Why Chuck Hagel Will Be a Great Secretary of 'Defense'

Former Senator Chuck Hagel will bring a fresh and necessary perspective to the office of Secretary of Defense for which he was confirmed today.  Contrary to recent sound bites in especially the conservative Establishment, where he was grilled by AIPAC-owned Senators, this video shows the real Chuck Hagel taking his Senate Foreign Relations colleagues to task during the Iraq "surge" policy being implemented by the Bush administration.  As a republican he dared to challenge directly the typical politically-correct (but superficial) propaganda that criticized any dissent from Bush foreign policy, which ironically was continued under Obama.  Democrats could compare him to the late Sen. Robert Byrd who led dissent about Iraq among democrats when it was politically-incorrect too.

Watch this and see for yourself.  This is what courage and virtue looks like in the politically-charged mudslinging of Washington and Congress.  Hagel is unafraid and very much concerned about the deployment of the men and women in the military who have no voice or advocate normally to defend their lives and interests when the passion to start or expand wars begins.  He chastises his Senate colleagues with authority and demands they consider what is really at stake and whether the comprehensive strategy is even sound during a time where propaganda and personal attacks are tossed about to intimidate and force a false patriotic "unity" behind a flawed but popular war policy that others are too afraid to challenge.

If this does not demonstrate his sound judgment and soberness of mind when making war decisions versus the neoconservative and AIPAC-funded political attacks against his nomination for Secretary of Defense recently then I am speechless.  This decorated veteran and astute Senator and statesman is fully qualified and greatly needed to check and restrain the hasty and easily influenced U.S. foreign policy that we have witnessed for over a decade now.  Neither will he be a lap dog republican for Obama, but will likely restrain any more actions of this President to rush into further Middle East involvement (e.g. Libya, regime change, nation building) without sober objections, especially if they involve U.S. troops.

It is supposed to be a Department of Defense, not a Department of Offense, after all.  Four courageous and thoughtful republicans supported his nomination, from the South and Midwest, including Tea Party favorite Sen. Rand Paul (see link above), who also advocates (along with Sen. Joe Manchin) auditing the Pentagon to uncover its mysterious wasting and loss of billions of dollars (see previous posts), which has been no small contributor to the fiscal debt problem.

The Truth About Iran's Nuclear Weapons Program and Their "Threat to Israel"

Let us begin this subject and take an objective look at the issue of Iran developing nuclear technology, and allegedly nuclear weapons, and particularly its politicization by the propagandists, the media and also as a subject in the recent Republican Primary debates.  It will not be difficult to prove that this is an issue that has been pushed by powerful groups to the front of political controversy, incessantly, for over four years now.  Since it is now absolutely clear to unbias and rational minds that the alleged "WMD threat" in Iraq was a deliberate fraud, sold by the neoconservative Bush administration and Israeli Lobby, but also propagated, parroted and fanned by (the apparently very bias) American media (including all major networks and Washington Post in particular) it behooves Americans to fact-check what today is being forced upon us about Iran as if we do not have the duty or capacity to think critically about what we hear.

Let us resolve not to let the White House, media, or special political interest groups (under the auspices of "intelligence agencies") talk us into another $1 Trillion dollar war against only a propagandized and rhetorical threat, to fulfill a neoconservative agenda in the Middle East (for Israel), especially during a time of financial and government-fiscal crisis (which by the way also sparked the steady increase in oil and gas prices, which led to unbounded inflation of food and consumer prices too). 

CHALLENGING THE PROPAGANDA ABOUT IRAN IS POLITICALLY-INCORRECT

Wherever there is the power of political-correctness (a pretended majority opinion generated through media perceptions) there is a social tyranny.  Objective truth based upon hard evidence and sober thinking is the enemy of Political Correctness and also of the easily manipulated multitudes in our entertainment-driven and shallow society that wants the packaged intellectual food of McNews for its diet.  (Americans are not only obese physically but have a bad intellectual diet as well.  Read the ingredients of either before buying or swallowing!).

Exhibit 1, the Republican Debates:  Ron Paul spars with Michele Bachmann regarding Iran and the IAEA report regarding Iran's nuclear program:



THERE IS NO REAL EVIDENCE IRAN IS PURSUING A NUCLEAR WEAPON

1.  Read this article by FAIR to understand the truth behind the IAEA's very misleading report:

Iran, Nukes and the Failure of Skepticism. Iraq all over again?

Much of the corporate media coverage of a new UN report on Iran strongly asserts that Iran is close to building nuclear weapons. But the International Atomic Energy Agency report does not actually arrive at that conclusion, and many critics contend that the speculations that are in the report are misguided.

2.  Note that even the Washington Post has recently admitted this by retracting and correcting an article headline they got called out on as "misleading":  "Iran's Quest to Possess Nuclear Weapons Technology".

3.  Now watch this short video debunking the propaganda about Iran developing a nuclear weapon in less than 7 minutes:




NOW INTRODUCING:  NEOCONSERVATIVE PROPAGANDA 2.0

The recent article below from Media Matters' Political Correction blog explains perfectly the new propaganda strategy of the Israeli Lobby and neoconservatives in terms of painting (what they really fear) a more truthful picture of what Iran might actually do with its nuclear technology--i.e. not to seek to "wipe Israel off the map" (exactly what Iran has been saying they would do, nothing aggressive).  The neoconservatives and Israeli Lobby, in other words, are suddenly very afraid of the truth that their fear-mongering and alarmist propaganda about Iran will be discredited as blatant lies as much as the lies about WMD in Iraq.

American Enterprise Institute Admits The Problem With Iran Is Not That It Would Use Nukes

American Enterprise Institute Admits The Problem With Iran Is Not That It Would Use Nukes
December 02, 2011 3:13 pm ET — MJ Rosenberg

Suddenly the struggle to stop Iran is not about saving Israel from nuclear annihilation. After a decade of scare-mongering about the second coming of Nazi Germany, the Iran hawks are admitting that they have other reasons for wanting to take out Iran, and saving Israeli lives may not be one of them. Suddenly the neoconservatives have discovered the concept of truth-telling, although, no doubt, the shift will be ephemeral.

The shift in the rationale for war was kicked off this week when Danielle Pletka, head of the American Enterprise Institute's (AEI) foreign policy shop and one of the most prominent neoconservatives in Washington, explained what the current obsession with Iran's nuclear program is all about.

The biggest problem for the United States is not Iran getting a nuclear weapon and testing it, it's Iran getting a nuclear weapon and not using it. Because the second that they have one and they don't do anything bad, all of the naysayers are going to come back and say, "See, we told you Iran is a responsible power. We told you Iran wasn't getting nuclear weapons in order to use them immediately." ... And they will eventually define Iran with nuclear weapons as not a problem.

Hold on. The "biggest problem" with Iran getting a nuclear weapon is not that Iranians will use it but that they won't use it and that they might behave like a "responsible power"? But what about the hysteria about a second Holocaust? What about Prime Minister Netanyahu's assertion that this is 1938 and Hitler is on the march? What about all of these pronouncements that Iran must be prevented from developing a nuclear weapons because the apocalyptic mullahs would happily commit national suicide in order to destroy Israel? And what about AIPAC and its satellites, which produce one sanctions bill after another (all dutifully passed by Congress) because of the "existential threat" that Iran poses to Israel? Did Pletka lose her talking points?
Apparently not.

Pletka's "never mind" about the imminent danger of an Iranian bomb seems to be the new line from the bastion of neoconservativism.  

Big Government's Big Secret: The Homeland Security-Industrial Complex

Most everyone, especially among conservatives, have been complaining vehemently about Big Government with just cause.  However, even with the newly elected West Virginia GOP chairman, Mike Stuart, who claims to be a part of the very undefined "tea party" movement, we have heard no willingness to touch the great Leviathan in government that dwarfs the rest of government spending.  That untouchable part would be what is termed "National Defense" (which largely funds Offensive wars for democracy), which has since that "catalyzing event", Sept. 11th, with bipartisan flag-waving support, added a new fraternal twin domestically called Homeland Security.

This new and very unconstitutional agency cloaked in secrecy is nothing less than the beginning of what could be called (in retort to their propaganda) "Home-Grown Fascism".  And mark this, this is the part of Big Government that the neo-republicans, who claim to stand for the Constitution and "limited government" (we wish!), along with the cowardly democrats, are unwilling to question, challenge its legitimacy, or take the budget knife to thus far, even though most other spending issues are minuscule in comparison.  It's time to stop straining at gnats while swallowing camels.  If republicans in particular believe in constitutional and limited government, and "individual liberty" is still part of their platform (which this Leviathan agency also threatens, trampling the 4th amendment in particular), then its time to put Homeland Security spending out in the open and on the table with budget axes in hand.

Republican Congressman Ron Paul foresaw the Big Government (and Big Brother) coming when Homeland Security was proposed before Congress and warned of what would happen in his article The Homeland Security Monstrosity.  He of course was right while the politically-correct blind supporters of the RINO George W. Bush were wrong.  He has just published a new press release on The Bloated Intelligence Bureaucracy, based on this very issue.

In the video below Former National Security adviser Richard Clark here talks with ABC about what could be called the Homeland Security-Industrial Complex (you heard it here first), its Leviathan and secret budgets and a labyrinth of tentacles that reach across the country while everyone from the White House to Congress looks the other way.  The context of the discussion is the Washington Post's new video report called Top Secret America which is bringing some good national attention to this matter.  Note in particular Clark criticism of the Post's report in not going far enough, i.e. the secret spending and extensive spending through government contractors (outsourced secret spending), and names in particular Booz Allen Hamilton, a major contractor benefiting from Homeland Security and the "war on terror", which is loaded with neoconservatives like James Woolsey.  That was a very strong hint on his part as to where the real attention and scrutiny should be directed.

West Virginia Ballot: Chuck Baldwin for President, Constitution Party

There is another choice for President, and we are not talking about Ralph Nader. These two brief videos outline the sharp contrast between Chuck Baldwin, the Constitution Party candidate on West Virginia's ballot, versus John McCain, and Barack Obama.

West Virginians should consider a much better option for President and vote their conscience, for what they really want, instead of being herded into a compelled choice between a Nanny State (Communism) and Security State (Fascism), by two major party candidates who are both rated badly on gun rights, illegal immigration, the Constitution and our liberties, and especially unjust wars on pretenses of UN resolutions.

Both McCain and Obama are members of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) that are moving America away from the Constitution and national sovereignty toward a new world order of global government from which no nation can opt out. (This is what is really behind the "war on terrorism"). Neither McCain nor Obama talk at all of changing the "war on terrorism", and outside of Iraq they both sound almost identicle in their willingness to continue to invade sovereign countries and continue battles for "regime change", now including even against Russia. Is not one of the primary "changes" desired by many Americans to stop unconstitutional, perpetual, and unjust wars against or within sovereign nations under pretense of a "war on terrorism", which is really a Democratic Jihad for global Democracy? Both McCain and Obama will continue or expand this war policy, which also ruins the economy by driving up oil prices (war fears drive the speculators trading of oil futures), national debt (now at a record high), which in turn leads to economic domestic inflation!

The neoconservatives in particular (originally from the radical left) have hijacked the republican party (which offered nothing more than RINO primary candidates, except Ron Paul) and have destroyed true conservative and Constitutional principles under the plea of "necessity" for a radical global revolution consistent with CFR purposes toward Global Democracy. While Obama is justly being vetted for his communistic collectivist principles McCain's own dangerous corruptions and socialist policies (like taxpayer bailouts for Wall Street banksters and foreclosing homeowners) are are of the same bad principles. The truth be said it is the neoconservatives who have provoked the "blow-back" against Bush government and republicans for their unconstitutional radicalism which is driving the "change" support to give Democrats a supra-majority in Congress, and perhaps take the White House for Obama. The fall of republican majorities, therefore, can be laid directly at the feet of the radical neoconservative RINOs that infiltrated hiding behind George W. Bush.

Republicans have also almost entirely lost their plank for "individual liberty" by supporting and pushing the most liberty-killing, anti-constitutional legislation (PATRIOT ACT, Homeland Security, REAL ID, domestic spy powers, military for domestic policing, etc.) for a Security State that makes the Nanny State look almost tame. That government expanded under the watch of republicans supposedly against Big Government, increasing the national debt to over $10 Trillion, perhaps was the final straw that discredited and forfeited republicans authority to rule in the eyes of those who supported them. Neither McCain nor Obama offer anything to change this course. If Americans are not truly free from their own government's intrusiveness under the plea of "necessity", what freedom will there be left to defend?

McCain is no true conservative and his policies are scary. Between Obama and McCain you have a choice only of Socialism or Socialism Lite. But there is a third option, and if people do not vote for Principle they will only get corrupt Party representatives and never obtain what is just and right for themselves. Why support candidates whose principles you plainly do not believe in, just because they are the "lesser of two evils"? Continuing to vote for two parties and candidates that never bring the change you want is irrational and political insanity. Both play the Fear card to drive you to chose ONLY between one of them.

Take a look for yourself before you vote and then vote Principles over Party, unless you really do not want the real "change" that many of you say that you are really looking for.

Are you a Globalist or an American? Chuck Baldwin vs McCain and Obama

9/11: The Official Story is Mere Allegation and Fiction

THE FBI SAYS THEY HAVE 'NO HARD EVIDENCE' CONNECTING BIN LADEN TO 9/11

On June 5, 2006, the Muckraker Report contacted the FBI Headquarters, (202) 324-3000, to learn why Bin Laden’s Most Wanted poster did not indicate that Usama was also wanted in connection with 9/11. The Muckraker Report spoke with Rex Tomb, Chief of Investigative Publicity for the FBI. When asked why there is no mention of 9/11 on Bin Laden’s Most Wanted web page, Tomb said, “The reason why 9/11 is not mentioned on Usama Bin Laden’s Most Wanted page is because the FBI has no hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11.”

Surprised by the ease in which this FBI spokesman made such an astonishing statement, I asked, “How this was possible?” Tomb continued, “Bin Laden has not been formally charged in connection to 9/11.” I asked, “How does that work?” Tomb continued, “The FBI gathers evidence. Once evidence is gathered, it is turned over to the Department of Justice. The Department of Justice than decides whether it has enough evidence to present to a federal grand jury. In the case of the 1998 United States Embassies being bombed, Bin Laden has been formally indicted and charged by a grand jury. He has not been formally indicted and charged in connection with 9/11 because the FBI has no hard evidence connected Bin Laden to 9/11.”

Why do you think the CIA closed its "bin Laden unit" in 2006 if he is wanted "dead or alive"?

THE 9/11 DOCUMENTARY THAT CANNOT BE IGNORED

Go to the 6-minute mark in Loose Change's new Final Cut with rare news clips to see the lack of evidence and the erroneous information which pinned 9/11 on Osama bin Laden (a former CIA asset) and 19 "Islamic terrorists" and justified the neoconservative's Sept. 2000 blueprint for wars for "regime change", "global hegemony", and a "new middle east" upon what they wrote then as a needed "catastrophic and catalyzing event, like a new Pearl Harbor" to justify their agenda.

A LIE LIKE IRAQ

The official story about 9/11 is as much of a lie as the "intelligence" about Iraq having WMD and being an "imminent threat to the U.S.", and designed to justify the neoconservative agenda, upon a false-flag attack, seize control of U.S. government, develop a fascist Homeland Security system of control and surveillance, and launch new wars for democracy for the global agenda. The War on Terrorism is Bogus, a front for global domination.

Georgia Attacked First, not Russia--What US Media is not Showing You

Here is the hard video proof that Georgia announced ITS ATTACK on South Ossetia on Aug. 7th, making Georgia the admitted aggressor. Argue with Georgia' s President if you do not like the plain facts that it shows!

Why did not the "liberal" US media show you this? Ask them!

Please let your Congressmen know that this documented proof contradicts the MSM and US government propaganda that has painted Russia as the aggressor in the Georgia conflict, while Russia responded to their attack on South Ossetia.

Conclusion: The same bi-partisan people, in government and media, who sold you the Iraq lies for war are selling lies about Russia for the same neoconservative agenda (and to get Georgia into NATO).

clipped from www.youtube.com

Cheney likely ordered 9/11 forgery, CIA official admits

A forged letter linking Saddam Hussein to the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks was ordered on White House stationery and probably came from the office of Vice President Dick Cheney, according to a new transcript of a conversation with the Central Intelligence Agency's former Deputy Chief of Clandestine Operations Robert Richer posted Friday.

read more | digg story

The FBI Obstructs Justice: Uncovering the Anthrax Cover-Up

THE FORGOTTEN ANTHRAX PROPAGANDA
Colin Powell waving the vial of anthrax at his UN Security Council presentation on February 5, 2003, making a fabricated case for war in Iraq.
CIA Director George Tenet (left), Director of National Intelligence John Negropante (right), perfectly positioned for the cameras as if to stand behind everything Powell presented.

________________

By design, those attacks put the American population into a state of intense fear of Islamic terrorism, far more than the 9/11 attacks alone could have accomplished. Much more important than the general attempt to link the anthrax to Islamic terrorists, there was a specific intent -- indispensably aided by ABC News -- to link the anthrax attacks to Iraq and Saddam Hussein.

-- Glenn Greenwald, Salon.com

By laying all blame for the anthrax letters on the award-winning Ft. Detrick scientist Bruce Ivins it can only be said that the FBI is obstructing justice. In fact, they were pressured to do just that from the very start, from very high up in the chain of command. The FBI official story now, after seven years, is highly incredulous. For whoever was behind the anthrax letters, and its several very specific targets, did more to further the neoconservative propaganda for a "war on terrorism" against radical Islam, to justify war in Iraq and regime change in the middle east, and to coerce Congress into draconian anti-constitutional legislation than any other action, other than 9/11 itself. To suggest that Ivins did all this for monetary gain is contrary to Criminology 101 which seeks solid evidence for "motive, means, and opportunity".

First, lost in the haze is that the Bush administration (per this Daily News article below) pressured the FBI from the very start to pin the anthrax letters on militant Islamics, especially overseas--without any such evidence:

FBI was told to blame Anthrax scare on Al Qaeda by White House officials

In the immediate aftermath of the 2001 anthrax attacks, White House officials repeatedly pressed FBI Director Robert Mueller to prove it was a second-wave assault by Al Qaeda, but investigators ruled that out, the Daily News has learned.

After the Oct. 5, 2001, death from anthrax exposure of Sun photo editor Robert Stevens, Mueller was "beaten up" during President Bush's morning intelligence briefings for not producing proof the killer spores were the handiwork of terrorist mastermind Osama Bin Laden, according to a former aide.

"They really wanted to blame somebody in the Middle East," the retired senior FBI official told The News.

On October 15, 2001, President Bush said, "There may be some possible link" to Bin Laden, adding, "I wouldn't put it past him." Vice President Cheney also said Bin Laden's henchmen were trained "how to deploy and use these kinds of substances, so you start to piece it all together."

Second, from Glenn Greenwald in his blog article at Salon.com. Here is just a small portion, the article should be read in its entirety:

Vital unresolved anthrax questions and ABC News

...If the now-deceased Ivins really was the culprit behind the attacks, then that means that the anthrax came from a U.S. Government lab, sent by a top U.S. Army scientist at Ft. Detrick. Without resort to any speculation or inferences at all, it is hard to overstate the significance of that fact. From the beginning, there was a clear intent on the part of the anthrax attacker to create a link between the anthrax attacks and both Islamic radicals and the 9/11 attacks. This was the letter sent to Brokaw:

The letter sent to Leahy contained this message:

We have anthrax.

You die now.

Are you afraid?

Death to America.

Death to Israel.

Allah is great.

By design, those attacks put the American population into a state of intense fear of Islamic terrorism, far more than the 9/11 attacks alone could have accomplished.

Much more important than the general attempt to link the anthrax to Islamic terrorists, there was a specific intent -- indispensably aided by ABC News -- to link the anthrax attacks to Iraq and Saddam Hussein. In my view, and I've written about this several times and in great detail to no avail, the role played by ABC News in this episode is the single greatest, unresolved media scandal of this decade. News of Ivins' suicide, which means (presumably) that the anthrax attacks originated from Ft. Detrick, adds critical new facts and heightens how scandalous ABC News' conduct continues to be in this matter.

During the last week of October, 2001, ABC News, led by Brian Ross, continuously trumpeted the claim as their top news story that government tests conducted on the anthrax -- tests conducted at Ft. Detrick -- revealed that the anthrax sent to Daschele contained the chemical additive known as bentonite. ABC News, including Peter Jennings, repeatedly claimed that the presence of bentonite in the anthrax was compelling evidence that Iraq was responsible for the attacks, since -- as ABC variously claimed -- bentonite "is a trademark of Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein's biological weapons program" and "only one country, Iraq, has used bentonite to produce biological weapons."

Third, there is the Democracy Now podcast on anthrax, which includes an interview with Greenwald, and an anthrax researcher who personally new Ivins. These interviews also include sound bites of McCain linking the Anthrax letters to Iraq on the David Letterman Show in 2001, as well as Bush, both knowing full well (per FBI) that there in fact was no link to Iraq, or even "Islamic militants" inside or outside the US!

Anthrax Mystery: Questions Raised over Whether Government Is Framing Dead Army Scientist for 2001 Attacks

---

The FBI’s prime suspect in the October 2001 anthrax letters case died last week in an apparent suicide. Bruce Ivins was an elite government scientist at the biodefense research lab in Fort Detrick, Maryland. He was among the nation’s top experts on the military use of anthrax. But many of his colleagues have expressed deep skepticism over the FBI’s claims. We speak to anthrax expert Dr. Meryl Nass and blogger Glenn Greenwald. [includes rush transcript]

---

LISTEN WATCH

Real Video Stream Real Audio Stream MP3 Download More…

---

Guests:

Glenn Greenwald, attorney and blogger at Salon.com. His recent posts include “Vital Unresolved Anthrax Questions and ABC News”, “Additional Key Facts Re: The Anthrax Investigation” and “Journalists, Their Lying Sources, and the Anthrax Investigation”

Dr. Meryl Nass, expert on anthrax and editor of the blog AnthraxVaccine.blogspot.com

Finally, here is a dated article (when the FBI zeroed and harassed Hatfill with the same zeal as they did Ivins later) about another Ft. Detrick former scientist, who did have access, even motive (to blame Arabs), and an interesting profile. Dr. Zack for some reason is not a suspect while he fits the profile of the crime closer than Ivins. He is Jewish and a dual Israeli citizen, it happens, with a demonstrated hatred for Arabs (see how he persecuted his Egyptian co-worker and was fired for it), much like many of the neoconservatives behind the war on terrorism agenda that they wrote well before 9/11. There is sufficient prima facia evidence here to consider him a suspect whose behavior was both malicious and suspicious. Yet the FBI says now that Ivins is the ONLY suspect and they are convinced he would have been found guilty, contrary to a larger body of evidence and lack of witnesses.

While Media Spotlights One Anthrax Suspect, Another Is Too Hot to Touch

---

Before the investigation of Dr. Hatfill captured national headlines, another insider scientist had come under FBI scrutiny without much media fanfare. It was easy to miss the few stories published in January 2002 about Lt. Col. Philip Zack, who, like Hatfill, also had access to a well-equipped laboratory with lax security. Zack, moreover, actually worked with military-grade anthrax at Fort Detrick.

---

Dr. Zack left Fort Detrick in December 1991 amid allegations of unprofessional conduct. The Jewish scientist and others were accused of harassing their co-worker, Dr. Ayaad Assaad, until the Egyptian-born American scientist quit

---

Inexplicably, the national press ignored these documented unauthorized visits to a top-secret government lab embroiled in the anthrax attacks. Did journalists fear being labeled anti-Semitic for casting suspicions on a Jewish scientist?

---

She is convinced that the FBI knows who sent the anthrax letters

Original news investigative articles from the Hartford Courant are noteworthy too about Dr. Zack, and furthers the details:

Documents from the inquiry show that one unauthorized person who was observed entering the lab building at night was Langford's predecessor, Lt. Col. Philip Zack, who at the time no longer worked at Fort Detrick. A surveillance camera recorded Zack

Zack left Fort Detrick in December 1991, after a controversy over allegations of unprofessional behavior by Zack, Rippy, Brown and others who worked in the pathology division. They had formed a clique that was accused of harassing the Egyptian-born Assaad,who later sued the Army, claiming discrimination.

Assaad said he had believed the harassment was behind him until last October, until after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.

He said that is when the FBI contacted him, saying someone had mailed an anonymous letter - a few days before the existence of anthrax-laced mail became known - naming Assaad as a potential bioterrorist. FBI agents decided the note was a hoax after interviewing Assaad.

McCain on David Letterman,
Plays Anthrax Propaganda Card to Justify Iraq War

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

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...

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.

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.”

clipped from www.timesonline.co.uk 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

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. AMERICANS PAY AT THE PUMP FOR GLOBAL INSTABILITY 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. BUSH ADMINISTRATION FOREIGN POLICY HAS RAISED TENSIONS ACROSS THE MIDDLE EAST, IMPERILING THE WORLD’S ENERGY SUPPLY 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.

Bolton: Israel Will Attack Iran before Inauguration

This neocon with close ties to Israel speaks openly...for Israel. After the election, before inauguration he asserts is their window of opportunity. This would force the next President's hand to control US foreign and war policy beyond the Bush regime. Israel knows how to control the US government and with the neoconservatives in the Pentagon, not just the administration, this is easily done.

Unlike the U.S. and Israel, Iran has never attacked or invaded another country. Only Israel is a credible nuclear threat, and it is they who will spark the war. The U.S. should back off and not get involved. Israel will reap what it sows and they will attempt to drag the U.S. into it despite the fact that the U.S. cannot make a case that it is fighting in self-defense. It is 'entangling alliances' that start world wars. If Israel nukes Iran that would be genocide.

subtitle: former US ambassador speaks for Israel.

clipped from www.telegraph.co.uk Israel 'will attack Iran' before new US president sworn in, John Bolton predicts John Bolton, the former American ambassador to the United Nations, has predicted that Israel could attack Iran after the November presidential election but before George W Bush's successor is sworn in. The Arab world would be "pleased" by Israeli strikes against Iranian nuclear facilities, he said in an interview with The Daily Telegraph. "It [the reaction] will be positive privately. I think there'll be public denunciations but no action," he said. Mr Bolton, an unflinching hawk who proposes military action to stop Iran developing nuclear weapons, bemoaned what he sees as a lack of will by the Bush administration to itself contemplate military strikes. Israel, however, still had a determination to prevent a nuclear Iran, he argued. The "optimal window" for strikes would be between the November 4 election and the inauguration on January 20, 2009. They're also obviously looking at the American election calendar