The Policy Critic

Another dictator comes home to the US

2012-01-27T13:31:00.001-08:00

Here we go again. The long time US supported dictator of Yemen will be coming to the US to set up residence. You may or may not recall a similar incident triggered the Iranian hostage situation back in 1979. The brutal dictator, the Shah of Iran, was installed after the democratically elected President was overthrown by the CIA. He murdered anyone who challenged him or who opposed him with his secret police Savak, which was funded and trained by the CIA. When the Iranians after 20 years, overthrew the dictator, the first thing he did was to come to the US where we protected our former puppet murderer. The Iranians, outraged at the US for maintaining a dictatorship in their country and then offering the murderer sanctuary, seized the US embassy and took the hostages. So history now repeats itself.

Initially the US announced that Saleh would come for medical treatment, but was publicly embarrassed when Saleh announced he did not need any medical treatment as there was nothing wrong with him. Our puppet dictator in Yemen, who has murdered hundreds of innocents who protested his dictatorship, will now be given protection in the god ole USA.
Because he has been a loyal puppet dictator, the US helped broker a deal giving Saleh immunity, in exchange for his surrendering power, which the US did not do with Gaddafi in Libya. Perhaps this is what Ron Paul referred to in his infamous debate exchange with Rudy Giuliani, when Paul stated our policy had done many things to anger folks around the world.

This will all happen without the knowledge of most US citizens so there will be little uproar here, but we would be naive to think this is not being noticed by the citizens of Yemen and that actions such as this are in part responsible for “Blowback”. Maybe we should all pay more attention to the actions of our government.

What do Ron Paul, Dennis Kucinich, Occupy Wall Street, and Buddy Roemer, have in common?

2012-01-09T08:32:00.000-08:00

What do Ron Paul, Dennis Kucinich, Occupy Wall Street, and Buddy Roemer, have in common?
Who is Buddy Roemer? He is an unknown candidate for President, whose voice and ideas you are not allowed to hear. All of the above represent refreshing, new, and very different ideas about the problems of the US political system, with their ideas representing a threat to the status quo in the country. Most people agree that there are serious problems within the country such as bankers and wall street controlling the nations economy, the military industrial complex being fed for endless wars, the unemployment picture and the lack of meaningful jobs being created, the tremendous gap between the rich and the rest of the nation, the power of money in campaigns, the corruption of Congress by the powerful lobbyists and special interest groups that have a strangle hold on the US congress, the lack of anyone to represent the average citizens in government, and the lack of any serious health care reform because it is blocked by the health care industry and the big pharmaceutical corporations. While most citizens agree the above list is valid and important, neither major political party is willing to offer any hope of real change to the fabric of US political and economic system because both parties have a vested and sometimes financial interest in keeping things just as they are. President Obama offered the hope that someone really cared and would bring significant change to the nation, but has reneged on every promise he made, and turned his back on the people who put their hope and trust in him. He has been swallowed up by the corporations, bankers, military, and now represents the same old status quo, yet he will probably win in the next election because he will emerge as the “lesser of the evils” when the public goes to the ballot box.

Most Americans do not realize that we have a controlled system and that there are candidates who represent true change, but the system intentionally prevents you from hearing such voices because they represent a threat to the existing fabric of “the system”. Mainstream media is an integral part of “the system” and is complicit in maintaining the status quo. For years now the media has failed in its role as the educator of the US public with the greatest example being their cheerleading for the invasion of Iraq. Rather than question the lies and inaccurate statements from political leaders and special interests that were fomenting war, the media became cheerleaders for the war and never questioned any of the ridiculous assertions being made by the administrations. The press caved and became part of the system, and even now refuses to challenge, question, or even point out the ridiculous statements currently being made about Iran. We are once again being led down the same path by the same people who pushed for war with Iraq, and once again the press merely acts as a cheerleader and a mouthpiece for the pro-war camp.

Suddenly however there are threats on the horizon, and the “system” has moved to silence those who might disrupt the status quo. Ron Paul is the best current example of the attempt by the corporate media to silence a voice that challenges the existing fabric of the system. A recently held Republican debate was televised nationally and lasted for one and one half hours. Media representatives threw meaningless softball questions to the contenders while Ron Paul stood motionless and voiceless for practically the entire debate. Mr. Paul was given one question and about 38 seconds of air time in a national debate. His ideas are controversial and represent tremendous change to the status quo, and whether you agree or disagree with his ideas, you should have the right to hear them and judge for yourself, but corporate media has denied you that right. Why? Because Ron Paul’s ideas are a threat to the fabric of present society, so his voice will not be heard. Despite media, he seemed to be getting his message out; probably because voters are so tired of the “system” they went out of their way to seek new ideas. Mr. Paul scored well in many of the polls, but because his ideas were gaining popularity the “system"” had to reign him in, hence the surfacing of 25 years old writings that he may or may not have been responsible for. This was a deliberate attempt marginalize the candidate and his ideas that threaten the fabric of the system.

Corporate media does not discriminate on the basis of politics, but will silence and marginalize anyone who represents a threat to the existing system. While Paul is a conservative libertarian, Denis Kucinich is a progressive democrat whose voice was also silenced. In the last presidential election Mr. Kucinich found himself in a national debate being completely ignored by the corporate shills. He finally was asked one meaningless question and made a big hit by verbally wondering if he would ever be asked question. Readers familiar with Mr. Kucinich know full well he represents a threat to the fabric of our system. He vehemently opposed the Iraq war before we attacked, he was a constant critic of the deceit used against the public to justify the war, and consistently voted not to fund the war; he also attacked the military industrial complex, the health care system or lack thereof, and most everything that can be found in the status quo. He was such a threat to the system, it attempted to gerrymander him into oblivion by taking away his district and denying him a voice. You are repeatedly told that both are “extremists”, out of the mainstream, and have no chance of winning. You may not agree with Congressman Kucinich or Ron Paul, but don’t you have the right to hear their views and judge for yourself?

Another current invisible candidate is Buddy Roemer, a former governor and member of congress, whose ideas are such a departure from the status quo you will not be allowed to hear them. He has, among other things, taken on the power of Goldman Sachs and the financial institutions that rule, so you will not be allowed to hear his views. For those interested in hearing new ideas, Mr. Roemer is running for President, and has a website. Take the time to listen to him and see just how refreshingly dangerous his ideas are. Once again you may or may not agree with him, but don’t you have the right to hear him?
Finally, the Occupy Wall Street group emerged as challengers to the “the system” and they have been physically attacked, brutalized, ridiculed, and marginalized by corporate media, for they too are a serious threat to the very fabric of “the system”. So you have not, and will not be told what they really represent, but will get the smear version of who they are and what they want. You may or may not be agree with the Occupy groups, but do you not have a right to hear a complete an accurate representation of their views?

All of the above hold ideas that threaten the political system, which most of us agree is in dire need of change, but the voices of change will not be heard, because corporate media is an integral part of “the system”, which is not fond of challengers and ideas that might dislodge them.

The success of democracy is based on an informed public, for how can the public make intelligent decisions without information? Your right to vote is limited to which candidates have been “approved. Someone once said: “Only the educated are free.” We are not free; we are a long way from free!

The warmongers want another war, and its close.

2011-12-28T16:22:00.000-08:00

The same forces that dragged us into a war with Iraq resulting in over one million deaths are now hard at work desperately trying to immerse the US in yet another catastrophic war, this time with Iran, and tragically they are having great success, for we are getting ever closer to the impending war. Iran has been a peaceful nation for most of its history and has done nothing to deserve the wrath of the US, but wrath it is getting. Since 1979 when the Iranian hostage crises occurred to the present day, the US has officially communicated with Iran for a total of 45 minutes over the past 30 years. Most Americans do not realize the hostage crises occurred because of the CIA‘s first overthrow of popular elected government. Mohammed Mossadegh a reformer who was democratically elected by the Iranians, was not liked by the US and Great Britain because he wanted to nationalize Iran’s oil rather than have it be exploited by British oil companies. The CIA, not only had a hand in his overthrow, they boasted of their success in Iran and for the next 20 years the Shah of Iran ruled with an iron fist and squelched any opposition with his brutal CIA trained and funded secret police, Savak. When the Shah was overthrown by the Iranians they rejoiced at his ouster and blamed the US for the installation and maintenance of the Shah and his brutality. The hostage crises was blow-back from the CIA’s role in bringing about a coup in Iran by overthrowing the democratically elected very popular leader Mossadegh, and installing the infamous dictator the Shah of Iran. Taking of American hostages was the Iranian way of showing their anti American sentiment for fostering, promoting, and protecting a dictator in their nation. They saw their whole nation as having been held hostage under the Shah with much assistance from the US.

It goes without saying that the surest way to war is to have no communication with your adversary, for without communication, there is no dialogue and no possible way to resolve any differences. Such a situation can easily be seen within individual family. When two parents argue, the surest path to family disintegration occurs when there is no communication. When parent and child argue, the surest way to destroy the relationship between parent and child is to have no communication. Without communication there cannot be reconciliation, either within a family or between two nations. Recently the forces in Congress thirsting for war enacted a law that prohibits any kind of communication between the nation of Iran and the US. That kind of legislation is insanity but it does help bring about war, which is the primary goal of certain forces within Congress and within the US.

The warmongers tried to convince the world that Iran was a nuclear threat by claiming Iran was attempting to produce a nuclear weapon. Iran is the most inspected, monitored nation on earth, with electronic surveillance of its nuclear facilities and many eyes on the ground trying to discover any attempt by Iran to divert nuclear fuel to a nuclear weapons program, and despite all the surveillance, not one shred of proof can be offered that Iran is doing anything to divert fuel to a weapons program.
It appears that pro war forces have now realized they cannot produce any smoking nuclear gun, for there is none. In helping to bring about the war against Iraq, the warmongers tried desperately to create the big lie which they eventually did, that Iraq had WMD. They used every kind of media trick in the book to hoodwink the US public into believing war against Iraq was necessary for US survival. They even resorted to forgery by producing the so called Niger documents, which was an amateurish attempt to produce fake documents indicating Iraq was trying to procure enriched uranium. This accusation, based on forged papers was dismissed quickly by International Atomic Energy Agency as fraudulent. They saw through the scheme in about 15 minutes, but the ceaseless effort by the warmongers won out. It is curious that the US government made no attempt to expose or prosecute those responsible for the forgery, but perhaps it is because they knew full well who was responsible. The US never investigated because they knew who did it, and to expose the perpetrators would prove politically embarrassing to say the least.
Recently Congress enacted a law which makes it illegal for anyone to do business with the Bank of Iran and since all transactions go through that Bank, this is an attempt by Congress to destroy the economy of Iran. This legislation in effect is a declaration of war against Iran and can be likened to the attempt by the US to cut off Japan’s sources of oil just prior to WW II. Just as Japan had to resist or die economically, so to must Iran act, which is just what the war party wants. Let Iran start the war by us provoking them to the extent they must do something to save themselves, and presto, we have our pretext for war. Works every time!

World War II scholars have now proven the US not only knew that Japan was going to attack Pearl Harbor, but that the US wanted this attack. The overwhelming majority of Americans wanted Roosevelt to avoid war and only a 9/11 type incident would convince the US public of the need to fight Japan. Robert Stinnett in his recent book A Day of Deceit has proven with great pains and documentation that the US had employed an 8 step program that would ultimately force Japan into a war with the US. Japan was deliberately backed into a corner, and when the US attempted to shut off the oil supply to one of the world’s most industrialized nations in the world, they had to fight back of die. It appears that history is repeating itself with regard to Iran. Congress following the orders of the war party has passed countless sanctions and naively passed legislation backing Iran into a corner with the ultimate goal of forcing Iran to defend itself, thus causing some Tonkin Gulf like incident, which we can then use to get our war. It really is a shame the American public does not pay much attention to the events of the day. Who are the warmongers and who benefits from war?

We Need a War on the Enemy with WMD--- Corporate Media

2011-12-03T09:56:00.001-08:00

The power of corporate media never ceases to amaze, while the blind willingness of the public to be lead by that media, is equally mind boggling. Do we ever learn? Did we not blindly follow corporate media’s charge to war in Iraq without asking any questions? Neither media, nor the public, ever challenged anything, despite the fact there were many voices insisting there was no WMD evidence. One might think after following the media to an unnecessary war resulting in over one million dead, we might pause and challenge any future corporate media assertions, but apparently not for history is repeating itself.

Corporate media is once again leading the charge for several wars; the most immediate being Iran, even though there isn’t the slightest bit of proof that Iran is doing anything wrong. Let’s not have the facts get in the way of the hysteria for war. Media has convinced us that in addition to Iran, Pakistan is now our enemy because they are refusing to participate in our war in Afghanistan, and for some peculiar reason Pakistanis object to our killing their soldiers, women, and children, with drones. Some suggest an attack on Pakistan might be needed to capture their nuclear weapons, and once again we quietly accept this nonsense. Because Russia has strongly objected to being completely encircled by US missile bases and has protested, media convinces the public that the Russians are at fault. China is now being depicted as an enemy because their economy is strong and ours is weak, and they are willing to buy oil from nations rather than fight for it. We have wasted trillions trying to subjugate countries and get control of their oil, while China has simply purchased it at fair market value. So we have Iran in the cross-hairs, Russia and China the war horizon, while direct and covert wars by the US escalate in the nations of Africa, and the public cannot see that foreign policy is being driven by insane people being cheered on by corporate media.

Closer to home corporate media has convinced the US public that the Occupy Movement is a bad thing, despite the fact that the great majority would agree with the Occupiers in saying the public has little or no say in government, the financial interests have way too much power, powerful special interests have long since bought Congress, and we cannot undo all this because elections are now controlled by the moneyed interests of the nation with the people having no voice. The Occupy folks are bringing to the public’s attention all that the public has been saying to themselves for years, yet the media has convinced an unknowing public that the Occupy movement is a bad thing. Corporate media cheered those in Egypt who resisted their police state and Occupied Tahrir square, they rejoiced over the struggle to win transparency, end the dominance of the military, and cheered as Egyptians fought for social justice, while at the same time taking a condescending tone towards the Occupy folks who were calling for the same reforms as Egyptians. There was little outrage by the media when police used tear gas, pepper spray, and beatings, to deny folks their First Amendment rights at home, while calling for the end to the brutality in Egypt.

The congress of the US is a country club controlled by millionaires who sacrifice the public’s interest to protect their own. Candidates who speak out against war and financial dominance by the major institutions are silenced by media, who simply give them no coverage. On rare occasion such a candidate is allowed into a debate, but is not allowed to speak, relegating them to that of a silent partner in TV debates i.e. Dennis Kucinich and Ron Paul. A favorite tactic of corporate media is to vilify candidates whose ideas are considered threatening by tagging them with such terms as “extremist” or “inconsequential”.

We are witnessing the demise of the Constitution, for we now have a President who can make war on any nation with no Declaration of war by Congress as provided by the Constitution, and who has won the right to assassinate American citizens without trial, proof, evidence, or any of the Fifth Amendment guarantees. The President unilaterally decides who should die, gives the order, and it’s done. Media, who was once described as the fifth estate, says nothing, which explains why most Americans are not even aware the President has claimed this right.
This week US Senate passed a measure that allows the military to take anyone, including you, or any other US citizen designated as a “terrorist”, to Guantanamo without a trial, indictment, access to legal assistance, and be subjected to who knows what. Corporate media paid little attention, and their continuing deafening silence will continue in the coming weeks.

Media has been able to convince the public that the real enemies are greedy school teachers, municipal and state workers, while looking the other way and refusing to focus on the exorbitant and obscene bonus’ and salaries being doled out to corporate leaders and banking institutions with taxpayer money. We focus on the poor immigrant as one of the major culprits because we are told they might steal a few pennies from the system, while we see nothing wrong with illegally taking trillions from taxpayer’s pockets, and transferring the wealth to the banking institutions. We live in a bizarre world, led by a bizarre corporate media, and a population who has proven themselves to be sheep like.

We no longer have the First Amendment, Fifth Amendment, Fourteenth Amendment, and the President has the right to assassinate US citizens, or send them to Guantanamo forever, as “terrorists”. We are on the verge of another totally unnecessary war, this time with Iran, and we have bitter enemies in Pakistan and Russia. We have the largest transfer of wealth in the history of the world from the taxpayer to the financial interests, we have depression-like unemployment figures, we have 50 million people with no health care coverage, we have mortgages being foreclose at depression rates, we have homeless veterans sleeping on sidewalks, yet we have been lead to believe the enemies and culprits are school teachers, state and municipal workers, the Occupy Movement, the Tea Party, and poor immigrants. Thankfully we have realty TV shows to divert the American public’s attention from the real issues of the day.

Corporate media can easily fool most of the people all of the time.

The Constiution: " just a piece of paper."

2011-11-22T15:28:00.001-08:00

Recognize this? “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances”.

The bill of rights and the Constitution formerly had meaning, but now it is meaningless, for as George W. Bush purportedly told Republican members in Congress: “Stop throwing the constitution in my face; it’s just a goddamned piece of paper”. He was correct and Obama has gone even further in ignoring and defiling the Constitution. The first amendment, cited above, is now just a piece of meaningless paper. One merely has to look at the Occupy movement, inspired by the Arab Spring notably in Egypt, to see the flagrant disregard of the Constitution at all political levels. The First Amendment establishes “the right of the people to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances”, but isn’t this exactly what the Occupy movement has been doing? Is the movement peaceful, are Occupiers petitioning the government for a redress of grievances? They are, so why have political authorities in all major cities acted to prevent folks from peacefully assembling to petition the government for change? Where is the Bill of Rights? It apparently is just a “piece of paper”. The cities have enacted foolish regulations and restrictions gutting the first amendment of its substance. The first amendment does not say you must disband your peaceful assembly at 7:00 p.m. or after dark, it does not say you cannot set up a camp, it does not say you cannot use a microphone, or anything of the like. Local authorities have simply passed requirements, which have in fact infringed upon the people’s right to peacefully assemble and petition the government for change. The Bill of Rights does not condone direct hit pepper spray to college kids sitting peacefully, nor does it condone the use of pepper spray on 84 year old women, nor does it condone life threatening injuries to a veteran of the US armed forces having served in Iraq. Local authorities have simply stolen the right to peacefully assemble and petition the government for a redress of grievances. Where are the defenders of the Bill of Right? A knee jerk reaction would be to look to the Justice Department of the US government to uphold the Constitution, which they promised in oath to do. However the Justice Department is a participant in shredding the Bill of Rights and the entire Constitution.

The Fifth Amendment, among other things states that no one can be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law, and it also states no “person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury”. Try and tell all this to American citizen Anwar al-Awlaki. You cannot explain all this to al-Awlaki for he is dead; assassinated without being indicted, or for that matter, without anything. He has murdered because…; well we do not know why for the US government says it’s all a secret and they cannot tell us save for the fact that the US government did not like the sermons the cleric delivered. Ask what this man did, and the answer is the same, we cannot tell you. Ask what evidence they had, and they once again say they cannot tell you for it is a secret. Are there others on a government hit list? Yes. How many and who is on the list is all a secret. Are you on a hit list? Can’t tell you! But wait; what about the Fifth Amendment? It’s just a piece of paper! But what about the Justice Department and Mr. Holder, who swore to uphold the Constitution? It’s just a piece of paper, and Mr. Holder is an empty suit. Did you ever in your wildest dreams, believe that in the United States of American a president can maintain a secret hit list, and murder US citizens without an indictment, trial, evidence, or any justification? To quote an Occupy chant: “This is what a police state looks like.”

Some might argue that the murder of al-Awlaki might possibly be legally justified by using the Fifth amendment cop out clause “except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger”; but wait, there is no legal war, for the Constitution states in Article One Section Eight that only Congress can declare war, and of course Congress abrogated that part of the Constitution despite having taken an oath to defend the Constitution. In light of Congress’ unwillingness to exercise its Constitutional duty and declare war, that clause of the Fifth Amendment is irrelevant in defending the assassination of al-Awlaki.

Why don’t we just vote them all out for flagrantly defying the Constitution despite having taken an oath to defend it? Well we can’t, for despite the Supreme Court’s historical defense of the one man one vote concept, it no longer holds water. Actually you do not have anyone representing your interest in the Congress, for Congress has turned themselves in to a ring of prostitutes by selling themselves to campaign donors, special interests who contribute large sums, banks, Wall Street, the big pharmaceutical companies, the health care industry, and least we forget, the military industrial complex. You, the 99% are voiceless, because the Constitution is” just a piece of paper”.

Warmongers fabricate the "Big One"

2011-10-14T09:18:00.000-07:00

The war mongers are at it once again in their attempt to bring the US to war with Iran, this time with a laughable exotic plot, blaming Iran for an alleged attack on a Saudi Ambassador. Naturally the warmongers immediately call for war, which is just what this country needs, another endless war. The plot details are so amateurish and ridiculous that the rest of the word is laughing at the absurdity of the plan, and its “proof” is so full of holes it’s resembles a block of Swiss cheese. One must ask why are these warmongers so desperate for war with Iran? For years they have been trying to make the claim that Iran is trying to secretly produce nuclear weapons, despite all the evidence to the contrary. Now it appears they have given up on that attempt because there is not the slightest bit of proof to support the claim that Iran is developing nuclear weapons, and have resorted to their fairy tale plot in an attempt to provoke a war. Warmongers scream Iran must be held accountable.

For argument’s sake let’s assume the crazy warmongers are correct in their imbecilic plot. Would this be a reason for the US to rush to war?? How many readers recall the USS Vincennes shooting down an Iranian passenger airliner, Iran Air 655, in Iranian air space with the loss of 290 innocent passengers? After being caught in all kinds of lies and denials, the truth surfaced that this was a deliberate attack on a civilian passenger airliner with great loss of civilian life, most of whom were mothers and kids. Iranians will never forget news videos of rescuers plucking small dead children’s bodies from the sea. We of course moved on and forget the “incident” quickly. Could Iran legitimately declared war on the US for this attack and killing of 290 innocent civilians? Of course, but might makes right, so for fear of annihilation they did not declare war on the US. When the facts became public, to add insult to mass deaths, Vice President George H.W. Bush stated, "I'll never apologize for the United States of America. Ever. I don't care what the facts are." The US has never apologized for the mass killings. Were we held accountable?

Those pushing for war with Iran are the same crowd who brought us to war with Iraq with lies such as WMD, Yellow-cake, and mushroom clouds over the US. As Yogi Berra said: “It’s deja vu all over again.”

When warmongers attempt to create war fever and hysteria with their lies and fabrications, pause and ask, who are these people pushing so hard for a war with Iran? What is their motive and most importantly when the warmongers insist on war, stop and ask: Cui Bono?? Do you really want another endless war?

Likud on the loose in US Congress

2011-09-21T12:34:00.000-07:00

The Word trade Center was first attacked in 1993 and the perpetrators explained their motives for the attack. Since then, there have been repeated statements by those who have attacked the US, and all indicated they attacked because of our one sided brutal policy favoring Israel, at the expense of Palestinians, and because of American occupations of their lands. Osama Bin Laden later echoed such statement in his many recorded messages. Repeatedly the same message from attackers has been voiced, but the US public is oblivious to such explanations as mainstream media refuses to discuss such issues. Indeed when Ron Paul merely restated the reasons the attackers themselves had given to the US pubic, Mr. Paul was either pilloried or ignored by media. The US public has never been allowed to participate in an intellectual discussion on the causes or motives for attacks against Americans. This is not tolerated. Why not?

Recently US ambassador to Israel Daniel Shapiro, in a speech to the Jewish People Policy Institute stated:
"The test of every policy the Administration develops in the Middle East is whether it is consistent with the goal of ensuring Israel's future as a secure, Jewish, democratic state. That is a commitment that runs as a common thread through our entire government."

This strongly suggests that US policy is not driven by what is best for America, but what is best for Israel, which merits reflection.

Currently the US is using all its political capital, in an effort to prevent Palestinians from seeking statehood in the UN, an incomprehensible idea in light of our own history of struggle for independence. Hillary Clinton has spent countless hours trying to dissuade nations from supporting the independence of Palestine, while members of Congress have been threatening all kinds of punitive measures against Palestinians if they seek independence, while the rest of the world pretty much supports the idea of independence for struggling people and will support statehood for Palestine. In its position against freedom and independence for Palestine, the US and Israel stand pretty much alone once again against the world. If Palestinians introduce their measure for freedom in the UN Security Council, the US has made it clear they will veto any such resolution, but in the UN General Assembly where all nations have a vote, the US cannot, despite its cajoling, prevent the vote for freedom. Is this policy reflective of the US public, does it benefit the US public in any way, or as Daniel Shapiro suggested, it is being done simply to placate Israel, while making enemies for the US around the world? Long standing ally Saudi Arabia has flatly stated a US veto will change the relationship between the two nations. The Saudis have said they might refuse to recognize the US backed puppet government in Iraq, as a result of the US veto of freedom for Palestinians. So if the US vetoes a state, we lose an ally and expose ourselves to ridicule as a “phony champion of democracy”. How does that help the American public?

Recently the China said: "If the US chooses to fly in the face of world opinion and block the Palestine UN bid next week, not only will Israel become more isolated but tensions in the region will be heightened even more." "The majority of the international community deems an independent state as the inalienable right of the Palestinians." Rather peculiar to hear the Chinese talking about the inalienable right to freedom while the US is trying desperately to stifle the inalienable right of Palestinians. Wonder what Thomas Jefferson is thinking about now? It appears we have sacrificed our core beliefs to appease a powerful foreign lobby.

Turkey, the only true democracy in the Middle East, a rising economic superpower of the world, and a long standing formidable ally of the US, has already been targeted by members of Congress for its disagreement with Israel over Israel’s killing of Turkish citizens on board the humanitarian ship the Mavi Marmara. Turkey has chosen to defend its dead citizens by demanding a public apology from Israel, which they have refused to do, while the US chose silence when a US citizen was killed in the Israeli assault on a humanitarian ship. Immediately the temper has changed in the US Congress, and letters are circulating in Congress telling President Obama to move away from Turkey because of its disagreement with Israel. How does this benefit the US public?? It does not of course, so who are the Congress people representing?

Currently in the Congress is another letter which so far has thirty signatures, calling for Israel to annex Palestinian territory. How does that help the US pubic? Imagine in midst of the Arab Spring uprisings for democracy, 30 US members of Congress calling for an illegal annexation of Palestinian lands. This may in some silly way help Israel, but it is in, the long term, disastrous for the US and its citizens. Who are the 30 members representing? Not the US public or their own constituents. Have they no shame?

Apparently not, for during this past summer, while Americans suffered through a recession, 81 members of the US Congress took and all expense paid trip to Israel, which many legal scholars insist is illegal. Some of the very same folks were critical of Obama for taking a vacation during the economic crises, but at least he remained on US soil.

Why no discussion of matters such as endangering the lives of US citizens in an effort to do what is best for the citizens of another nation? Discussion of Israeli policies or US policy towards Israel and the Middle East is taboo, and not allowed in this country. Very recently an exhibit of drawings by the children of Gaza was sabotaged by the powerful Israeli voice in this country. After agreeing to have the exhibit, political pressure came to bear and the museum was forced to rescind its decision and cancel the children’s art exhibit. John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt, two of America’s great thinkers and academics, authored a book on the power of the Israeli lobby in the US. No publisher in the US would dare print the book, and the two academics had to travel to London to get their book published. Both have been labeled anti-Semitic because of their writings, a favorite tactic employed to silence criticism. However Mearsheimer and Walt are in great company, for former President Jimmy Carter has been labeled anti-Semitic for his book on the power of the Israeli lobby. Those accused of anti-Semitism for their thinking or wrtting may wear a red badge of courage and be placed in a pretty elite group of people. Desmond Tutu is in this group, as he too was smeared, along with Oliver Stone, Helen Thomas, Billy Graham, the LA Times, Congressman Jim Moran, England has been labeled anti-Semitic, J-Street has been accused of being anti-Semitic, the Spanish foreign Minister has been accused of anti-Semitism, Norman Finklestein and our President Barack Obama, has also been placed in this cast of characters. Certainly the label has had a chilling effect on free thought and discussion.

Censorship runs amuck when it comes to discussion of the Israeli question. My Name is Rachel Corrie, a play about a young American international aid worker who was run over by an Israeli bulldozer, (Caterpillar under fire for such things) while defending Palestinian property, was not tolerated and cancelled in New York because of strong those resistance by those loyal to Israel. College professors have been attacked, along with anyone who dares openly discuss the question of Israel’s treatment of Palestinians.

Meanwhile Congress has returned from their all expense paid junkets to Israel and is now attempting to deal with the economic crises by attacking and cutting such things as aid to education, Social Security, Medicare, unemployment. Indeed many have flatly stated everything is on the table; however ask any one of those who insist that everything is on the table, and see if they are willing to address cutting the enormous amount of foreign aid to Israel. That subject folks, is not on the table! Aid to Israel is not being cut. As a matter of fact, the US, the biggest debtor nation in the history of the planet, agrees to give Israel aid we do not have, so the US government borrows the money, gives it to Israel in one lump sum, and Israel promptly invests the lump sum to generate a profit on the aid we give them. So we borrow the money and pay interest on the loan, give the money to Israel, who then invests it and shows profit, then turn around and cut programs for needy Americans. Does that make any sense to anyone except the Israelis? Who does Congress really represent anyway? Should the Congress endanger more American lives with one sided policy to please a foreign government? What do you think, for it’s your life being endangered?

American version of "bread and circuses".

2011-07-14T16:08:00.000-07:00

Now that the July 4th hoopla has quieted, two questions should be asked of the American public.

First: Who was the winner of the most recent America’s Got Talent show?

Second: How many countries is the US currently bombing?

Most Americans can readily answer the first question, but I suspect few can answer the second. Why?

The Roman government distracted its citizens with “bread and circuses”; we have our own version of “bread and circuses”.

Jefferson said: “Information is the currency of Democracy”.
If he was correct, we are bankrupt.

Corporatocracy and the US Congress

2011-05-05T07:03:00.000-07:00

With gas prices over $4 per gallon the poor and vanishing middle class struggle to contend with the ever rising prices, while those who heat their homes with oil shiver at the prospect of trying to do so this coming winter, Congress has not proposed any meaningful solution. Since we live in a corporatrocracy with Congress being nothing more than an illusion or an ancient vestige of democracy, it is unreasonable to expect Congress or the President to do anything to relieve the suffering. Sure they will play the game of pretention and call for investigations, and call for end to the 4 billion dollar tax subsidy given to the oil companies yearly, but this will be mere rhetoric designed to convince the public they are working on their behalf while all the while being in the back pocket of oil companies and special interest groups. Congress long ago became prostitutes by selling themselves to corporations and thereby selling out the public. Meanwhile Exxon announced a first quarter profit of 11 billion dollars. Shell quickly followed with the announcement of its almost 9 billion dollar profit and BP made public its 7.2 billion dollar first quarter profit. In the coming days more oil companies will announce spectacular profits and Congress will escalate its rhetoric for a few weeks, and then just conveniently forget the issue. We of course, like fools will continue to support our Congress for speaking out on our behalf. Congress will appease the constituency by constantly repeating the refrain that there is nothing we can do about rising oil prices as its all due to supply and demand which of course is nonsense.

Is there anything Congress or the President can do? Of course there is and we only have to look to the arch enemy of Corporatocracy, Hugo Chavez leader of Venezuela, for a solution. Chavez recently announced a 95% tax on everything over $100 a barrel which effectively stifles any attempt by an oil company to gouge consumers. If they do however, he collects the tax and boots the government’s supply of money, then turns around and spends the money on social programs for his people. It’s no one wonder he is considered an enemy of the US government, a government owned by corporations. It no surprise that corporate media has said very little about the Chavez solution, for his idea could be contagious, and it is no surprise that the American public has been conditioned by media to view Hugo Chavez as a dictator who represents a threat to the US. Any thinking person can discern the nonsense to the media’s concept of Chavez, but then again we are not known to be a nation of thinkers, for we are too interested in reality TV to take the time to think for ourselves. Some claimed it would be treasonous for Americans to accept the offer of Chavez to donate 40 million gallons of oil to folks in the Northeast who were being gouged by US oil companies claiming refinery destruction by hurricane Katrina was escalating oil prices. This would also be the same Hugo Chavez who offered 100 million gallons of subsidized oil at a discount to America’s neediest.

Chavez has accomplished two goals with his tax; it creates great wealth for the government and then the money is put to use improving conditions for the people. What a wonderful concept; taxing the oil profits, a resource which is owned by the people of Venezuela, and a government using its power to improve the condition of the people. You can easily see why Mr. Chavez is depicted as a dictator and evil tyrant, for his ideas certainly do represent a major threat to a corporatocrcy. Chavez critics in the US, mainly mouthpieces for US corporations, argue that Chavez is merely “buying” votes, while US corporations buy votes by donating huge sums to different candidates who are considered “friendly” to their interests. Mr. Chavez, if he keeps it up, might just have a very unfortunate accident perpetrated by those who consider his ideas to be a threat to corporatocrcy.

The Machiavellian Mind of the United States

2011-04-12T04:54:00.000-07:00

There are two very important current occurrences in the news, one is Libya and the other is Syria; both of which could prove deadly for the US.

Two weeks ago Obama, the smooth talking car salesman, delivered his statement of purpose regarding Libya. He said little about our purpose but did much by giving the green light to arming the Libyan rebels. We have also learned that the CIA is already on the ground in Libya, and apparently has been for some time. Once again we find ourselves confronting another “crazy man”, but it was we and the western European powers that armed this “crazy man” with the weapons he is now using against the rebels.

Not only have we taken sides in a Civil War, but we and the western European powers will decide who should rule Libya as evidenced by the recent meeting of Western powers in London to decide the future of Libya. Shouldn’t such details be worked out by Libyans? The idea of Western nations deciding Libya’s political future does not set well with the concept of spreading democracy throughout the Middle East. Getting involved in Civil War in a foreign country is a dangerous endeavor, and should remind us how we begged the world to stay out of our own Civil War.

For those who still believe Obama and his concern for the humanitarian plight of the Libyans, consider the following. One of new leaders of Libyan rebels, Khalifa Haftar, has been living in this country for the past 20 years within five miles of the CIA headquarters in Langley, VA., apparently was a long time CIA collaborator, and has no visible means of supporting himself or his large family. Could this be the emergence of the latest US puppet? The emerging puppet might closely resemble Hamid Karzai who was pulled off the shelf of the CIA’s “puppet closet”, for he too had not lived in Afghanistan for 30 years prior to the CIA dusting him off the shelf and sending him to Afghanistan. His father had close contact with the CIA, Karzai’s brother and many in the Karzai administration are on the CIA payroll. Even the New York Times established the ties of the Karzai administration to the CIA, so if they figured it out it must be pretty overt.

Those clinging to Obama and not wanting to admit betrayal need to review the historical record of the US in “helping” people who suffer a “humanitarian crises”. The record shows we are far better at killing than we are at helping. Have we lifted a finger for Gazans, the most oppressed people on earth, or have we interfered in the Ivory Coast with at least 1000 reported innocent deaths after the dictator Gbagbo refused to step aside after losing an election? Not a whisper of concern or threat of intervention for Ivory Coast. In Yemen, and Bahrain we remain silent while innocents die as they did in Libya at the hands of US backed dictators. We decided to intervene in Libya on the basis of what some thought might happen if we did not. There was no wholesale slaughter, but we initiated bombing Libya based on speculation of what might have happened. The concept of bombing a country based on what you might think could happen if you don’t, is truly a new and innovative Pandora’s Box. While supporting every dictator in the Middle East and killing millions around the world, do you think that US suddenly is concerned with humanitarian aid in Libya while, for example, ignoring the humanitarian needs of Haiti our neighbor?

It is truly amazing that some liberals cling to their belief in Obama despite his betrayal of all the campaign promises he made. The same liberals, who ridiculed Republicans for supporting Bush, even as the entire world concluded he was a disaster, now support and defend Obama as some Republicans defended Bush. It is a difficult thing to admit you have been lied to and fooled, because once admitted, action is required.

The second major area of news this week is Syria. Understand that some within the administration secretly thirst and drool for opportunity that would allow the US to use military power against Syria. We could easily be “used” as a client state and once again, and find ourselves doing the dirty work of one of our “best friends”. From the Israeli perspective, the US making war on Syria, one of Israel’s many enemies in the Middle East, would be better than the US making war on Saddam Hussein who foolishly took the side of the Palestinians, and had to be removed by the US. Using a revolt in Syria to justify some kind of intervention by the US would be a one two punch for Israel. Controlling Syria would cut its ties to Iran and lessen Iran’s ability to be of assistance to Hezbollah and Hamas. The fate of Palestine, Lebanon, Syria, and Iran would then be in the hands of Israel. This opportunity for Israel is just too good to ignore and Syria just might become the hottest spot in the Middle East as events unfold. The precedent of using force to “save civilians” has been established, and forces representing Israel, including powerful forces in the US Congress, will be hard at work attempting to get the US to annihilate Syria.

One final nail in the coffin for those who still believe we have noble intentions of spreading democracy to the Middle East can be seen in the announcement by Dennis Ross, the Obama aide. Ross argued the administration has been “consistent “ in opposing Palestinian statehood. While over one hundred nations have recognized Palestinian statehood, and almost another one hundred have established diplomatic relations, the US, the bastion of democracy, has been “consistent” in our opposition to statehood. So much for Democracy in the Middle East!

Does Bradley Manning deserve death?

2011-03-20T18:07:00.000-07:00

Should Bradley Manning die for allegedly leaking documents to the US public? He is now charged with aiding the enemy, but the government cannot tell you who the enemy is. Are you OK with this logic? The Pentagon routinely leaks information to media outlets all the time. Should they die? Some in the administration argue that Manning’s offense is different because his alleged leak endangered lives, but government officials concede that no one has died due to the leak. So who should die? Take the time to watch the short version of the video that Manning allegedly leaked at http://collateralmurder.org/ and decide. Do you have the right to know this? Did those in the video deserve death? Did the “Good Samaritan” deserve death? Did the two children deserve their fate? Why does the US government not want you see this? Who should be put to death; Manning, who released the video because he thought it morally repugnant and believed you and I had a right to see what was done in our name, the people who pulled the trigger and committed mass murder, or those who gave the order? Are we all, by our silence, guilty of being accessories to murder?

To Invade or not to Invade: that is the question.

2011-03-09T14:22:00.000-08:00

While the British have been caught red handed with a small contingent of military sneaking into Libya, the US continues to build up and get prepared for a military intervention as well. One has to wonder why? The administration would argue that military intervention might be needed to protect the people of Libya; despite the rebels having made it abundantly clear on many recent occasions they do not want, or need outside intervention.

Mainstream media laments for the people of Libya, but do they really care? There apparently have been several hundred Libyans killed by Qaddafi forces and media justifiably weeps. Yet in 2009 when Israel began a massive bombing campaign of Gaza slaughtering innocents who were imprisoned in walled city with no possible escape, the slaughter went on for days, and not a word of protest, lament, or sorrow, for the victims of Gaza from either mainstream media or the administration. The US watched silently while American supersonic bombers killed over 1,400 innocent people who were trapped, and not a word about a no-fly zone. One third of the dead were children. The most sophisticated weapons in the world, including rockets, missiles, tanks, white phosphorus, against defenseless Gazans with no air force, army, navy, or weapons to defend themselves from the onslaught. It was one of the biggest mismatches in military history, and all the while the US remained silent. During the Israeli onslaught, schools, (including a UN school resulting in 46 children dead) hospitals, police stations, and churches were among the 22,000 buildings that were destroyed, all of which are illegal targets, and therefore war crimes.

Hypocritically the US is now insisting the pro Qaddafi forces guilty of atrocities should be held accountable, yet remained silent and therefore complicit in one of the most one-sided and cold blooded military assaults ever. Many argue Israel has the fifth strongest military force in the world, much of which is paid for by US taxpayers without their knowledge, while Gaza has no military at all and no place to hide from the vicious assault. Israel lost its moral compass and American Jews must subject themselves to a conscience examination, for they now stand in opposition to all the traditional values of the Jewish people. Their silence makes them complicit.

So no outrage, no protest, no sanctions, no UN actions against Israel, while all of the above are being applied to Libya. Why? Could the willingness to use force in Libya have anything to do with oil? Could it be that Libya has the largest know proven oil reserves on the African continent? Could it be that BP negotiated a $900 million dollar contract with Libya in 2008, which would be endangered if Qaddafi falls? Could it be that ExxonMobil has a 97million dollar contract, and Shell, France’s oil company TOT, and Norway’s company Statoil, all have contracts with Libya that very well could be at risk when Qaddafi falls from power? When the fall occurs there will be a rush by corporations and countries to secure control of Libya’s 1.6 million barrels of oil exported daily, and there will also be a rush to capture its vast natural gas fields. Could it be the US cares not about Libya’s people, but cares about a military intervention to protect Libya’s oil? Could it be that the US is panicked by the spread of democracy in the Middle East and has chosen Libya to establish a military base, from which we could police these emerging democracies?

Why is the US so concerned with the plight of the Libyans when we recently killed over one million innocent Iraqis, and cared less about helping the 4 million refugees that the Iraq war created? Why do we not seem to feel their pain? Why didn’t we feel the pain when Secretary of State Madeleine Albright was asked by Lesley Stahl, in the infamous 60 Minutes question:” We have heard that a half million children have died. I mean, that's more children than died in Hiroshima. And, you know, is the price worth it?”Albright casually answered: “we think the price is worth it”. Because of the blood, deaths, and destruction we brought to Iraq for no reason, some might find it difficult to believe the US is really concerned with the well being of the Libyan people.

In Afghanistan and Pakistan we kill innocents daily with smart bombs, laser guided weapons, and unmanned drones, and just this week killed 9 of 10 Afghan children who were gathering firewood. We did, once again, say we were sorry, as we have done on countless occasions. On some occasions we have even reimbursed the parents of dead children with amounts of $1,500 for the loss of a child, or the loss of a child’s limb, so truly we must be real sorry. We have accidentally attacked and killed countless innocents, and have a propensity for attacking weddings with our smart bombs, usually followed by an official denial, and then as the evidence and bodies pile up, an official apology repeated by another attack a short time later.

The first to call for military intervention in Libya were the neocons who brought us Iraq, with John McCain, Joe Lieberman, Paul Wolfowitz, and Elliot Abrams, once again rising to the occasion and leading the charge for militarily intervention in Libya. This alone is a red light that should cause for great thought.

Many are perplexed at the willingness and eagerness of the administration, and some in Congress, to use military power to intervene in an apparent civil war. Certainly during our own Civil War we begged other nations not to interfere, so we should be sensitive to the pleas of the rebels who are insisting they do not want or need any intervention. In light of our militaristic past, the slaughters we have brought to Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq, our role as accomplice in the Israeli devastation of Gaza and the subsequent and continued starvation implemented by both Israel and the US, and the fact that the US has supported every dictatorship in the Middle East from Morocco to Iraq, provides ample doubt that the US is suddenly concerned with the plight of Libyans. There is another motive.

Don't Look Now, the Emperor has no Clothes!

2011-02-18T16:54:00.000-08:00

The final outcome of the Egyptian revolution is unknown, but a clear result now evident to the world, is the exposure of US hypocrisy for its preaching’s on the virtues of democracy. The rest of the world has seen through our 30 year 1.3 billion dollar annual support of Mubarak, for even during the protests, Hillary Clinton supported the dictator, while US envoy to Egypt Frank Wisner, said it was “critical” that we support Mubarak, exposing the nakedness of advocating democracy while supporting dictatorships.

Amazingly however, some in this country do not comprehend that their country is an exporter and supporter of dictatorships around the world. For those in denial, and understandably it is difficult to admit your own government is hypocritical and supports dictators, consider a variety of countries around the world.

We are currently participating, with Israel, in the starvation of Gazans, because at our insistence they held and election, and to our shock and dismay Hamas emerged victorious in a legitimate election. Immediately the US and Israel teamed up with our faithful puppet dictator in Egypt, Mr. Mubarak, to starve Gazans until they reverse themselves and vote according to our wishes. The starvation continues today, and apparently will continue until Gazans reverse their vote. If they would only vote the way we want, they might be allowed to eat.

In Lebanon, Hezbollah has emerged as the controlling party, a situation we and Israel cannot accept, so we are doing our best to topple the government by rigging the investigation of the assassination of their Prime Minister, Rafiq Hariri. The US government is trying it’s best to rig this so Hezbollah will be blamed and discredited, and the citizens of Lebanon will then vote according to our wishes as well. Hezbollah has seen through the scheme, and exposed it to the citizens of Lebanon. Contrary to mainstream US propaganda, Hezbollah is not labeled as a “terrorist” organization by most countries in the world; only four nations, including the US, Israel, Canada, and the Netherlands, do. If the US can rig the investigation and blame Hezbollah for the assassination, it would be easier to convince other nations that Hezbollah is a “terrorist” organization. Hezbollah appears primarily interested in successfully resisting the frequent Israeli invasions of Lebanon, and providing for the social needs and defense of its people.

In nearby Haiti, a rigged election was held last November. At US insistence, the largest majority was excluded from participation, and Haitians resisted the interference by boycotting the election with 75% of eligible voters staying home. This is akin to Republicans excluding Democrats from the next election and claiming victory, which I am sure they would love to do, if allowed. Even after the boycotted failed November election, the US stepped in and helped create an election committee that changed the results of the November election by throwing out the second place finisher and elevating the third place finisher to second, allowing him to participate in an upcoming special runoff election.

The only democratic election ever held in Haiti saw the triumph of the people’s candidate, the former Jesuit priest, Jean-Bertrand Aristide. The US however did not like Mr. Aristide, or his legitimate democratic victory, and participated in two attempts to overthrow him, finally succeeding and exiling him to a foreign nation forever. One of his major crimes and a reason for his ouster by the US was his insistence that the Haitian workers deserved a minimum wage of one dollar per day. Recently the notorious US backed former brutal dictator, Baby Doc Duvalier, who murdered and looted at will, and who was driven from power years ago, made his way back to Haiti, and the US remained silent about his return. Even more recently Jean-Bertrand Aristide announced his intention to return to Haiti. In the middle of the glorious Egyptian rebellion, Hillary Clinton made a quick and pretty secretive trip to Haiti, where she applied great pressure on the current government to push on with the rigged election, and also put tremendous pressure on the government to make sure that Aristide was not allowed to return to his country. Immediately after Haiti’s devastating earthquake, the US government’s response was to send 27,000 soldiers, allegedly to prevent riots and looting, but the real purpose was to insure that Aristide loyalists could not attempt to bring the people’s choice back home. So much for democracy in Haiti.

Now that the people of Tunisia and Egypt have managed to overthrow their dictators, both backed and supported by the US government, the drive for democracy is spreading wildly throughout the Middle East. There are currently democratic struggles in Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Bahrain, Libya, Jordan, and Djibouti, all of whom have brutal repressive governments, and all backed and supported by the US government.

A study of US interference in Latin and South America nations, and its support of repressive regimes, would encompass too much for this short piece, but may come later.

Don’t look now but the Emperor has no clothes; he is naked and exposed. The rhetoric regarding the spreading of democracy is just that; it is “feel good” rhetoric designed primarily for the naive public. The US government really does not want democracy; we have a special fondness for puppet dictators who will do our bidding by taking US bribe money, but that is apparently not sitting well with the protestors in the streets of all the dictatorships we support.

US duplicity in Egypt

2011-02-12T15:58:00.000-08:00

While extolling democracy the Obama administration tiptoed through the struggle for democracy in Egypt trying not to offend anyone, but creating the appearance of supporting dictatorship in Egypt. He justified his lack of action by saying we did not want to interfere in Egyptian affairs, a specious argument because the US has been interfering for the past thirty years by propping up Mubarak and his military. We supported a brutal and murderous dictator for the past 30 years who could not have survived one minute without US backing, and to now argue that we did not want to interfere is disingenuous.

While praising the virtues of democracy in Egypt, at no time did the administration support the protests of millions and join the chant: “He must go”. Instead Obama repeatedly called for a “gradual transition” and suggested that Egyptians were incapable of setting up a fair election in 60 days. At no time did Obama, or anyone in his administration, call for a cessation of US aid to Mubarak pending a fair election certified by Jimmy Carter’s international organization.Indeed, some in the administration including Hillary Clinton called for US support of Mubarak even after the revolt had begun. Robert Fisk, journalist for The Independent, and generally recognized as one of the best journalists in the world, said: “Obama Administration Has Been Gutless and Cowardly in Dealing with the Mubarak Regime”1 and he described Hillary Clinton’s language regarding the rebellion as “cowardly.

Two nations in the world who did not like the happenings in Egypt were Israel and the US, with Netanyahu urging support of the Mubarak “regime” in Egypt, and urging Obama not to be too critical of Mubarak in the first days of the rebellion, for fear of undermining him. While stalling for time, the US held a series of talks and negotiations behind closed doors. Apparently we wanted to delay in order to secure the position of Suleiman in the next government. Because he was formerly a tool of the CIA , received military training in the US, was a lifelong friend of Mubarak, was the director of Egypt’s secret police for 10 years, worked with the US in carrying out our rendition program, is very close to the Egyptian military, is nicknamed the “torturer in chief” because of his brutal background, and most of all because Wikileaks cables indicate that was he was man that Israel wanted to emerge as the new “dictator”, we got behind him in the back rooms of closed door negotiations.

Israeli fondness for Suleiman is evidenced in headlines such as: London: Omar Suleiman, the new vice-president of Egypt, told the Israelis he wanted to start "cleansing the Sinai" of Palestinian arms smugglers, according to leaked cables.2
And this one: WikiLeaks: Suleiman vowed to prevent Hamas rule in Gaza. 3 Suleiman, long a quisling of the US and Israel, was being “set up” behind the scenes, as the next dictator of Egypt.

Adam Shatz in the London Book of Review article After Mubarak said:
Mubarak, when he stands down, is not likely to be missed by many people in Egypt, where he has pledged to spend his last days, but he will be missed in Washington and, above all, in Tel Aviv. Mubarak and Omar Suleiman, now the interim vice president, worked closely with Israel on everything from the Gaza blockade to intelligence-gathering; they allowed Israeli warships into the Suez Canal to prevent weapons smuggling into Gaza from Sudan, and did their best to stir up tensions between Fatah and Hamas. 4

Further proof of Israel’s dismay is reported by New Zealand’s Scoop Independent News in Franklin Lamb’s article: As Tahrir Square goes so goes the Middle East? which states: Former Israeli Defense Minister Binyamin Ben-Eliezer has defended Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak, saying his collapse will be a “tremendous loss” for Israel. The former army general praised Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak for supporting Israel for thirty years, Israel's Arutz Sheva newspaper reported. 5

The New York Times on February 4, 2011 in its article U.S. Trying to Balance Israel’s Needs in the Face of Egyptian Reform stated the obvious by saying: The Israelis are saying, après Mubarak, le deluge,” said Daniel Levy, a former Israeli peace negotiator. And that, in turn, Mr. Levy said, “gets to the core of what is the American interest in this. It’s Israel. It’s not worry about whether the Egyptians are going to close down the Suez Canal, or even the narrower terror issue. It really can be distilled down to one thing, and that’s Israel.” 6

So once again, following a tradition of history, the US will support a dictator in Egypt, not of course because it does anything good for the US, but because that’s what Israel wants, and most observant folks have come to realize it’s the tail wagging the dog.

Time will tell how this will play out, but make no mistake about it, we will do our very best to insure it is not good for the Egyptian people nor the American public.

1 http://iranian.com/main/news/2011/02/03/robert-fisk-obama-administration-has-been-gutless-and-cowardly-dealing-mubarak-regim

2 http://www.zeenews.com/news686373.html

3 http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4027149,00.html

4 http://www.lrb.co.uk/v33/n04/adam-shatz/after-mubarak

5 http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL1102/S00040/as-tahrir-square-goes-so-goes-the-middle-east.htm

6 http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/05/world/middleeast/05israel.html?_r=1

Obama's lost moment and failure in Egypt

2011-02-04T09:36:00.000-08:00

This will be very difficult for Obama supporters to accept, but the violence in Egypt is due in part to disastrous American foreign policy. Recent US administrations have little if any sense of what the feeling of the street has been in Egypt; and because Mr. Mubarak was happy with his 1.3 billion dollar bribe each year, the administration naively assumed the street was happy. During the past few administrations there has been a cleansing within the state department, and anyone who showed sympathy for either the growth of democracy in Egypt, or sympathy for the plight of the Palestinian people, has been driven from the state department by forces loyal to Israel, who only see the Middle East from an Israeli perspective. The end result is the US had no real “ears on the ground” in the streets of Egypt, and the Obama administration was caught flat footed and surprised at the rapid demise of Mr. Mubarak.

When the masses took to the street, the same folks in the state department continued to look at things from the perspective of Israel, and therefore were reluctant to jump on the bandwagon of democracy. Israel is frightened of democracy in Arab countries, because they fear the masses will not support the starvation of Gaza, or be as willing to take their cues from Israel and the US. When the revolt became widespread, and hatred for dictatorship became evident, with a protest of over 2 million in Tahrir Square, Obama and the state department began an exercise in doublespeak. Hillary Clinton’s language toward the revolt can best be described as “cowardly”, and the President took the political “fence position” by trying to play both sides. An opportunity to show true leadership by aggressively supporting the movement for democracy was lost, and so was the reputation of the US. Once again the hypocrisy of the administration’s constant rhetoric about the spread of democracy was exposed by inaction and unwillingness to really stand for democracy in Egypt. Some argue that Obama’s position pleased no one at all.

The Obama administration had many effective cards to play, but chose to bluff with inaction and useless rhetoric. He could have immediately called for the resignation of Mubarak, which would have been admired by the street of every Arab nation in the Middle East, but he chose rhetoric. Another option might have been to announce that all aid to Egypt was immediately suspended, and would not be resumed until Egypt had a fair and democratic election, as certified by an organization such as Jimmy Carter’s. He choose not to do this either.

Instead the President seemingly followed the orders of Mr. Netanyahu, who urged him not to say anything derogatory about Mr. Mubarak, fearing comments would undermine what authority Mubarak had left. Clearly Israel was quite content with the dictator Mubarak, for he took US money and towed the line of both Israel and the US. A democratic Egypt might not be so subservient.

A game changing moment in history was lost by Obama’s unwillingness to get behind the movement for democracy, as he had done in places such as Iran. Comparing Obama’s enthusiasm for the street protests and demonstrations against the Iranian government, with his lack of support for protestors seeking democracy in Egypt, speaks volumes.

Now it appears the peaceful protests have turned ugly, and violent forces have emerged as things dragged on, and the Mubarak forces have regrouped.
The President bears some responsibility for this violence, for his inaction was interpreted as tacit support for the dictator. His hesitancy allowed the Mubarak forces to retaliate. Had the president acted decisively, by immediately calling for Mubarak to leave, the issue would have been pretty much resolved, for Mubarak could not survive withouy US support. The kind of government that would have emerged after the fall of Mubarak was the unknown that frightened the president to inaction. Someone must have calculated it was better to stand by the puppet dictator, than to risk getting a government that would be unwilling to do our bidding, or the bidding of Israel.

It now is apparent that the reason for the stalling and inaction was purposeful. The administration has been secretly jockeying for position in selecting the next leader of Egypt. Sources say the administration is pushing for the newly appointed Vice President of Egypt, who formerly was the Director of Egypt’s Intelligence Directorate for ten years. Suleiman, the Vice President, the torturer in chief for ten years, is also very close to the army, and has established ties to the US and the CIA; and indeed some suggest that the US is merely trying to substitute one dictator for a new one.

It is entirely possible that there will be massive violence with things spinning completely out of control, and it would not be a surprise to see the mysterious “suicide bombers” emerge in Egypt, as they have in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan. Unfortunately a moment in history was lost by a President who appeared to be like the proverbial deer in the headlights, and many in the Arab world continue to see the US as strong on the rhetoric of democracy, but very weak on actions to promote true democracy anywhere in the Middle East.

Does Egypt matter to the US public? You better believe it does!

2011-01-29T05:36:00.000-08:00

Most Americans are not focused on the unfolding events in the Middle East because they see them as irrelevant to the US and their own personal lives. They don’t have any idea of how they have been, and will be impacted, in the future. Our misguided policy of supporting dictators in Middle East has aroused the rage of folks in Egypt, Tunisia, Yemen, and Jordan, and if you do not think events will affect the American public, hearken back to the horrible disaster of 9/11 which occurred because of our foolish policy in the Middle East. Although American media has done its best to cover up the real reason for 9/11, the perpetrators themselves told us exactly why they did it. After the failed attempt to destroy the Twin Towers of New York in 1993, the perpetrators issued a statement explaining why they attacked the towers, and also issued a warning, claiming they would try again if policy did not change.

Clearly they told us in written message; they attacked because of our policy of supporting dictators in their countries, of having US military bases on their soil, and because of our on sided policy regarding the Palestinians. The policy did not change, and as promised the perpetrators retuned, this time to tragically succeed in bringing down the towers and killing many innocent Americans. Osama Bin Laden then repeated the exact same message after 9/11. Strangely after almost every single subsequent terrorist act against the US, the same kind of warning and threat followed, which US media, for some inexplicable reason failed to convey to the US public. Warnings have consistently mentioned our one sided policy regarding Palestine, maintaining military bases in Middle East nations, and supporting dictatorships.

So here we are, for the past 25 years having supporting a powerful dictator in Egypt, and even as the Egyptians have taken to the streets in an effort to end dictatorship and establish a more representative government, the Obama administration has failed to enthusiastically support the quest of Egyptians for freedom from dictatorship, but has chosen to take the political “fence” position by tepidly supporting both sides.

Years ago the US bought Mubarak, and we have given him almost as much foreign aid as Israel with the understanding that he would carry water for the U.S. and Israel. So far we have given Egypt about 70 billion dollars to cover for Israel. We attempted to purchase with our money, security for Israel, and Mubarak has proven himself a loyal puppet and has maintained a false peace with Israel, while participating in the US –Israeli attempt to starve Gaza for voting Hamas into power. U.S. Ambassador Margaret Scobey, in a just released Wikileaks cable, said in 2009: “Torture and police brutality in Egypt are endemic and widespread." The cable describes in detail the torture and repressiveness of the Egyptian government, but our government did not care about the fate of innocent Egyptians. The great unspoken fear in Congress and within the administration, is that if Mubarak falls and a new more representative government is formed, it might not be willing to participate any longer in the starvation of Gaza and open the Rafah crossing and allow food to get to the starving Gazans. It might not be willing to carry the water for Israel and the US. This would be disastrous for Israel, but because all of US policy in the Middle East is designed to cover for Israel, we continue to support the dictator. The entire US Middle East policy, including supporting a repressive brutal dictator with huge sums of aid money, participating in the starving 1.5 million people, condoning a brutal attack on Gaza in which over 1,500 innocents were slaughtered, two thirds of whom were children, invading Iraq to eliminate Israel’s main rival, defending Israel’s attack on a humanitarian relief ship in international waters resulting in nine innocent deaths, including an American citizen, defending the illegal seizure of lands from Palestinians, maintaining a racist apartheid national policy, provoking a war on Iran to eliminate another of Israel’s many enemies, is simply designed to insure Israel’s security. This is a disastrous policy for Americans, as evidenced by 9/11, and it is clear that both the Congress and the President have put Israeli interests ahead of American security.

How many more American lives must be shed to insure Israel’s security? That depends upon how much longer the US Congress and the administration will continue to put the wishes and interests of Israel ahead of the interests of the American people, but keep in mind the “insurgent math” of General McChrystal, who said for every innocent person we kill, ten new enemies are created.

The US government continues its policy of supporting dictators and punishing democracies.

2011-01-28T04:51:00.000-08:00

Last week Baby Doc Duvalier returned to Haiti and the US government said nothing. For readers who might be too young to remember, he, like Papa Doc, his father who preceded him, was a cruel murdering dictator who looted his country of millions. Baby Doc murdered thousands and prospered by selling drugs and body parts. After supported the Duvalier’s for years the US finally tired of Papa Doc and helped oust him in a popular uprising in 1986.

On the other hand, Haiti's first ever democratically elected president, the former Jesuit priest Jean Bertrand Aristide, was ousted from power with US assistance, primarily because he wanted a minimum wage law of one dollar per day for Haitian workers. U.S. corporations would not allow this and he was undermined, eventually kidnapped, and flown out of Haiti by the US, and forced to live in exile. When the scoundrel and murderer Baby Doc returned, Jean Bertrand Aristide asked for permission to return as well, but the Obama administration flexed its muscles and prevented the return of the only democratically elected leader in Haiti’s history.

When Haiti had its earthquake, the US sent, not food or supplies, but 27,000 Marines, supposedly to insure that rioting did not occur, but the real reason was to insure that Aristide, the popular reform leader, could not return to his country.

Meanwhile in North Africa the government in Tunisia has been overthrown, in part because Wikileaks cables made public just how corrupt the government of Tunisia had been over the years. While many suspected and thought this to be true, the leaked cables proved to the people of Tunisia just how corrupt their government really was, and in a peaceful revolt took to the streets bringing down their government. The cable also revealed the US government was very well aware of the massive corruption in Tunisia’s government but continued to support it.
Far reaching results may follow the Tunisia revolt with two nations being particularly important. Leaders in Jordan and Egypt are backed and supported by the US government with massive amounts of aid. Both are puppets of the US and Israeli governments. Both Jordan and Egypt will do the bidding of the US government, in return the puppets are rewarded with generous sums of aid from the US. While accurate figures are difficult to establish, we know that Egypt’s government which is headed by the repressive dictator Mubarak, is given well over one billion dollars per year to do our bidding. The same is true in Jordan.
Folks in Egypt who have learned much from citizens in Tunisia have taken to the streets in an attempt to duplicate the accomplishment in Tunisia. The US and Israel have grave concerns that both governments could fail. We have helped insure Israel’s security by buying off the leaders of Jordan and Egypt, neither of whom reflects the democratic wishes of their people. The last thing the US government wants is for “democracy “to prevail, for in both countries both puppets would be quickly removed.
In nearby Lebanon the US and Israel attempted to manipulate the UN into putting the blame for the assassination of Lebanon’s prime minister on Hezbollah. If the US can rig this properly, and place the blame on Hezbollah, the party now in control of Lebanon could be labeled a “terrorist organization”, even though it is apparently supported by the majority of Lebanon’s population. Hezbollah is not considered, and never has been considered a terrorist organization by most of the nations of the world, but it has proven to be Israel’s military nemesis by defeating Israel in its attempt to invade and take over Lebanon in the 2006. The US has already threatened to withdraw aid if Hezbollah rules Lebanon. Once again so much for the idea of the US supporting “democracy” in the Middle East.
In nearby Palestine, the Palestine Papers have been released by Aljazeera, demonstrating how the puppet government of the Palestine Liberation Organization has betrayed its own people, which surely will have long term ramifications, one of which could be the supremacy of Hamas, already the democratically elected government of nearby Gaza. Readers will remember when Hamas won the election in Gaza, supervised and declared fair by former President Jimmy Carter’s monitoring organization, both the US and Israel rejected the election results and initiated a policy of starving the poor folks of Gaza for voting the wrong way. So much for democracy in Gaza.
Recent Presidents have preached the spread of democracy, but obviously they mean only if the democracy does what we want it to do. Presidents should be careful in preaching rhetoric about spreading democracy around the world; they might just get what they wished for.

Believe it or Not

2011-01-03T15:02:00.000-08:00

A distant relative asks you to loan him money but you cannot afford it. Would you be willing to borrow money so that you could loan it, then have him invest it in a bank and earn interest on the money you borrowed to loan to him?? Of course not! Would you take money out of your family budget and deprive your children of necessities so that you could make this loan to your distant relative? Of course not!! Thanks to your generosity and a Congress subservient to the people and government of Israel, you will borrow 3.4 billion dollars and give it to Israel this year. While some folks in Congress are discussing cutting social programs for American citizens, Israel is to be given more money than ever this year. Few Americans realize that Israel by law is the only foreign aid recipient to receive its yearly money in a lump sum within 30 days of the New Year. The US, on the verge of bankruptcy, does not have the 3.4 billion on hand to give, so it borrows the money from the Treasury and naturally has to pay back millions in interest, while Israel takes its lump sum and invests in US Treasury Bills and notes, earning millions in interest from the US government. So while we borrow the 3.4 billion and lose millions paying the interest, Israel invests the lump sum and makes millions earning interest. So US taxpayers pay millions of dollars in interest to borrow, and then pays millions in interest to Israel. Make sense?? Of course not!!
Want some icing on the cake? Included in the 3.4 billion dollars in aid to Israel is 25 million for “immigrant absorption”. Arizona and New Mexico; sorry we have no money for you.
Israel has received by conservative estimate; abut 115-120 billion dollars in total. What could have been done with 115 billion dollars? Find a cure for cancer? Make Social Security and Medicare forever solvent? Provide housing for the homeless? We will never know.
So why would Congress borrow money, and then give it to a foreign nation, while depriving its own citizens of needed social programs?? Why would Congress increase aid to Israel this year while cutting programs for American citizens? Maybe you should ask.

Don't Drink the Iranian Kool-Aid

2009-10-12T10:19:00.000-07:00

Readers beware; we are being taken for a ride. The same people that falsified information and led us to war with Iraq are now doing the same with Iran. The war advocates told us it was a “Slam Dunk” that Iraq had WMD and was a threat to the US with it tons of chemical and biological weapons, and Colin Powell gave a UN report which turned out to be totally false. We drank the Kool-Aid and found ourselves in a war that cost over 4,000 Americans lives, and claimed about 1.2 million Iraqis.

The same folks who gave us the Iraqi Kool-Aid are offering you Iranian Kool-Aid. The idea that Iran is a threat to the US or Israel, is ludicrous. Iran is completely surrounded by US bases in Afghanistan, Iraq, Turkey, Armenia, Kyrgyzstan,, Turkmenistan, Bahrain, Uzbekistan, US Persian Gulf Navel fleet, and Israel with its illegal nuclear arsenal of between 200-400 nuclear weapons.

Although Iran is the most closely observed, regulated, monitored, nation in the world, with human inspectors, intensive electronic surveillance by the International Atomic Energy Agency, and US satellites observing activity in Iran, not one shred of evidence has been found by the IAEA, or the US intelligence agencies that Iran is developing nuclear weapons.

The National Intelligence Estimate concluded that Iran gave up is nuclear weapons program in 2003, and Mr. El Baradei, head of the IAEA, has said there is no evidence whatsoever that Iran is developing a nuclear weapon, while the new incoming leader of the IAEA, Yukiya Amano, recently said that he has not seen any hard evidence that Iran is trying to develop atomic weapons. Both have been ignored.

The latest controversy is over the “secret” facility to enrich uranium. According to the initial Nuclear Non Proliferation Agreement, Iran need not notify the IAEA of such construction until the facility is 6 months from completion. It will be completed in about one year and Iran, according to the rules, has agreed to allow access by inspectors.

The entire matter of nuclear weapons could be resolved if the US and Israel would agree to a treaty establishing a “Nuclear Free Middle East Zone”. The US and Israel have been the only two nations to balk at the idea, effectively killing the notion each time it has been floated over the last few years. Three weeks ago, but not covered by mainstream media, the UN nuclear assembly voted 100-1 to support the idea of a Nuclear Free Middle East. Israel was the only nation voting against the idea and the US abstained. What is wrong with a Nuclear Free Middle East?

The hypocrisy against Iran would be laughable were it not leading to war. While talking about possibly attacking Iran, who according to US intelligence and the IAEA has no nuclear weapons program, we ignore the elephant in the room (Israel) with an illegal nuclear arsenal. Israel has refused to participate in the Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty and has refused to allow any inspectors into their nation, but clamors the loudest for an attack on Iran. On 10/4/09 Mr. El Baradei said: "Israel is number one threat to Middle East". His statement was not reported by mainstream media. Additionally both Pakistan and India have nuclear weapons and do not belong to the NPT, nor have they allowed any inspections while we look the other way.

Iran is in the cross hairs just as was Iraq, and is being put in the same impossible situation. We demanded that Iraq prove they had no WMD, while now demanding that Iran prove they do not have a nuclear weapons program, likewise an impossible task.

So the Kool-Aid is being forced down your throat by war mongers; I urge you not to drink it. Do we really need another endless war?

Puzzling Questions on Kosovo

2008-02-19T05:47:00.000-08:00

As one who supports the concepts of freedom, independence, and the right of self determination, I am puzzled by the reaction of the world’s major nations to the declaration of independence that recently came from Kosovo.

First to recognize the independent new nation was the US, who you may recall initiated a 78 day brutal bombing of Serbian infrastructure including bridges, schools, hospitals, trains, farms, communications and water systems, in an effort to help the people of Kosovo secure their freedom.
Next the French stepped forward to welcome the independence of Kosovo, and the British were also prompt to congratulate the newly independent Kosovo.

But wait!
In 1861 when South Carolina and other southern states seceded from the US, the federal government argued that states did not have the right to declare their independence, and the bloodiest war in the history of the nation was fought to prevent a section of the US from gaining independence. During the bloody conflict the US begged foreign nations not to recognize the independence of the Confederate states of America. Imagine our horror if another nation decided to bomb us for 78 days during our civil war?

When the Philippines demanded their independence from the US at the turn of the last century, a brutal war occurred that dragged on for years causing the deaths of unknown thousands while US troops employed water boarding. Why did we not rush to recognize and grant Philippine independence?

France, a former great colonial empire was shocked when its colony of Algeria declared their independence from France in 1954. The French refused to grant independence and fought a brutal war from 1954-1962, doing everything in its power to kill the concept of independence. The French were extremely cruel and estimates suggest as many as one million died in the struggle for independence. At the end of a brutal war, France finally agreed to recognize Algerian Independence. Why did France refuse to grant Algeria independence?

But wait! Fast forward to the 1992 Algerian elections when no party gained a majority and a runoff election was required by law. When it became apparent that Islamists would win the upcoming democratic election the army stepped forward to cancel the elections, and the Algerian army was given a wink and a nod by the US government. So much for self determination!

Great Britain congratulated the people of Kosovo upon claiming their independence, but it was Great Britain who killed hundreds of thousands of Irish who wanted, struggled and fought for their independence for hundreds of years?? Wasn’t it Great Britain who resisted the breakup of its world colonial empire with incredible brutality in India and other places around the world?

So the great powers who slaughtered millions in an effort to stifle independence around the world, now champion the people of Kosovo. I am confused! Have the great powers, enlightened by the concept of independence, changed their ways, or do they have a sinister motive?

An Act Of Aggression????????

2008-01-14T16:51:00.000-08:00

The recent incident off Iran with three small Iranian speedboats committing an alleged act of aggression (frighteningly similar to the 1964 Tonkin Gulf alleged incident that led to the deaths of 57,000 US soldiers) against the US navy, needs comment. We now know of course that the infamous Iranian video presented by the Pentagon was altered, and a voice was dubbed into the video, but that aside I offer the following for your memory.
Do readers recall the destruction of Flight IR 655, an Iranian commercial jet loaded with 294 civilians, mostly women and children by the US navy? Most Americans have long forgotten it, but rest assured the Iranian families of the 294 will never forget. This commercial jet was shot down by missiles launched from the USS Vincennes, destroying a passenger liner on a regularly scheduled flight. First the US insisted it thought it was being attacked by the Airbus 300 and responded, and then the US said it was confused and thought the passenger liner (Airbus 300) was an F-15. The Vincennes was a highly sophisticated electronic surveillance ship and hardly could it confuse an Airbus 300 with an F-15. That would be like you confusing a mouse with an elephant. To add insult to death, the Captain of the Vincennes was given the Legion of Merit medal for (for killing 294 civilians????) and President Reagan refused to apologize for any action committed by his country. Iranians will never forget nightly news videos of children's bodies being recovered from the sea.

So Bush has warned against the "act of aggression" and threatened serious consequences if it occurs again. An "act of aggression"???????

Blowback in Pakistan

2007-12-30T15:02:00.000-08:00

“Blowback”, a term meaning unintended consequences of a foreign policy, is evident in Pakistan, and the US is largely responsible for the Pakistani turmoil.

The US has supported and propped up a very unpopular military dictator for the past eight years by giving him billions to strengthen his military and maintain his power. Despite polls indicating that almost 70% of the Pakistani people want Musharraf to leave the country, we have continued to insure his presence. Pakistanis are well aware the only reason Musharraf survives is because of US financial backing, and he is seen as another US stooge. Strong anti- American hatred has developed among Pakistanis for our continued support of their dictator, while preaching democracy to the world. Extremists in Pakistan have become the leaders of the anti- Musharraf anti-American resistance. The US refers to these extremists as Al Quada, but they are haters of the US government for maintaining a military dictator in their country. There have been five attempts to assassinate Musharraf, and at one point he was guarded by US personnel because he could not trust his own people.

The extremists tapped into the anti-American, anti Musharraf hatred, and unrest has prevailed in Pakistan over the past 6 months. Apparently the US finally figured that the dictator could not survive indefinitely and so US administration went to plan B. Benazir Bhutto living in exile was selected to be the next leader of Pakistan by the US government, and she was coaxed out of exile and promised US support if she would return to lead her nation. Her fate was sealed when Condoleezza Rice finally persuaded Bhutto to return to Pakistan because it was seen as American régime change. Pakistanis were unwilling to trade one US stooge for another and some apparently decided to eliminate Bhutto.

Because the US has backed a dictator who suspended the constitution, arrested rivals, censored media, and imprisoned thousands, anti-American hatred in Pakistan is “blowback”. The assassination of Bhutto is just another unintended consequence of a failed foreign policy and unfortunately now things could really get out of control in Pakistan.

Isn’t it about time the US citizens pay attention to foreign policy, and force administrations to be moral and democratic around the world?

Why they hate us---A Middle East Primer

2007-10-24T14:48:00.000-07:00

In 1993 the World Trade Center was attacked the first time and the plotters came very close to bringing the Trade Center towers down. Few citizens realize that the plotters and planners of that event publicly said two important things. First they told the people of American and the world, why they attacked the WTC, and they also told the American people that they would be back for a second attempt. Both statements were largely ignored by mainstream media and the US public was kept uninformed. In 2001 the plotters returned to bring down the towers, and once again they told the US public why, but once again this was ignored by mainstream media.

Since 9/11 there have been at least 5 five taped messages from Osama Bin Laden and in each of the taped messages he explained why the towers were targeted, and yet his warnings and reasoning were not coved by media. Repeatedly Osama Bin Laden and other terrorists have sent messages to various news sources which contain an explanation for their hatred, but the media has failed to inform the US public of the reasons for the deep hatred people have for the US.

The common thread found in all recorded messages is the unbalanced, immoral, deadly, policy towards the Palestinian people. Repeatedly the American people have been told why the attackers are willing to sacrifice their own lives to inflict death in America, and repeatedly the US public has not been informed of their intent.

A review of US policy towards Palestine/ Israel is in order to better understand why the US is under attack. The US public was shocked in October of 1983 when a Marine barracks in Lebanon was destroyed with the loss of 241 American lives. Predictably their was an emotional response directed at the Lebanese people by the US public, without understanding, or being told by media of the events leading up to the bombing of the Marine barracks. The US public was told that the Marines were in Beirut on a peace-keeping mission, which only added to the public's anger at those who killed US soldiers. The public however, was not aware of a Civil War in Lebanon between Muslims and Christians for political power. The US had backed, both politically and economically, a right wing unpopular government in Lebanon, and prevented the Lebanese people from instituting a popular government. When the Civil War occurred, the US allowed Israel to enter the fray, invade Lebanon, and slaughter possibly 20,000 civilians. With Israeli and US backing, a right wing puppet government was established to carry out the wishes of the US and Israel, but assassinations of the installed leaders by those who resented outside interference, resulted in more violence. The US entered a civil war in Lebanon by siding with the Christian right wing faction, and used the firepower of the battleship New Jersey to lob 2000 pound shells (size of small cars) into the hills of Lebanon, killing civilians. It was because of our involvement in a Civil War, and the killing of Lebanese civilians by US forces, that led to the retaliatory bombing of the marine barracks.

Additional anti American anger resulted because the Lebanese people knew that the US supplied, and supported Israel’s invasion of Lebanon, and saw this alliance as destructive to democratic movements in Lebanon. Middle Eastern people began to view Israel and the US as a team working to subvert the will of the people, and to bring anarchy and chaos to the Middle East.

Recently Israel invaded Lebanon once again, and brutally launched an illegal aggressive war on innocent civilians. The entire infrastructure of Lebanon was destroyed and thousands of innocents were killed. The invasion occurred because 2 Israeli soldiers were kidnapped, an incident used by Israel to justify its barbaric assault on an entire nation. Mainstream media neglected to point out that Israel has “kidnapped” and imprisoned thousands of Lebanese without any accusations, trial, or legal representations.
As the assault continued, the Prime Minister of Lebanon went on TV and publicly wept for his people and his nation, and begged the world to demand a cease fire. Not only did the US give Israel the wink and nod to begin the assault, but continued to wink and nod as US made weapons, given to Israel, were used for the slaughter. It was the US who prevented the UN from demanding a cease fire, and it was the US who provided the one million cluster bombs used on civilians by Israel. The media can successfully fool the US public by hiding the facts, but cannot fool the mothers and fathers whose children were slaughtered by the invasion. This marked the second brutal invasion of Lebanon by Israel.

Meanwhile in Palestine the daily killing of Palestinians continued, while the world’s attention was focused on the war in nearby Lebanon. According to UN statistics, since the real turmoil in Palestine began, there have been 4228 Palestinians killed versus 1024 Israelis. Despite living under a brutal illegal occupation, Palestinians managed to hold a very democratic election monitored by international observers, with Hamas getting control of the government. Immediately the US and Israel balked and announced no funds would go to Palestinians until they renounced Hamas and drove them from power. Both Israel and the US are trying to bring about a coup, with the intent of overthrowing a democratically elected government, and restoring the unpopular US/Israeli puppet. The coup is to be achieved through starvation and deprivation of the masses, which would generate conditions intolerable for the Palestinians. As long as the Palestinian people cling to their democratically elected Hamas they will continue to be starved by the US and Israel.

Because of inhuman conditions, including starvation, Palestinian infighting resulted which almost led to civil war. Many observers predicted Civil War due to the intolerable conditions, and many predicted this was the goal of US /Israeli policy all along. Fortunately cooler heads prevailed and a meeting of Palestinian factions was held in Saudi Arabia, with the goal of forming a unity government by compromising on many important issues. Both the US and Israel have insisted all along that peace negotiations between Israeli and Palestinians could only occur through a unified government, but once, to the dismay of some, a unified government emerged, the US and Israel threw up another roadblock and obstacle to any peace negotiations. Israel and the US demanded the unity government meet 3 conditions as a prelude to any peace talks. The demands were: 1) the unity government “recognize" Israel’s right to exist, 2) Palestinians must honor past treaties, and 3) Palestinians must renounce violence. Israel and the US maintain there can be no progress until those demands are satisfied. Mainstream American media never discussed the issue of Palestinian recognition of Israel’s right to exist, so an illustration is needed to understand the plight of the Palestinians. Suppose your neighbor took 75% of your property through force, and then demanded you recognize his right to exist on your property. Would you? Could you??? It would amount to a concession that his taking of your land is legal. In Israel’s case, the world community has repeatedly declared Israel’s seizure of Palestinian land to be illegal. The international community had declared the seizure of land to be a violation of both the Geneva Convention and the United Nations Charter, and has publicly condemned Israel for its violation of international law. It is allowed to openly violate international law because it has the backing and protection of the United States, and if Palestinians “recognize” Israel, in effect they are recognizing an illegal seizure of land. Israel has been condemned more times by the UN than any nation in history, and the US has used it’s veto power in the UN an additional 39 times to protect Israel from even more condemning resolutions.

Readers should also note that none of the 3 conditions demanded of the Palestinians have been met by Israel. Israel has refused to recognize the right of Palestinians to have a state, Israel has walked away from numerous previously agreed upon treaties, and Israel certainly has not renounced its policy of violence. One might think that any fair minded media outlet might include this in a balanced treatment of the situation.

Although mainstream media in this country avoids any serious discussion of the Palestinian problem, thus keeping the US public totally uniformed, the Arab world is acutely aware of both the horrible situation of the Palestinians and the nature of the problem. As long as the US continues to support a totally one sided, repressive, and incredibly cruel policy towards Palestinians, the country must be prepared for more retaliation and revenge. As none of this could go one without the blind US support of Israel, the world holds the US responsible for the ongoing tragedy of the Palestinian people. Media and politicians appear to be willing to continue to sacrifice American lives to maintain a disastrous policy for the US public. Perhaps it is time for politicians to do what is best for the American public.

Planned Palestinian Chaos

2007-06-15T15:47:00.000-07:00

The tragic news from Palestine is being delivered by mainstream media without factual accuracy, so readers must be mindful that relevant information is being withheld from public consumption.

In January an election took place in Palestine at the insistence of the US and Israel, which, according to international observers, was incredibly democratic and fair. To the dismay of both the US and Israel, Hamas was the clear winner carrying a majority of the seats in the Palestinian Parliament, and who immediately suggested they were willing to renew the unilateral one year truce with Israel. Israel and the US however, teamed up to punish the Palestinian people for voting the "wrong way”. Israel began by withholding tax revenue legally belonging to Palestinians, which constitutes thievery, while the US announced a policy of preventing any aid to Palestine and a policy of starvation. Both the US and Israel had underestimated the political strength of Hamas, and were now determined to bring about the downfall of the newly elected government. Both major powers calculated that without any government infrastructure, in one of the most oppressed regions of the world, public unrest and strife would lead to the collapse of the Hamas government. The policy of starvation and deprivation by Israel and the US did not work. The US then ratcheted up its attempt to foment civil unrest by giving military aid and training to the party that had lost the election (Abbas and Fattah). Despite the rhetoric about spreading democracy in the Middle east, when democracy prevailed the US and Israel did their best to overthrow the democratically elected government.

Both Israel and the US argue their actions are justified because Hamas refuses to accept the existence of Israel; however Israel has never recognized the legal right of Palestine’s existence. Hamas and Israel are strangely enough locked into the same untenable position with respect to recognition of one another. For Hamas to recognize Israel’s right to exist would infer that Israel’s confiscation of Palestinian lands is legal. If your neighbor illegally took part of your property you would be foolish to recognize his right to do so.
Meanwhile Israel cannot recognize the legal right of Palestine to “exist”, for that would imply that Palestine would have legal recourse to the illegal confiscation of Palestinian lands.

Israel then unilaterally arrested leaders of the elected Hamas government (imagine Russia arresting members of the US Congress) and imprisoned elected officials. Over 30 Hamas leaders were arrested, including the Prime Minister of Education, members of the Parliament, and mayors of four towns. Last month Israel attempted to assassinate Hamas politician Khalil al-Hayya in Gaza, killing seven members of his family causing Palestinian rage. By denying any money to the Palestinian people, by arresting leaders of the newly elected government, by supplying the losers of the January elections with weapons, money, and military training, by attempting to assassinate elected politicians, the US and Israel created the "perfect storm" for civil war in Palestine. Now both the US and Israel sit back and watch Palestinians kill one another. Causing civil war and unrest represents a short term victory for the US and Israel, but will undoubtedly have long term “blowback” consequences.

Hugo Chavez and US hypocrisy

2007-06-13T04:48:00.001-07:00

The US government, mainstream media, and big oil, (who sleep in the same bed) have done their best to demonize Hugo Chavez, the outspoken leader of Venezuela. Chavez threw big oil companies out of Venezuela and nationalized the nation's oil because foreign oil companies were raping the oil resources. He argued that oil proceeds should be used to help the poor and has attempted to redistribute wealth by providing the poor with free food, medicine, and education, paying for his social programs with oil money. Additionally this past winter he offered oil to the poor in the US at discount prices. Meanwhile Exxon-Mobil earns mind boggling profits of one hundred million dollars per day. What has Exxon-Mobil done for you? Who then, would you like to see end up with your gas money; the poor or Exxon-Mobil?
President Bush is indignant because Chavez would not renew the broadcast license of a TV station that participated in an attempt to overthrow him, and some US politicians are highly critical calling it an infringement of the right of free press and refer to Chavez as a dictator, forgetting he has faced the people five times in elections.
We can only speculate as to what Bush would do if CBS participated in an attempt to overthrow his administration. We know what he has done to news outlets that do not give the slant he wants. In November of 2001 the US dropped a 500 pound bomb on the Al-Jazeera news station in Kabul, bombed their office in Baghdad in 2003, and imprisoned numerous reporters with one still being held at Guantanamo because we did not like what they were broadcasting. We also know through leaked British memos, that Bush wanted to bomb their main headquarters in Qatar but Tony Blair talked him out of it. None of this bothered the ardent free speech advocates who are so critical of Chavez. I am confused; do you call this "double standard" or "hypocrisy", or both?

Cancer vs. War

2007-05-19T11:57:00.000-07:00

What is to be said of a nation that spends hundreds of billions more on killing, than on finding a cure for cancer?
Tragically we all know of someone who has died of cancer. Try then to make sense of the following. The National Cancer Institute's budget is less than 5 billion dollars, while the military budget, including the cost of Iraq and Afghanistan, is about 647 billion. The National Cancer Institute, the agency responsible for research and finding a cure for cancer, had its budget cut this year, while military spending escalated at unparalleled increases. That means that almost 50 % of your tax dollars finance death, destruction, and war, while 0.17 % of your tax money is spent on finding a cure for cancer. Is this your priority? What have you done about it? What kind of a nation have we become?

Let Democracy End the War in Iraq

2007-02-12T04:36:00.000-08:00

President Bush’s budget calls for an additional $250 billion to finance the quagmire in Iraq, which translates to $800 for every man, woman, and child in the country. The additional $250 billion will bring the cost of the Iraq war to a mind defying $700 billion. Despite the fact that every expert in the world has told him his latest escalation is doomed, the president insists on pushing on with his plan, and now is requesting the funding to implement his policy. Congress meanwhile, demonstrates that it is completely out of touch with the voters and their wishes, as displayed in the most recent election. Much has been said about a meaningless political gesture of debating a worthless non-binding resolution of opposition to escalation. Save for individuals like Russ Feingold, Dennis Kucinich, and Ron Paul, there are few profiles in courage in the Congress, as evidenced by the titanic struggle to take a stand on a non-binding resolution. Since both the Congress and the President are defying the will of the people, a unique solution is needed. Woodrow Wilson once said: “All the evils of Democracy can be cured by more democracy”, and believing this to be true, consider the following unique solution.

Let the people decide! The President needs an additional $800 per person to finance his war, so those who support the escalation can voluntarily donate his/her $800, and those who do not support escalation can keep their $800. As Congress is too cowardly to reflect the will of the people, and the President simply defies the will of the people, let the people speak and vote with their own money. The President has talked considerably about bringing democracy to the rest of the world, so let us demonstrate the merits of pure democracy. Since Bush is starting wars to “promote democracy”, why don’t we let democracy end a war?
This war will end tomorrow.

The President's "nightmare scenario"

2007-01-24T10:39:00.000-08:00

President Bush in his State of the Union address pushed again for his war plan in Iraq, saying we must avoid the “nightmare scenario” of defeat. Since the US began to focus on Iraq the following have resulted:

Over one million innocent people were killed by brutal UN sanctions, inspired and demanded by the US, and while the world begged to remove the killer sanctions, the US insisted they be maintained.
About 700,000 of those who died were innocent children.
The US invaded Iraq and killed an estimated 250,000 under George Bush Sr.
For the next 10 years the US and Britain bombed Iraq on a daily basis.
Clinton launched 23 Tomahawk missiles on Iraq in 1993.
The US invaded Iraq for the second time in 2003.
The US has killed 765,000 Iraqi citizens since the 2003 invasion.
The nation of Iraq has been reduced to rubble.
The infrastructure of Iraq has been completely destroyed.
The birthplace of civilization has been reduced to anarchy.
Two million Iraqis have fled their country due to the US invasion.
Over 100,000 flee their nation each month.
750,000 Christians have fled Iraq.
1.7 million people in Iraq have lost their homes.
Iraq was a nation of about 20 million.
Since our involvement we have reduced their population by about 5 million people.

The president says if we leave, there will be a “nightmare scenario”.

The Defense calls Donald Rumsfeld!!

2007-01-08T07:36:00.000-08:00

The defense calls Donald Rumsfeld! That, in a nutshell, explains the very rapid execution of Saddam Hussein.

Saddam Hussein was called Hitler, mass murderer, barbarian; and the US government and mainstream media convinced the American people he was the devil incarnate, and rapid execution was only fitting. Curiously however, for all his alleged horrific crimes against humanity and mass murder, he was tried and executed for killing 148 people who participated in a coup to overthrow and kill him. Mainstream media neglects to inform us that according to Hussein’s defense, the 148 were tried for treason, found guilty, and executed. Certainly one could question the nature of the trial given to the 148, and find sufficient reason to question their execution, just as one could easily challenge the nature of the trial offered to Hussein. His trial was paid for by the US, judges were brought to the US for “training”, the court room was paid for by the US taxpayer, the salaries of judges were paid for by the US, lawyers were assassinated, judges resigned, witnesses were hidden and their identities unknown, and having been found guilty was summarily executed within days.

Certainly it is not this writer's intent to defend Saddam Hussein, but it is interesting to use his case to explore the nature of "justice" and "hypocracy". As an abstract concept, the nature of “justice” is debatable, and one merely looks back at Waco, Texas where Janet Reno presided over the execution of 90 of our own citizens, most of whom were women and children completely innocent of any criminal activity. Not only were the innocent victims denied any kind of trial, they were gassed with poison, and then incinerated. How does this incident compare or differ from the accusation and hanging of Hussein? Another alleged assassination took place in Kuwait in April 1993 when an alleged attempt to assassinate George Bush Sr. was foiled. Without a trial, without accusing or arresting anyone, the new President, Clinton, launched 23 Tomahawk missiles into Iraq killing innocent people, including one of Iraq’s most gifted artists. Despite the fact the assassination allegedly took place in Kuwait, and its accuracy has been challenged by distinguished writers like Seymour Hersh, the retaliation by the US took innocent lives in Iraq. Was this an exercise in “justice”, and was anyone held accountable, tried, or hanged, for these deaths?

Saddam Hussein was not put on trial for the horrific accusations hurled at him by mainstream media and the US government. Did he really gas the Kurds as charged by the US? Unfortunately, or fortunately depending on your point of view, his hanging prevented any answering of such questions. Perhaps that explains the rapid execution of Hussein for an insignificant crime (relatively speaking). Certainly his defenders would have called Donald Rumsfeld to the stand to explain the infamous photo of Rumsfeld embracing Hussein. Defense lawyers would have asked pertinent questions such as how did Hussein acquire the poison gas, and what role did the US government play in supplying him with either the gasses or the means to manufacture the gases? One can only imagine how Mr. Rumsfeld would answer the following additional questions put to him by defense lawyers. Mr. Rumsfeld, please explain to the court what your mission was when you visited Mr. Hussein and shook his hand representing the US government in 1983? Mr. Rumsfeld were you aware that Saddam Hussein was supplied by the US with virus cultures and a billion dollar contract to build a chemical facility to produce mustard gas, after the alleged “gassing of the Kurds”? Mr. Rumsfeld, are you aware of any chemical or biological substances, devices, or knowledge of how to produce such materials, being transferred by the US, or agents of the US, or by American businesses to Iraq and Saddam Hussein, prior to, or after the alleged “gassing of the Kurds? Mr. Rumsfeld, are you aware of a Pentagon investigation of the “gassing of the Kurds” in 1990, in which they concluded: “we find it impossible to confirm the State Department’s claim that gas was used in this instance.”? Mr. Rumsfeld; was the Pentagon study lying when it found no evidence to confirm that gas was used on the Kurds, or was the US government lying when it insisted he did use poison gas on the Kurds?

Certainly it would be embarrassing ( to say the least) to have Hussein’s legal staff accusing the US of being an “accomplice” to war crimes and asking why the US should not be put on trial for being an “accessory to mass murder” and “crimes against humanity”? The rapid hanging insured such matters will never be discussed.

Somalia for Dummies

2007-01-02T09:19:00.000-08:00

Most think Somalia is a small, brutal, poor, war torn country of no importance, incapable of internal peace, and that is precisely what mainstream media and the US government would like you to believe, so perhaps a brief review of Somalia is needed.

First, Somalia is blessed or cursed, depending on your perspective, with abundant natural resources of oil, uranium, and natural gas. Additionally it has military strategic value as its coastal town of Berbera is situated on the Mideast oil route and is the site of a US naval base, a base unknown by most Americans.
Most think the only US foray into Somalia was a “failed humanitarian mission” when the ungrateful and barbaric people of Somalia rejected our “humanitarian mission” and shot down a US helicopter and killed 18 US soldiers in a firefight a la the movie “Black Hawk Down”? You might be very wrong again!

The US, back in the 70’s while the Cold War was still on, supported Somali dictator Mohamed Siad Barre who was our man in Somalia and who countered the influence of Russia in next door Ethiopia (just as Saddam Hussein was our man in Iraq who countered the Iranians). To minimize the influence of Russia, we encouraged Barre to invade Ethiopia (as opposed to current day when we encouraged Ethiopia to invade Somalia). With the end of the Cold War and no Russian threat, we lost interest in Somalia and Barre, but continued to fund his dictatorship, and by the late 80’s the major oil companies of Chevron, (that’s right the same company that Condoleezza Rice was director of from 1991-2001) Amoco, Conoco, and Phillips had secured control of about two thirds of Somalia and it’s oil.

Mohamed Siad Barre, over the years and with the support of US military aid and funding, established himself as a brutal ruthless dictator (something like Saddam Hussein) who repressed any opposition with brutality. Barre was finally removed in a 1991 coup during which the US envoy took cover in the offices of Conoco oil (seems appropriate) and a new government was established. The oil rights however were now threatened by the new government so President Bush (Sr.) sent 20,000 US troops to restore the oil rights to the oil companies, justifying his intervention (1992-1993) as a “humanitarian mission”.

Unfortunately mission creep occurred and soon the US was taking sides in the Somali Civil War. US soldiers showed little respect for the people of Somalia and developed the policy of shoot to kill and ask questions later, an attitude considered callous and racist by the people of Somalia. Strong resentment and hatred occurred among the people of Somalia towards US troops (much like that in Iraq) and US troops became the enemy (much like in Iraq).

After the Mogadishu event resulted in the deaths of 18 US and over 1000 Somali’s, the US withdrew its forces but continued to finance the warlords while Somalia degenerated into what some have aptly described as “Mad Max territory”. For the next 15 years anarchy ruled in Somalia with civil war and wars between CIA backed warlords adding to the instability and chaos. Finally a group of fundamentalist Islamists called the Islamic Courts Union (ICU) began to recapture and restore order to one town after another, sometimes with brutality of their own. The US government, through the CIA in February of 2006, began to finance warlords to the tune of $100,000-$150,000 per month (big money in Somalia) fearing that the Islamic Courts Union might get to friendly with Al-Qaeda, and Islamophobics feared another strong Islamic government might represent a threat to the existence of the US naval base, and might even be a threat to nearby Ethiopia even though Somalia had no military.

Unable to send troops to combat the Islamic Courts Union because of the current quagmire in Iraq, we equipped and trained the Ethiopian army and encouraged them to attack Somalia (not to be confused with our encouraging Somali to attack Ethiopia in the 70’s). The superior military might of Ethiopia easily overcame Somali resistance (as occurred in Iraq) but many now fear a strong resistance movement will develop in Somalia and this war torn nation will enter a new phase of violence ( like Iraq). Recently in a large stadium in Somalia, the Islamic Courts Union held a rally where thousands of Somali’s chanted: “Death to the Americans and Slit the throats of Americans”.

Some have suggested that people hate us “because we are free” but the Somalis hate us for a different reason. Chalmers Johnson coined the phrase “Blowback” in his book: “Blowback: the Consequences of American Empire, and surely there will be consequences in the future.

Gutless Washington Press Corp and the Middle East

2006-12-27T12:39:00.001-08:00

The President rejected the Baker recommendation of face to face talks with Iran and Syria saying we would not talk with them because "they are fomenting violence in the Middle East" while the loyal Washington Press Corps sat there without question.

Not one reporter pointed out to the President that we illegally invaded Iraq with 150,000 foreign forces suffering almost 3000 US deaths and 20,000 seriously wounded. Nor did any reporter point out that according a John Hopkins University study (extremely scientific) we have killed 650,000 innocent Iraqis, nor did any reporter point out that 3,000 Iraqis per day are fleeing their country, nor did any reporter point out that we have completely destroyed the nations infrastructure, and not one reporter pointed out that Iraq is suffering the equivalent of one 9/11 every month. The loyal press corps allowed the President to blame others for the violence without comment.

The Rush to War Again

2006-03-06T08:02:00.000-08:00

Mainstream media continues to beat the drums of war; falsely convincing the populace that Iran represents a threat to the security of the US. The damage has already been done as evidenced by the fact that 80% of the American people believe that Iran has nuclear weapons and will use them against the U S, when if fact this is not true.

Congress further escalated the rush to war with Iran by passing a unanimous resolution condemning Iran for its failure to” live up to its nuclear non- proliferation agreements”. Once again the facts should be noticed. Iran is a member of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (unlike our friends, Israel, India, and Pakistan) and has never been in violation of any provisions of the NPT. There is absolutely no evidence to suggest that Iran is building a nuclear weapon, nor is there a shred of evidence that Iran is in violation of it’s obligations under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Either the US Congress is guilty of intentionally misleading the American public or they are incredibly ignorant. The US and Israel have insisted they will not tolerate Iran’s acquisition, or attempted acquisition of nuclear weapons, and both have hinted they will use nuclear weapons to prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon. Interestingly the US and Israel are hinting we will use nuclear weapons to prevent someone from acquiring nuclear weapons, an argument that does not have intellectual credibility. Interestingly again, is that Iran is being asked to prove that they do not have something, and unless they can prove the impossible we will make war. We demanded that Iraq prove they did not have WMD and when they found it impossible to prove, we made war on them. DejaVu?
The hypocrisy of our policy against Iran is exposed when one looks at a map of that part of the world. The US and Israel insist Iran cannot have a nuclear weapon but Israel, Pakistan, and India, all have nuclear weapons and all have refused to join the Nuclear Non-Proliferation treaty. While every aspect of Iran’s nuclear program is monitored by human eyes and electronic surveillance, no one is allowed in any way to monitor Israel, Pakistan, and India. So here we have Iran surrounded by hostile nuclear powers and further contained and threatened by 150,000 US forces and bases in neighboring Iraq, combined with US military bases in the surrounding nations of Turkmenistan, Afghanistan, Turkey, and Kuwait. Iran is encircled by American military power and to suggest that Iran is a military threat to the US is laughable, yet we will soon make war on that country for that reason.

US foreign policy has been hijacked by a group who does not have the interests of the American people at heart. They have their own agenda which is not good for you, your family, or the US public in general. A war with Iran could very well have cataclysmic effects and may even lead to WW III. Before joining their headlong rush to war consider the following:
1. The threat to use nuclear weapons (the US government calls them tactical nuclear weapons) by both Israel and the US, could very well lead to escalation.
2. The Arab world will unite with rage against what they accurately perceive as a war on Islam. An attack on Iran will instill rage that will make the “cartoon” rage around the world pale in comparison.
3. The Russians have already warned the US not to strike at Iran (a fact not covered by mainstream media).
4. The Chinese are now completing a $100 billion dollar oil deal with Iran and they will not sit idly by, while their $100 billion dollar deal is ruined with a US attack on Iran.

War will come not because it is a good thing for American people. War will come because powerful people are driving US policy and I beg the public to become engaged, as we will be the victims of those driving for war. Pay attention to those who directly or indirectly call for war and ask yourself who are these people and what is their agenda? As we were led blindly down a path of war with Iraq by those very same people, we are now being led to the next war with Iran, to be followed by the next war with Syria, and the next with Saudi Arabia.

Regretfully I fear my plea will fall on deaf ears as the war propaganda is already deeply rooted, however I make my plea and consider it my civic duty of a citizen of this democracy.

The Folly of it all, the trial of Saddam Hussein

2005-12-12T04:52:00.000-08:00

Saddam Hussein’s two biggest alleged crimes were: 1) he invaded Kuwait 2) he gassed thousands of his own people, but he is not being tried for either. What gives? Hussein is being tried for the murder of 140 people after an assassination attempt on his life. Why are the two most serious alleged crimes not on the agenda? Since the current trial is taking place in an American built courtroom, by judges who were brought to the US for “training”, with all expenses and salaries of the prosecution team being paid for by the US, one must wonder about the fairness of such a trial. It might be fairer to bring in a “Dunking Stool” from the Salem witchcraft trials.

Could it be that he is not being tried for his invasion of Kuwait because he was given the “green light” by the US ambassador April Glaspie just seven days before his invasion of Kuwait? The Glaspie transcript clearly shows when the US ambassador met with Hussein she indicated the US would not interfere with his invasion. Was Hussein “set up”?? Is the US afraid if he is charged with the invasion of Kuwait the defense might bring up some embarrassing facts about the set up? Could the defense team turn the table and suggest that if Hussein is guilty of invading Kuwait, why is the US not guilty of invading Iraq?

One also must question the “gassing of his own people” accusation?? Could it be that if he were tried for this offense the defense might substantiate charges that the US (then a good friend of Hussein) supplied him with the gasses and is therefore an accomplice? Could it be that it might be difficult to prove that Hussein really did gas his people because a Pentagon statement issued in 1990 indicates there is no evidence to substantiate such and accusation?

That leaves the current charge of killing 140 people who attempted to assassinate him. When found guilty of this crime (the verdict is a forgone conclusion as we bought the best justice money can buy) one must think about similar crimes. Recall the alleged attempt to assassinate former President George Bush when he visited Kuwait. In June of 1993 President Clinton retaliated by ordering the launching of 23 Tomahawk missiles against Iraq. It never made sense that the attempt on Bush’s life was in Kuwait but we turned around and attacked Iraq, but that’s another story. The Tomahawk missiles had the capacity to carry 1000 pound bombs, and according to a variety of news services, several of the missiles hit residential neighborhoods causing many civilian casualties.

If Hussein is guilty of killing people because of an attempted assassination, isn’t Clinton guilty of the same?? Only folly comes from a war based on lies.

If it smells like oil, it probably is oil.

2005-12-10T05:35:00.000-08:00

Many have argued that the attack on Iraq was simply a pretext to get Iraq’s oil, a charge vehemently denied by the administration. Now that the administration has lost its credibility it may be appropriate to review some pertinent facts.

Recall that in the 1980s Saddam Hussein was our good friend (i.e. the infamous picture of Rumsfeld shaking hands with Saddam Hussein). We willingly and happily supplied him with all his needs including gasses and WMD but suddenly Hussein was depicted as the Hitler figure of his day. What changed? Saddam Hussein announced that all foreign oil companies must leave Iraq and the entire oil industry was taken over by the Iraqi government. The oil companies lost their right to access and sell Iraq’s oil. Although Hussein skimmed millions, he used the oil profits to build infrastructure, to build one of the best education systems in the Middle East, and poured the oil money into a remarkable health care system for the people of Iraq. He miscalculated oil’s power in American politics and his erroneous belief that Iraq’s oil resources belonged to the people sealed his fate. The propaganda began, overnight he became a monster, and Hitler was reborn.

The attack commenced with “Shock and Awe” unleashed on Iraq’s entire infrastructure. A few eyebrows rose when the only government facility untouched by US bombs was the Oil Ministry building, and additionally when US forces invaded Iraq, the very first military move was to secure the oil fields of Iraq. Coincidence?

When the country was secured (it no longer is), Paul Bremer was sent in to administer the new provisional government and one of his first acts was to begin the privatization of Iraq’s oil industry. Shortly thereafter the neocons, the architects of the war, began talking about building an oil pipe line from Kirkuk to the Israeli port Haifa, as reported by the highly respected British paper The Guardian, in April of 2003, and also by the Israeli paper Haaretz. This story went virtually uncovered by mainstream US media but imagine how well that played in the Arab world.

In May of 2003 Congressman Henry Waxman discovered that Halliburton was in charge of pumping Iraq’s oil. Halliburton had been given a contract to extinguish Iraq’s oil fires but abuses and over billing were alleged. Congressman Waxman investigated, and while questioning the Army Corps of Engineers found that Halliburton was also in charge of pumping Iraq’s oil, and that it was not being metered by anyone. This story also went unreported by mainstream American media. Halliburton was formerly run by Dick Cheney who still receives a huge sum from Halliburton each year, which is placed in a blind trust. Is it a coincidence that Mr. Cheney has refused to divulge who attended his energy task force and what topics were discussed, prior to the invasion of Iraq? We now know, through documents made public by court action, that four oil companies attended a meeting with Mr. Cheney and maps of Iraq’s oil fields were used in that very meeting. Was this payback for the oil industry’s large financial support to the Bush campaign without which he may not have been elected?

Just recently an organization called Platform released a publication entitled Crude Designs: The Rip-Off of Iraq’s Wealth revealing multinational oil companies are planning a corporate oil grab and will “plunder” $194 million by signing secret deals to gain access to Iraq’s oil. Obviously this illustrates how wrong Hussein was in thinking Iraq’s oil belonged to the people for this represents $194 million taken from the people of Iraq.
This story was not carried by mainstream media in this country.

On 1/16/03 the Wall Street Journal reported that officials from the White House, State Department, and Department of Defense have been meeting informally with executives from Halliburton, Schlumberger, Exxon Mobil, ChevronTexaco and ConocoPhillips to plan the post-war expansion of oil production from Iraq (whose oilfields were largely held by US companies prior to their nationalization)

Noteworthy also is that Saddam Hussein had offered oil exploratory rights to France, China, Russia, Brazil, Italy, and Malaysia, but those rights were not acted upon because of the US imposed sanctions. If Hussein were the victim of “regime change”, those rights would be null and void and not recognized by the new government.

Add to the mix that Vice President, Mr. Cheney, ran Halliburton (a gigantic oil corporation) for five years before becoming Vice President. When Mr. Cheney left Halliburton he was awarded a 34 million dollar severance package, and he continues to collect an annual check from the corporation. The Secretary of State, Ms Rice, formerly worked for Chevron and to show their gratitude named one of their new supertankers (Condoleezza) after her. Both the President and his father have very close ties to the oil industry, and the President’s staff and cabinet are completely dominated by former oil people. Not surprisingly, a new Zoogby Poll shows 76% of Arab people in the Middle East believe the war is an attempt to get Iraq’s oil.

Oil is not the only reason for the invasion and occupation of an unarmed country, but it certainly is one of the major contributing factors.

A win, win, exit plan

2005-10-31T18:41:00.001-08:00

Last week the death toll in Iraq quietly surpassed the 2000 mark, and in the next few days an additional 15 were killed, yet not one political leader suggests any kind of plan for exit. Indeed the President shrugged off the 2000 milestone, and casually warned that many more will die in the future. Since the entire war was based on lies, deceptions and ever changing reasons for fighting, it is time to plan for exit.

The administration argues that one of the main reasons for fighting is to introduce democracy to Iraq, which some suggest is another lie put forward by the administration, but giving the President the benefit of the doubt, consider this truly democratic exit plan.

Bear in mind the British recently conducted a “secret” poll in Iraq, in which as many as 80% of the Iraqi people wanted British forces out of Iraq, and that most of the violence in Iraq by the resistance, is directed towards US forces and the puppet government we have helped to install. It is obvious that, given the choice, the people of Iraq would send US forces home instantly. Based on these two observations, consider the following exit plan.

1. A call for an immediate cease fire and a “stand down” order given to US forces for the next 60 days, pending a national referendum to be held throughout Iraq with one simple ballot question. The ballot question would read: US forces should leave Iraq immediately. Certainly resistance groups would honor the cease fire because their aim is to drive foreign troops from their nation, and this vote would allow the Iraqi people to drive out the foreign forces democratically. Mr. Bush has repeatedly called for a simple up or down vote for his judicial nominees, and would be a hypocrite to deny the same right to the people of Iraq.

2) To insure an honest election, teams from Switzerland would be brought in to run and supervise the election, and also to count the ballots.

3. An agreement by the US to respect the democratic will of the Iraqi people.

Overwhelmingly the Iraqi people would vote to expel US forces. We would respect their will and leave Iraq, claiming to have successfully introduced democracy by allowing the people of Iraq to exercise their democratic right of self determination. The people of Iraq would be left to determine their own future without the presence of 150,000 foreign troops.

This is a win, win, proposition for all. The people of Iraq would have exercised the right to vote, and their future will be in their hands, as it should be. The US could proudly say we have planted the seed of democracy in Iraq and leave, respecting the will of the majority and most importantly, death would end. An additional further bonus might be that some nations of the world might begin to rethink their position regarding the US invasion of Iraq.

Unfortunately no one will propose this exit plan because we have no intention of ever leaving Iraq. The administration needs military bases in Iraq to better enable us to fight wars with both Syria and Iran in the very near future, and because we want Iraq’s two most precious natural resources. We and our only ally in the Middle East want Iraq’s oil, (a pipeline from Iraq to Haifa is now in the planning stages), and Israel want Iraq’s abundant water. The pillaging of oil and water will continue, and death will come to many more Americans in the future.

Neocon March to the Next War

2005-08-18T09:33:00.000-07:00

The neocons with their willing soldiers, the media, are on the march toward another war; this time with Iran. Using the tactic of “saturation bombing”, the media outlets are barraging the American public with frantic stories of Iran’s unwillingness to do the bidding of the neocon cabal. Hundreds of anti-Iranian stories permeate the media, all with the goal of creating the newest “monster” that must be stopped by any means. The scare tactics used so successfully by the neocons and the media to create the last “monster,” are hard at work using what proved to be so successful in the past. Half truths, lies, distortions, and “dissident” Iranians sources, are being used to confirm your worst fears. Recall the truthfulness of the last “dissident source” in the run up to the war with Iraq, and notice how the two confirming source rule, has been ignored by the media to soften the American public to the need for war.

Least we forget amid the frenzy, Iran has done nothing wrong. It voluntarily stopped its nuclear program pending a permanent agreement. When a permanent agreement could not be worked out Iran resumed its program under the watchful eye of the International Atomic Energy Agency. Everything is monitored and supervised by that watchdog agency and Iran is only doing what it is legally allowed to do in accordance to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. The agreement that the EU attempted to force on Iran would deny to Iran what the three bargaining member of the EU have now had for years. France, for example, produces about 70% of its electricity though nuclear energy, but is telling Iran they do not have this right. Iran exists in one of the more hostile places on earth, and its neighbors India, Pakistan, and Israel all have huge nuclear programs. The US has labeled Iran a member of the “axis of evil” and has threatened to use nuclear weapons on Iran. The last “axis of evil” member has been attacked, invaded, and occupied, and reduced to anarchy by the US, and with an American army of 130,000 camped next door it might make Iranians a bit more secure with deterrent weapons.

Unfortunately when the neocons get their war with Iran, it will not be their children who die; only your children are good enough for that kind of sacrifice. A war with Iran will only turn into a world conflagration unlike any other. This will be the third Muslim nation in three years to be set upon by the neocons, and this will force the Muslim world into retaliation. Clearly a world war with the Muslim world has been the goal of the neocons all along, and with their willing soldiers the media, have convinced the American public that Muslims everywhere are evil. This impending war which will precipitate world wide revenge and bombings will insure your children’s children will pay in blood for the sins of the neocons. In no way is a war with Iran good for America or its people, but neocons are in fact very un-American, and simply use the blood of good Americans to fulfill their agenda.

Answer the following:

Why is Iran not allowed to have one nuclear weapon when we have 6,000?

Why do we subsidize China to go nuclear but insist Iran cannot?

Why is the greatest proliferator of nuclear information (Pakistan), our good friend?

Why is Israel, our other good friend, allowed to have 300 nuclear weapons, and refuse to join or participate in the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty?

Why is Iran, a signer and member of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation treaty, subjected to rigorous inspections while our good friend Israel has neither signed nor participated?

If you were in Iran’s place and had been labeled as part of an “axis of evil” by a President who illegally attacked the last member of the “axis of evil” and who has threatened to use nuclear weapons against you, would you feel a bit safer with some nuclear weapons of your own?

Why is the media obsessed with Iran’s attempts to go nuclear and is equally obsessive about avoiding the fact that Israel is the 5th largest nuclear nation in the world and not subjected to any inspections or verification?

What is the real agenda of the neocon cabal who have the President’s undivided attention?

Hear the screams of the founding fathers?

2005-08-04T09:07:00.000-07:00

In 1776 a group of “insurgents”, in those days called Patriots, Minutemen, and rebels, took on the world’s greatest military superpower. The “occupiers” were exploiting the “insurgents” and stealing their resources, but the poorly equipped and untrained “insurgents” prevailed because there is no greater cause than fighting for freedom and the right to self determination. “Insurgents” invented and used the concept of “guerilla warfare”, and did such cowardly things as attacking from buildings, and from behind stone walls, which were considered barbaric tactics by the superpower. Fighting with greater motivation, the “insurgents” brought the world’s military superpower to its knees ands drove the “occupiers” from their land, and exercised the universally recognized right of “self determination”.

Fast forward to Iraq where another group of ill equipped, poorly trained “insurgents” are taking on the worlds greatest superpower using guerilla warfare tactics.
“Insurgents” are focused on driving the “occupiers” from their land, seeking freedom, and exercising the universally recognized right of “self determination”.

Hear the screams of the founding fathers from their graves, as they see how far this nation has strayed from its history, origin, and principles?

"The Dogs of War"

2005-07-13T17:26:00.000-07:00

President Bush used 9/11 to declare a War on Terror and subsequently attacked both Afghanistan and Iraq. The entire infrastructure of Iraq was destroyed by the US, including water systems, sewage systems, and electrical systems, (illegal according to the Geneva Convention). As the US does not keep civilian death statistics, the only attempt to determine civilian deaths was a study done by John Hopkins University, which determined the war resulted in the loss of about 100,000 innocent civilians. Additionally in the 10 year run-up to the war, the UN, at the insistence of the US, maintained the most brutal sanctions ever imposed on any nation, resulting in the loss of about one million innocent lives.

Now, as the horrible bombs explode in London, some are in shock. Did American administrations really think the world would just sit by idly and accept the deaths of 1.25 million innocent people without fighting back? Did you really believe that they would not seek revenge? Did we sit back passively after 9/11?

Although not reported by the media, those who claimed responsibility for the London bombings stated unequivocally, the attack was in retaliation for Britain’s role in the “massacres” in Iraq and Afghanistan, and for Britain’s role in supporting Israel at the expense of the Palestinians. This weekend Tony Blair admitted the Middle East conflict was one of the major causes of terrorism.

Attacking and occupying a nation, bringing pain, suffering and death to its people will guarantee retaliation. When Mr. Bush attacked Iraq, many experts cautioned: when you make war, “the dogs of war are unleashed.” He of course knew better.

The Social Security Sham, more sinister than you think.

2005-03-20T18:12:00.000-08:00

Since President Bush has a difficult time with the truth, I immediately became concerned with his “reforming” social security rhetoric. As there is always an ulterior motive with this President, I began to investigate and have concluded the president is not really concerned with Social Security, but he is willing to use it as a pretext to accomplish something more sinister.

I t does not take a financial whiz to understand that all the facts indicate a huge financial bubble is about to burst. A review of the current situation shows key economic realities as follows:

· The $7 trillion national government debt (accumulated debt over the years by the US government) is the largest debt in history of mankind, in part because of the endless war policy the President has employed by misleading the American public.

· The budget deficit (the amount by which government spending exceeds revenues) this year alone will be about $500 billion. The cost of constant wars is almost beyond human comprehension (see: http://costofwar.com/ ) and the national debt is appallingly dangerous.

· In addition to the government’s debt, the public debt is at an all-time high, with Americans mortgaged to the hilt and credit card balances at an all time high.

· The trade deficit for 2004 was $617 billion and has been breaking records every month this year. We have an enormous trade deficit because we no longer are a manufacturing nation, and therefore have very little except Weapons of Mass Destruction to sell to the world. On the other hand, we are giant consumers of goods and our needs can only be met by purchasing foreign goods. Hence the huge trade deficit, and as more and more money leaves the country, we become poorer as a nation.

· Meanwhile to further complicate things, the value of the dollar is shrinking rapidly in comparison to other currencies, while the federal government prints more paper money to pay for it's wars and its debt. As money is printed and the spending continues, the value of the currency depreciates. This brings us to a most frightening situation. Historically, the accumulated debt has been bought by foreign investors who purchase US bonds and notes. Recently however, foreign investors have watched the value of their investment shrink as the dollar shrinks, while the federal government on the other hand, can only pay it's bills by floating more loans to meet expenses. Presently many foreign investors are no longer willing to buy government bonds as the US dollar continues to lose buying power, and investors have begun to shy away from financing the American debt by purchasing bonds and notes.

· Additionally oil producing nations have been using the dollar as the means to buy and sell oil, but as their accumulated dollars continually lose value, they are beginning to question why they should use the dollar in the selling of their oil. They collect and accumulate dollars for oil sales, but then must use shrinking dollars to make purchases of products on the world market. Each time they exchange dollars for others currencies they lose money, as the dollar now is worth much less than major currencies. It is no wonder they are reluctant to trade oil in dollars.

So what does Social Security have to do with the diminishing dollar one might ask? The President has called for private accounts as a supplement to Social Security, which accomplishes two things. It lessens government expense by not requiring the government to fully subsidize Social Security, and the creation of private investment accounts will force the public to invest in stocks, and bonds. The President will argue that a percentage of the citizen’s portfolio must go to US bonds, as a hedge against risky investments. The President is hoping that his “reform” will force the public into supporting the US debt by investing in government bonds. As foreign investors retreat from using and buying dollars, someone must step forward to support the debt.

The President’s real motive behind Social Security Reform is to help prop up the enormous national debt by forcing taxpayers to purchase government bonds, as part of their private portfolio. The American public will be collecting dollars that are depreciating. So there you have it, a sinister plot of “forcing” the people into buying increasingly worthless dollars because no one else in the world will. All the while you probably thought the President really cared about Social Security.

The Whitwashing of America

2005-03-17T05:54:00.000-08:00

The Whitewashing of America continues with the Pentagon’s newly released “investigation” of the torture at Abu Gharib, Guantuanamo, and Afghanistan, with the committee finding that no one was culpable for the incidents save for a few low ranking soldiers. Unanswered questions that were never addressed in the “thorough investigation” need to be posed. Both Major General Taguba and Brig General Janice Karpinski in earlier testimony, referred to “foreign agents” being present while the torture was taking place. These comments were casually and slyly dismissed by the “investigators” and surprisingly when General Taguba let the cat out of the bag, while testifying before Congress, not one Congressman pressed him on what country those agents came from. Even more surprisingly, not one member of the media ever bothered to ask what foreign nation those agents represented, and why were they present?

Many Americans now buy into the administrations line that “torture” was confined to a few “bad apples”. Most of us have forgotten however that when the infamous “torture” pictures surfaced, over 1,000 of the “worst” were kept secret by the US Congress, who decided that the remaining pictures were so horrible they would not be released, for fear of their consequences in the Arab world. These pictures were never mentioned nor discussed in the "thorough investigation” by the Pentagon. Do the American people have a right to see what was done in their name, and with their money? How can the public make an informed decision regarding torture, without being allowed to see the evidence? Can a jury accurately decide guilt or innocence without seeing the evidence?

So now we have the closing of another “thorough investigation” by a government agency with an all too familiar conclusion. The last three major investigations: 1)the 9/11 investigation which tragically cost almost 3,000 American lives, 2)the “bad intelligence” investigation which lead the nation into a needless war causing over 1500 great Americans lives and 100,000 innocent Iraqis, 3) and now the torture “investigation, have closed with the same results. No one is to blame. Not one person has been fired because of 9/11 failures, not one person has been fired because of the “bad intelligence” that caused a war, and now, not one person has been fired when “torture” is rampant.

Not only are the “investigating committees” to be ridiculed for their whitewashing of the American public but more serious is the complicit media who faithfully looks the other way and never “investigates” the investigations. Media never questions the babble put forth to the American people by such committees, but merely echoes whatever the government put forward. This is truly frightening and it explains why so many Americans have abandoned major media as their source for news, and surf the web for their own truth.

The American public is left in the dark with respect to the major issues of today, but we are all experts and extremely well informed on such trivial issues as the Michael Jackson and the Lacy Peterson trials. One must ask, is this media attention to the mundane and insignificant an intentional diversion from the real issues of the day by a complicit press? Is the American public aware that all media outlets in this nation are now controlled by seven giant corporate conglomerates?

Perhaps before attempting to make the “world” more democratic, we might concentrate on making our own nation more democratic. Concepts such as a “free and uncontrolled” press, and the right of the people to “know”, are essential for the survival of democracy. Secrecy and government cover-ups are incongruous with the concept of “Democracy”, and when secrecy prevails, democracy fails. This nation is at its most critical point in its history and our fear should not be focused on the external “terrorists”, but on the “terrorists” from within.

Presidential Logic??

2005-03-10T04:03:00.000-08:00

The President insists that Democracy cannot flourish with Syrian forces occupying that nation.

Are we not in violation of the President’s own logic by having 150, 000 troops next door in Iraq? If Syria is wrong for having 14,000 troops in Lebanon, isn't the US wrong for having 150,000 troops in Iraq? Adjacent to Lebanon, the illegal Israeli occupation of Palestinian lands has now gone on for 37 years? Can democracy flourish in Iraq while occupied by 150,000 foreign troops, or can democracy flourish in Palestinian lands while illegally occupied by Israeli forces? Why is Syria wrong for its occupation, while the US and Israel are not?

If the President would follow his own logic and withdraw every last soldier from Iraq, and Israel would also withdrew its forces from occupied Palestinian lands, while Syria withdraws from Lebanon, the President and I would finally be in agreement.

2005-03-06T07:47:00.000-08:00

Current events quiz

What two nations are most threatened by “terrorists” and terrorist attacks?

What two nations are present day “Occupiers”?

What two nations have illegally invaded another nation?

What two nations have disregarded the UN??

What two nations have resorted to “torturing”, and have been condemned by Human Rights groups??

What two nations pride themselves in being “Democratic”?

What two nations have imprisoned over 10,000 occupied people respectively, while attempting to put down insurgents who oppose the “occupations”??

What two nations are the world’s greatest nuclear powers but are willing to bomb or threaten anyone else who might attempt to gain one nuclear weapon??

What two nations have used the tactic of the “black hood” for their prisoners??

Which two nations refused to sign and participate in the International Criminal Court; a court designed to prosecute war criminals, people who commit genocide, and crimes against humanity??

Which two nations have signed a treaty with one another that mutually protects one another to be free of prosecution from the International Criminal Court at The Hague??

Which two countries pushing the hardest for the end to Syrian”occupation” of Lebanon, are “occupiers” themselves?