as Eric Alterman specifically did four years ago and other media critics have more generally done before that — one couldn’t dream up evidence more conclusive than McClellan’s admissions.

Blindingly conclusive evidence which would — for any rational person — forever negate the “Liberal Media” myth has been piling up for years. The extraordinary (though woefully incomplete) 2004 mea culpa from The New York Times acknowledged that not just Judy Miller, but the paper as a whole, re-printed pro-war government claims that were “allowed to stand unchallenged.” The Washington Post’s own media critic, Howard Kurtz, documented that anti-war views were systematically buried at that paper. The NYT recently exposed that network and cable news shows for years continuously allowed Pentagon-controlled operatives to masquerade as “independent analysts” spouting the pro-government line with virtually no challenge. And the media’s pathological fixation on the Clinton sex scandals — which led to his impeachment — stood in stark contrast to the widespread indifference among the citizenry.

Beyond all that, are there any reporters left who deny that the campaign-covering media in 2000 was gushingly enamored of George Bush and oozing with contempt for Al Gore? Identically, their intense affection for John McCain is something they openly proclaim; as they shamelessly acknowledge, they’re his “base.” And while some journalists undoubtedly harbor admiration for Barack Obama, the non-stop coverage of one anti-Obama narrative after the next — Jeremiah Wright, lapel pins, patriotism “questions,” “Bittergate,” “problems” with Jewish and white voters — simply has no parallel in any coverage of McCain.

(Continue reading: Glen Greenwald-Salon.com)

The Libertarian Dark Horse is Still Kicking

An Exclusive Interview with Ron Paul

By WAJAHAT ALI

“Who the heck is Ron Paul?” asked many Americans over the course of the past year. The 70 year old, Texas Congressman’s name and face adorned web pages, blogs, email spams, posters and pamphlets throughout the nation. Out of nowhere, the Republican Presidential candidate appeared on television for the Primary debates giving blunt, hard hitting, no nonsense answers and lacerating jabs. He criticized fellow candidates for their foreign policy, corporate cronyism, and support of “big” government. His candid demeanor, especially in calling out the Administration for its failure in Iraq, helped win him over many independents, jaded Republicans, and “on the fence” liberals who found his voice a refreshing and legitimate “third option.” He dominates the Internet search engines, wins most of the online polls, maintains an overwhelming presence on Youtube, and recently scored a number one bestseller with his manifesto: “Ron Paul: The Revolution.”  Through independent, grass roots activism, his campaign received over $6 million dollars making it the largest one-day fundraiser in U.S. political history.

However, his detractors suggest Ron Paul is more of an “internet sensation” than a practical solution. His followers are seen as mindless and rabid “acolytes” whose repetitive mantra of “smaller government, de-regulations, pro free market” is naïve and blind to the economic and political realities of the world. Mostly, people suggest Congressman Paul’s rhetoric is simply old school libertarianism masquerading as a “revolution.” Regardless of your opinion, most admire his willingness to speak his mind. In this interview, he discusses a gamut of subjects in his characteristically frank and honest demeanor.

For nearly an hour, we tackled The Republican Party, President Bush’s legacy, Obama, Illegal Immigration, Abortion, Race in America, Foreign Policy in the Middle East, Gay Marriage, the Housing Crisis, Iraq, Afghanistan, and the American Media.

ALI: Many people are asking: “Are you still in the race?”

PAUL: Well, technically I am. I mean there’s not much of a race since McCain has all the votes. But I am participating. And we still try to get his votes. Like yesterday we got 15% in Oregon [Primary] and that represents a solid base that we have.

ALI: Next logical question, why still stay in the race?

PAUL: I think what we’re doing is real important. I think the message is important. The people who are involved, the volunteers, are enthusiastic. Our numbers keep growing. We still have money in the bank. They want to see the campaign continue to maximize our efforts and at the same look forward to continuing this project even after the election and make sure we reach as many people as we can.

ALI: It’s going to be, most likely, Obama vs. McCain. Who do you think will win? Who do you think should win? Can you move beyond partisan loyalty to support Obama?

PAUL: I think Obama will probably win the primary, but I wouldn’t bet money on it. At one time, I thought it would be impossible for any Republican to come close, but with the Democrats beating up on each other, it’s given time for McCain to recover a bit. But I can’t see how a Republicans can win, because this country does not like it when we have a long drawn out war and a bad economy, and that’s what we have.

So I think Obama certainly has the edge. If I had to bet money, I’d bet on Obama. As far as supporting Obama, I wouldn’t be able to, because he has a lot of positions I don’t agree with. His rhetoric is much closer than McCain on foreign policy obviously, but his foreign policy is not a whole lot different than what McCain and the Republicans have. You know, even the leadership in the House, the Democratic leadership has done nothing to really change things since they took over the House in 2006. I wouldn’t expect Obama to really change foreign policy. I still think they’re very much anxious to do something against Iran. [Nancy] Pelosi [Speaker of the House] has been pushing that, and that’s the position of both parties.

ALI: I want to ask you about the Republican Party. What is Bush’s legacy for the Republican Party, and what harm has he done to not only the nation but also the Republican Party? Can the Republican Party rebound in 2008 and, if so, what is its identity and how does it define itself?

PAUL: Well, they’re going to have a tough time, because they had their chance. The culmination of it was in 1994 and 2000, when they finally got the total control in preaching the gospel of less government and balanced budget. Even in the year 2000, Bush talked about no nation building and not playing the role of world policeman. The failure of that is so overwhelming: that is the legacy. So, getting credibility back is the main thing. And then going back to what they claim they believe in: smaller government, balanced budgets, personal liberty and the Constitution. They have a long way to go.

ALI: The name of your new book, a manifesto, is entitled “The Revolution.” These are bold words – no subtlety there. But many say your positions are merely rhetorical window dressing for old school libertarianism.

PAUL: Well, I don’t know where the old school libertarianism came from or where it is. It’s old school Constitutionalism. And the Constitution is very libertarian, so I guess you could connect it that way. But when thinking of conventional politics and Republican politics, it’s old school Republican politics. When we had a Robert Taft who was head of the Republican Party, he argued much of what I argue today. As a matter of fact, another interesting person who took that position was Warren Buffet’s dad, Howard Buffet, when he was in Congress. His position was very similar to mine. So, that may be old school Republicanism, but it just means that we believe the government should be really small in size and we should follow the Constitution.

ALI: Let’s talk about your foreign policy positions. You clarify in your book that you are not an isolationist but more of a non-interventionist. Your opposition to the Iraq War and pre-emptive strikes against Iran is now well known and quite popular with many progressives, independents, the Left and the youth. However, you are also critical of foreign aid to countries as well. If international actors, such as The IMF, WTO, or even Super Powers were to abandon predatory corporatism, couldn’t aid, such as educational aid to Afghanistan, deter future blowback and help create friendship? Are you averse to this form of “intervention?”

PAUL: No, and there still would be that I don’t want to steal money from people and give it to corrupt governments that would maybe misuse this money. A free and prosperous country would do this in a voluntary fashion. But, the point that people have to remember is that if you want to impose our will on Iraq through bombs and promote democracy: this is done with a “do good” objective. They’re always saying we’re going to promote the goodness of America, we’re going to promote democracy. They try to tell us this is all done with “good intentions.” So, if you do that and it backfires, then some of us will complain.

But doing the same thing using foreign aid, people say, “Well, this is different. This is economic aid.” So, that’s legitimate to tax poor people in this country, or inflate the currency, or borrow and bankrupt the country to do “good” on economic terms? But the whole thing is using force again.  So, I reject the use of force to promote these good intentions. Besides, just as good intentions in foreign policy backfire like they did in Iraq and Vietnam and so many other places, the good intentions in helping poor people who are starving in Africa do the same thing. Because if you send them food in the midst of civil war, the government takes it over and they use it as a weapon against certain factions, so it rarely does the job it’s supposed to do. Just because economic aid is well intended, it’s matter of fact identical to the “well intentions’ of those who want to use military force.

ALI: Will you say that The Marshall Plan was a use of “good” foreign intervention and aid? Subsequently, is there any example you can give me where foreign aid was actually beneficial? Any way where the U.S. could actually help?

PAUL: Well, no, I wouldn’t have voted for The Marshall Plan for the same reason I just stated. It was pointed out that if you look at all the capital investments after WW2, the Marshall Plan came late and it was small compared to what Germany did afterwards, under Erhardt, he didn’t follow the advice of liberal economists over here who told him, “Keep on with the wage and price controls and bunch of other things,” he just de-regulated it. He created an environment where a lot of capital came in. And that’s how they got back on their feet again.

I can’t think of anything where some good will come from it [foreign aid.] There’s not a good argument for that.  But there’s always some good that appears to come from it. Like, if you do anything here or domestically or overseas, you might say, “Well, look, you might be opposed to it, but we built this hospital, and it’s a wonderful hospital and it works. And we built this house for somebody.” But, so often, what is not asked is what is the expense? How much did it cost? Who lost their job? Who had to pay for this? How much debt was there? How much inflation did it cause? How long did the hospital last? Would the hospital last as long had it been developed privately? So, you can’t look and say that because it looks like it was beneficial in the short run for a small group, it never can justify the use of force to redistribute wealth at the point of a gun.

Whether you go and use a gun to take taxes and benefit Halliburton, it’s the same thing. Even when we do good here in this country, it’s interesting, we did the same thing where we had to help Katrina victims. It was terribly unsuccessful, but Halliburton was doing no bid contracts! So, that’s the kind of thing I object to. But the most important thing is that a lot of this could be taken care of and the fact that the government doesn’t do it, doesn’t mean it’s not going to happen, it’s going to likely happen in a much better manner.

ALI: What is your opinion on the government subcontracting crucial public sector functions to private military firms such as Halliburton and Blackwater? We’ve witnessed several public relations debacles and overspending and waste resulting from the government’s over reliance on this outsourcing in Iraq alone. Should both the private actors and the government be blamed? Isn’t this kind of a marriage between the government and corporate actors both going awry?

PAUL: Oh, yeah. That’s what militarism and all this government activity does. Militarism encourages the military industry complex. Once the government takes over medical care, then you have the medical industrial complex. In finance, you have the banking complex, because the banks are in bed with the Federal Reserve and they control the money and the interest rates. Very often the media, because it’s licensed and controlled by the government, they become the propagandas for war. So, you have too much of this, and if you had a strict constitutional society, you’d have none of it.

ALI: Congressman Paul, you voted for the use of military force in Afghanistan. However, Afghanistan now sees the rise of the Taliban, Hamid Karzai  [Afghanistan’s President] is effectively useless, there’s a beaten and wounded population, and no infrastructure. Do you regret that initial decision? Was it part of the pro war, patriotic fervor that gripped the nation post 9-11?

PAUL: Well, no, but if you go back and look at that authority, I’d probably vote for it again, but it does prove the point that even with the best intentions it doesn’t work out well. But precisely it didn’t work out well because the President didn’t do what he was asked to do. He was asked to go after Osama Bin Laden and catch the guys that had something to do with 9-11. That’s what we were targeting, and he didn’t keep his eye on the target. He dropped the ball at Tora Bora, they escaped into Pakistan, and then Bush went into nation building.

First in Iraq, then in Pakistan, and he’s been there ever since. That authority wasn’t to devise a foreign policy that ultimately was tremendously beneficial to Iran: he got rid of Saddam Hussein and he got rid of the Taliban. This was not beneficial for our interests. I would say the failure of that was because he didn’t do what he was supposed to do. The only argument against the vote would be that I don’t trust the President because he won’t use the authority right and he’ll blow it, and I’m not going to give him the authority to do this. But, under the circumstances, I thought we should’ve done something.

(Continue reading: CounterPunch)

Bush’s Commitment Problem

George Bush has a commitment problem. On his recent Middle East trip, he had to figure out how to demonstrate his loyalty to Israel and appear committed to peace and the Palestinians, all while rattling his saber at Iran for the sake of Israeli and American hawks. A good start to achieving one of those objectives, of course, was likening Barack Obama to the appeasers of Hitler and the Nazis in front of the Israeli Knesset.

According to the White House, Bush was in the region to “reaffirm efforts toward peace and prosperity and our close work with regional allies to combat terrorism and promote freedom.” For many who have watched as the administration has ratcheted up the aggressive rhetoric toward Iran, it is understood that the Bush administration is looking to “regional allies” for complicity on their plans for Iran.

Naturally, Bush was also there to celebrate Israel’s 60th anniversary and to note that “[e]leven minutes later [after independence], on the orders of President Harry Truman, the United States was proud to be the first nation to recognize Israel’s independence.” He went on to say, “And on this landmark anniversary, America is proud to be Israel’s closest ally and best friend in the world.”

During this trip the president once again attempted to convince Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas that Israel’s closest ally and best friend in the world is also the perfect third party to deliver an honest peace agreement between the two.

However, the Bush administration stacking the deck in favor of Israel isn’t exactly news to the Palestinians.

When Vice President Dick Cheney made an unexpected visit to Baghdad in March, that wasn’t the biggest surprise of his 10-day Middle East trip. More astounding was Cheney, arguably the sharpest-taloned hawk in the Bush administration’s war-hungry aerie, having been deployed to ostensibly do the work of diplomacy with Israelis and Palestinians. Cheney’s involvement in the so-called peace process is something of a cruel joke, despite White House claims that “he can certainly complement the kind of message that both the President and the Secretary [of State] have been consistently delivering to Israeli and Palestinian leaders about the depth of our commitment to try and make progress toward a Palestinian state.”

The real intentions of Cheney’s trip made the Palestinians the butt of the punch line. Although the vice president claimed that realizing a Palestinian state would require “painful concessions on both sides,” it was pretty clear Palestinians would have to endure the most pain when he told Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert at their March 22 meeting that “our two countries have been more than just strong allies. We’ve been friends—special friends—and our peoples bound together by unique ties of history, culture, religion, and memory. Today, both our nations share the ideals of liberty, equality, human dignity, and representative government.”

(Continue reading: Truthdig)

Paying for War at the Pump

What’s it got to do with the price of gas? Would some reporter with access to the Republican presidential candidate please ask John McCain why he wants to continue President Bush’s Mideast policy when it has proved so ruinous for American taxpayers? Because McCain is determined to ignore our economic meltdown and shift the debate to foreign policy, shouldn’t he have to explain why an open-ended military presence in the Mideast will make us economically and militarily more secure when the opposite is clearly the case?

Let’s not waste too much time on the military side of the equation. The argument that troops on the ground have made us militarily more secure is absurd on its face. American resources and lives have been squandered in an inane effort that McCain aptly criticized before becoming a presidential candidate. As a Senate watchdog, he distinguished himself by sharply denouncing one defense contractor boondoggle after another in cases involving hundreds of billions for modern weapons that had nothing to do with fighting cave-based terrorists. But as a presidential candidate, McCain now unabashedly apologizes for every twist of the downwind spiral of the Bush administration foreign policy, from wasteful weapons to inhuman torture.

McCain’s strategy is clearly that of distracting attention from the calamitous economy by sounding the demagogue’s alarm about enemies at the gate. This week, McCain again blasted Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama on the grounds that he underestimated the threat from Iran while ignoring the vast increase in Iran’s power—an increase actually resulting from Bush eliminating Iran’s only effective enemy, Saddam Hussein. The other winners in this folly have been the oil kingdoms that Hussein periodically threatened, led by the Saudi royal family. Seizing upon the opportunity presented by the 9/11 attacks, Bush knocked off not the Saudis, who had produced Osama bin Laden and 15 of his hijacker minions, but rather the royal family’s sworn enemy in Iraq, who had absolutely nothing do with 9/11.

(Continue reading: Truthdig)

US Planning Big New Prison In Afghanistan

The Pentagon is moving forward with plans to build a new, 40-acre detention complex on the main American military base in Afghanistan, officials said, in a stark acknowledgment that the United States is likely to continue to hold prisoners overseas for years to come.

The proposed detention center would replace the cavernous, makeshift American prison on the Bagram military base north of Kabul, which is now typically packed with about 630 prisoners, compared with the 270 held at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba.

Until now, the Bush administration had signaled that it intended to scale back American involvement in detention operations in Afghanistan. It had planned to transfer a large majority of the prisoners to Afghan custody, in an American-financed, high-security prison outside Kabul to be guarded by Afghan soldiers.

But American officials now concede that the new Afghan-run prison cannot absorb all the Afghans now detained by the United States, much less the waves of new prisoners from the escalating fight against Al Qaeda and the Taliban.

The proposal for a new American prison at Bagram underscores the daunting scope and persistence of the United States military’s detention problem, at a time when Bush administration officials continue to say they want to close down the facility at Guantánamo Bay.

(Continue reading: New  York Times)

Audio of Rumsfeld on Iraq creates buzz

Audio of luncheon with media military analysts posted on Newsvine

The blogosphere has been abuzz about the Internet posting of audio of a luncheon former Secretary of State Donald Rumsfeld held with media military analysts that provides insight into the relationship between those analysts and the Pentagon.

The Pentagon released the audio in response to requests filed by The New York Times under the Freedom of Information Act.

On April 20, The Times published “Behind TV Analysts, Pentagon’s Hidden Hand,” in which reporter David Barstow detailed a “Pentagon information apparatus that has used those analysts in a campaign to generate favorable news coverage of the administration’s wartime performance.”

The government released the audio, which lasts nearly an hour, on May 8. Jack Gillis, a 55-year-old self-described news junkie, downloaded it over the past weekend and analyzed it.

His findings, which he posted Monday on his Newsvine account (MSNBC is the owner of Newsvine), include a review of eight clips totaling nearly 10 minutes. Gillis, an adjunct professor of composition and rhetoric at a community college, also provides a link to the full audio.

The luncheon was held in December 2006, a month after Rumsfeld resigned as defense secretary.

(Continue reading: MSNBC)

Taking a Stand Against War

by Scott Ritter

As someone who has been urging focused citizen activism for some time now, I find it heartening that there are those in the United States who put action to words and seek to lead by example. This is the case with Chicago Alderman Joe Moore, who, together with seven of his 49 colleagues (Toni Preckwinkle, Sandi Jackson, Eugene Schulter, Robert Fioretti, Freddrenna Lyle, Ricardo Munoz and Mary Ann Smith), has prepared a resolution for the Chicago City Council opposing war on Iran. By itself, this resolution most probably will not serve to alter the policies currently being pursued by the Bush administration. But when a great American city such as Chicago takes the lead in expressing its rejection of irresponsible national policy, other cities should, and will, take notice.

(Continue reading: Truthdig)