Jul 31, 2008

Netanyahu Rushes for Power in Israel, Before Bush's Term is Up

"Hurry the elections", cries "Bibi"--he wants into power NOW. The Likud Party is linked directly to the neoconservatives in America who are the authors of the "war on terrorism" agenda that was devised BEFORE 9/11. Netanyahu (who is close friends with Larry Silverstein, the WTC leaseholder, and said 9/11 was good for Israel) wants power before the change of President in the U.S. in order to start war with Iran, to continue the neocon agenda beyond the Bush administration's term.

MARK THIS: If he wins, they will attack Iran immediately, and he is pushing hard to get in before Jan. '09, to control US war policy.

Pat Buchanan documented the link earlier:

In 1996, neoconservatives currently serving in the Bush administration wrote a policy paper for Israeli right-wing Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. In the policy paper Douglas Feith (currently Undersecretary of Defense), David Wurmser (VP Cheney’s staff) and Richard Perle (Defense Review Board) called for "removing Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq".
clipped from ap.google.com

Netanyahu calls for early Israeli elections

JERUSALEM (AP) — A day after Prime Minister Ehud Olmert announced he would depart political life, top rival Benjamin Netanyahu said Thursday that Israel should get rid of its current governing coalition and go straight to early elections.

Polls show the Likud Party's Netanyahu — a former prime minister who takes a hard line on territorial concessions to the Arabs — would most likely win such a race if it were held today. Olmert threw Israel's political system into turmoil on Wednesday by abruptly announcing he would step down after his Kadima Party's leadership race in September, called because of a series of corruption allegations against him.

"The right thing to do when the prime minister goes is ... to let the people choose who will lead them and whoever is chosen, he is the one who will need to put together a government," Netanyahu said.

The internal turmoil could make it difficult for Olmert to close deals with either the Palestinians or Syria

Jul 28, 2008

The Truth About the War in Afghanistan That Every American Should Know

Washington disguised its energy geopolitics by claiming the Afghan occupation was to fight `Islamic terrorism,’ liberate women, build schools, and promote democracy...

In early 2001,
six or seven months before 9/11, Washington made the decision to invade Afghanistan, overthrow Taliban, and install a client regime that would build the energy pipelines...

But Washington still kept up sending money to Taliban until four months before 9/11.
The 9/11 attacks, about which Taliban knew nothing, supplied the pretext to invade Afghanistan.
-- Eric Margolis, Foreign Correspondent

Obama's tour in Afghanistan demonstrated that he supports the war there and an expansion of it. In fact he justified the entire "war on terrorism" on his trip, precisely as the neoconservative Bush administration has presented it. In the previous post (below) we highlighted Obama's interview with Lara Logan on CBS where he stated that the Taliban and Al Qaeda are "planning attacks [on America] from here". Based on what evidence other than repetitious allegation? That is a lie straight from the neocon propaganda machine that this "change" candidate is parroting. Not only McCain then, but Obama himself would expand the "war on terrorism", in Afghanistan and even into Pakistan. Obama in fact appeared closer to McCain and Bush in this rhetoric while he claimed Bush and McCain were shifting toward him on Iraq. Americans should not be fooled by this candidate who, like the rest of the candidates that were also members of the Council on Foreign Relations (i.e. McCain, Giuliani, Hillary, Romney, Thompson) will continue the global policy of regime change under guise of a "war on terrorism".

The truth is that most Americans have justly criticized the Iraq war (finely seeing that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, nor had WMD to produce "mushroom clouds") while giving Afghanistan a pass, since the Taliban are based there. This is because the basic argument used against the Bush administration's Iraq war was that IF the "war on terrorism" was legitimate (the premise), THEN it should be waged against those blamed in the official 9/11 story--i.e. bin Laden and the Taliban connected to him in Afghanistan (conclusion). But most have not examined that claim about the Taliban that was asserted as often as Saddam having WMD. To claim that the Taliban, or even bin Laden, were responsible for 9/11 is beyond any evidence available, and they both denied any knowledge or participation (CNN report here) in that "catalyzing event", as the neoconservative's forenamed it in their Project for New American Century policy paper (Rebuilding America's Defenses, Sept. 2000) drafted a year prior to 9/11.

The following article excerpt from Eric Margolis (Foreign Correspondent and Defense Analyst), At Last Some Truth About Iraq and Afghanistan, is a must read then for just how Americans were tricked into war with not only Iraq, but Afghanistan, on the basis of 9/11, while the plans to begin both wars for "regime change", per the neoconservative blueprint for a "new middle east", were already in works, and only waiting on some "catalyzing event, like a new Pearl Harbor" to justify attacking and invading and overthrowing the governments of two sovereign countries. Here is the truth about the War in Afghanistan, and even into Pakistan, which Obama is legitimizing, that every American should know, and consider during this campaign season where the Democrat and Republican candidates are sounding closer together on war policy than ever, and the fraud of a war on terrorism is being perpetuated by both. The question that begs an answer is this: If the war in Afghanistan, like Iraq, is based upon plans laid well before 9/11, and in fact there is no connection between the Taliban and 9/11, how can the war continue to be justified? An oil pipeline from the Caspian Basin through Afghanistan to Pakistan explains a great deal about the "war on terrorism", in this region.

At Last Some Truth About Iraq and Afghanistan

...Afghanistan just signed a major deal to launch a long-planned, 1680 km long pipeline project expected to cost $ 8 billion. If completed, the Turkmenistan-Afghanistan-Pakistan-India pipeline (TAPI) will export gas and, later, oil from the Caspian Basin to Pakistan’s coast where tankers will transport it to the west. ...

But there are only two practical ways to get gas and oil out of land-locked Central Asia to the sea: through Iran, or through Afghanistan to Pakistan. For Washington, Iran is tabu. That leaves Pakistan, but to get there, the planned pipeline must cross western Afghanistan...

In 1998, the Afghan anti-Communist movement Taliban and a western oil consortium led by the US firm Unocal signed a major pipeline deal. Unocal lavished money and attention on Taliban, flew a senior delegation to Texas, and also hired an minor Afghan official, one Hamid Karzai.

Enter Osama bin Laden. He advised the unworldly Taliban leaders to reject the US deal and got them to accept a better offer from an Argentine consortium, Bridas. Washington was furious and, according to some accounts, threatened Taliban with war.

In early 2001, six or seven months before 9/11, Washington made the decision to invade Afghanistan, overthrow Taliban, and install a client regime that would build the energy pipelines. But Washington still kept up sending money to Taliban until four months before 9/11 in an effort to keep it `on side’ for possible use in a war or strikes against Iran.

The 9/11 attacks, about which Taliban knew nothing, supplied the pretext to invade Afghanistan. The initial US operation had the legitimate objective of wiping out Osama bin Laden’s al-Qaida. But after its 300 members fled to Pakistan, the US stayed on, built bases – which just happened to be adjacent to the planned pipeline route – and installed former Unocal `consultant’ Hamid Karzai as leader.

Washington disguised its energy geopolitics by claiming the Afghan occupation was to fight `Islamic terrorism,’ liberate women, build schools, and promote democracy. Ironically, the Soviets made exactly the same claims when they occupied Afghanistan from 1979-1989. The cover story for Iraq was weapons of mass destruction, Saddam’s supposed links to 9/11, and promoting democracy.

Work will begin on the TAPI once Taliban forces are cleared from the pipeline route...

Jul 22, 2008

Obama's Foreign Policy Goes Neocon--Unjust Wars Will Continue

The real Obama policy, "Al Qaeda, Taliban, war on terrorism" continues. Must see video from CBS interview where Obama:

1 legitimizes the neoconservative war on terrorism as a necessary and true war ;
2 escalate war in Afghanistan for regime change, like Iraq, continues (which is also a civil war);
3 willing to attack targets inside Pakistan--i.e. invade any sovereign country to kill and destroy alleged terrorists (think collateral damage on civilians or wrongly accused from missiles and UAV drones).

Watch the interview, Obama does not answer one "why?" question (a great question) of Lara Logan with any credible response ("they are planning attacks from here?"--evidence please) about the necessity of the war on terrorism , he simply dodges and assumes its legitimacy without reason or debate. UNJUST WAR is the problem here. Where is the protest?

The war on terrorism is not a true or legal constitutional war, and enabling Obama to do the same as Bush without criticism is hypocritical and partisan blindness. It has always been the goal to finish Iraq and legitimize and spread the war on terrorism.

Note the media here in this article, where being "hawkish" is elevated and War equals Patriotism.

The only conclusion one could have then is that a vote for Obama is a vote to continue Unjust Wars under pretense of fighting "terrorism" while it is plainly for "regime change". The war against Afghanistan for the neoconservative agenda is as unjust as the war in Iraq, for there was no evidence that Afghanistan or the Taliban or bin Laden (both of which denied knowledge or participation in 9/11 in BBC and foreign press in Oct. 2001) had anything to do with what the neocons called "the new Pearl Harbor".

Is it enough for hypocrites to have a black man and democrat in the White House to constitute "change"? What has everyone been complaining about for over 5 years, if not unjust war, and how would THIS, from Obama's own mouth, change any of it? Dare we mention again his vote FOR the Telecom Immunity and Spy Powers bill?

There is no escape from these facts, and burying your head in the sand like the proverbial ostrich, or turning your head and voting for Obama CONTINUES THE SAME AGENDA.

clipped from www.cbsnews.com

Obama Shows Hawkish Side On Mideast Trip

CBSNews.com Reports: Democrat Talks Tough About Afghanistan To Show Skeptics He Can Be Strong Commander In Chief

Exclusive: Obama In Afghanistan

Presumptive Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama speaks with CBS News chief foreign affairs correspondent Lara Logan about his visit to the Middle East and the War on Terror in Afghanistan. | Share/Embed

It was an ideal photo opportunity for a candidate looking to convince skeptics of his patriotism - just 37 percent of voters identified Obama as "very patriotic" in a recent CBS News/New York Times poll - and his toughness when it comes to foreign policy.
On Sunday, the Illinois senator urged the Bush administration to move more troops into Afghanistan as soon as possible during an appearance on "Face The Nation." He also reiterated his willingness to authorize unilateral U.S. action against terrorist targets in Pakistan's tribal areas if the Pakistani government will not act.

Jul 21, 2008

REAL ID, A Real Threat to Gun Rights

Gun Owners of America has stated the same, but this article shows how. Like the Social Security card, now used as a national identifier for non-related purposes, REAL ID would morf beyond its stated purpose (because the SSN is one of its central components). Homeland 'Security claims absolutely arbitrary power to change its usage requirements without Congressional approval (when in fact REAL ID was only approved by tagging it to a war spending bill, without debate!). Congress therefore has created a monster beyond control.

This is another solid reason that Gov. Manchin and the legislature must pass a bill rejecting it without delay, as have a growing number of other states. The author of this article is in Pennsylvania, which is also under pressure from its citizens to outlaw and nullify REAL ID in their DMV operations.

Monday, July 21, 2008

REAL ID – A very real threat to gun rights

Homeland Security claims far reaching power over your guns
The long-term plan for REAL ID is to force its biometric ID functions on federal, state, local and private entities for all transactions. Thus, ID confirmation by a distant bureaucracy becomes permission for essential daily activities including banking, doctor visits, transit, school attendance and purchases -- including guns.
According to the Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) final rule handed down in January, DHS "will continue to consider additional ways in which a Real ID license can or should be used and will implement any changes to the definition of 'official purpose' or determinations regarding additional uses for Real ID consistent with applicable laws and regulatory requirements. DHS does not agree that it must seek the approval of Congress as a prerequisite to changing the definition in the future."

Jul 18, 2008

US to House Diplomats in Iran, Oil Prices Drop Immediately

This is the real reason oil prices dropped sharply Thursday, when this news broke overseas, 5 hours ahead of US time. NBC Nightly News last night (Thurs, July 17) had it right in interview with economist who said oil prices have included an "Iran premium" due to war rhetoric from US and Israel. Immediately the price fell when it looks like diplomacy might open up a bit.

clipped from www.guardian.co.uk
US plans to station diplomats in Iran for first time since 1979

Washington move signals thaw in relations

The US plans to establish a diplomatic presence in Tehran for the first time in 30 years as part of a remarkable turnaround in policy by President George Bush.

The Guardian has learned that an announcement will be made in the next month to establish a US interests section - a halfway house to setting up a full embassy. The move will see US diplomats stationed in the country.

The news of the shift by Bush who has pursued a hawkish approach to Iran throughout his tenure comes at a critical time in US-Iranian relations. After weeks that have seen tensions rise with Israel conducting war games and Tehran carrying out long-range missile tests, a thaw appears to be under way.

The White House announced yesterday that William Burns, a senior state department official, is to be sent to Switzerland on Saturday to hear Tehran's response to a European offer aimed at resolving the nuclear standoff.

Less US Demand, Less War-Mongering Against Iran

Jul 12, 2008

Senators Votes on Telecom/Spy Bill--Obama, Clinton, McCain, Byrd, Rockefeller

Clinton, Nay; Obama, Yea; McCain, No Vote. McCain ducked!

As usual, Byrd got this one right, Nay, (Constitution in pocket) and Rockefeller, Yea, got it wrong, again. See more traitors and defenders of the 4th amendment at the linked source.
clipped from senate.gov
U.S. Senate Roll Call Votes
Congress -

as compiled through Senate LIS by the Senate Bill Clerk under the direction of the Secretary of the Senate

Vote Summary

On Passage of the Bill
(H.R. 6304
Vote Number: 168 Vote Date: July 9, 2008, 02:47 PM
Required For Majority: 1/2 Vote Result: Bill Passed
Measure Number: H.R. 6304
(Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978
Measure Title: A bill to amend the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 to establish a procedure for authorizing certain acquisitions of foreign intelligence, and for other purposes.
Vote Counts:YEAs69


Not Voting3
Vote SummaryBy Senator NameBy Vote PositionBy Home State
Byrd (D-WV), Nay
Clinton (D-NY), Nay
Leahy (D-VT), Nay
McCain (R-AZ), Not Voting
Webb (D-VA), Yea
Obama (D-IL), Yea
Rockefeller (D-WV), Yea
Feinstein (D-CA), Yea
Kennedy (D-MA), Not Voting

The Senate Votes to Abolish the 4th Amendment, Permit Spying on Americans

Jul 10, 2008

Russia Threatens Military Response to US Missile Deal--Cold War Reignited

“We will be forced to react not with diplomatic,
but with military-technical methods.”

--Russian Foreign Ministry

The Bush regime has insanely reignited the Cold War that Reagan ended! If you were Russia (and read the neocon blueprints for global hegemony) you would see this is clearly designed to circle the wagons around NATO against both Russia and Iran, which will force Russia and Iran to ally...which is a recipe for potential world war!

Tell me how this is different than Khrushchev setting up missiles in Cuba which sparked the Cuban Missile Crisis when JFK was president. Putin is right, "Provocatory" isn't it?

Who will stop this rogue government which is hell-bent on instigating new conflicts toward global upheaval before its term is up? For more on this see the Common Dreams article "Bush in Fantasyland", which states:

So why is the Bush administration imposing this sucker of a weapons system that nobody wants on an already inflamed relationship with Russia? Why risk sparking a renewed nuclear arms race?

“Politics drives this deployment decision,” Cirincione says. “Bush Administration officials are trying to lock in the program before they leave office. They are trying to build bases they hope the next president will find impossible to shut down.”

Russia threatens military response to US missile defense deal

July 9, 2008

Russia threatened to retaliate by military means after a deal with the Czech
Republic brought the US missile defence system in Europe a step closer.

The threat followed quickly on from the announcement that Condoleezza Rice signed a formal agreement with the Czech Republic to host the radar for the controversial project.

Moscow argues that the missile shield would severely undermine the balance of
European security and regards the proposed missile shield based in two
former Communist countries as a hostile move.

“We will be forced to react not with diplomatic, but with military-technical
methods,” the Russian Foreign Ministry said in a statement.

"This missile defence agreement is significant as a building block not
just for the security of the United States and the Czech Republic, but also
for the security of Nato and the security of the international community as
a whole," Dr Rice said

Jul 8, 2008

Bush's Neoconservative War Agenda is the Chief Cause of High Gas Prices

People must see this oil price chart (linked) and pass it on! This article documents and graphically demonstrates the obvious that no one is saying (on talk radio especially), i.e the wars and war-mongering of Bush government are the main cause of high gas prices. For oil prices to fall the neoconservative-Israeli war agenda must be stopped--period, end of argument.

clipped from www.nsnetwork.org

Americans Are Paying at the Pump for the Failed Foreign Policies of the Bush Administration

The War in Iraq and Saber-Rattling toward Iran is Hurting Americans at the Pump

As Americans take to the road this Fourth of July they are once again in for sticker shock at the pump. Fuel costs have skyrocketed from $20 per barrel in 2002 to $80 last summer to approximately $140 today.


Rising oil prices and the world’s insecurity are linked.
Rising tensions in the world’s oil producing hotspots contribute to an oil “security premium,” increasing prices by as much as 30 percent.


The Bush Administration’s decision to invade Iraq and its failure to manage the security situation has hurt our energy security.
Ceaseless confrontation with Iran has raised costly speculation about a future oil shock.