Mopso's Blog

No Defense for Israel

2006-07-19T09:37:00.000-07:00

It's quite possible Israel was a doomed state from its inception. It's tough to walk into a land, determined to take it from those that live there, on the justification of discrimination elsewhere and a sense of divine privilege. Yet that's pretty much how Israel was created, when, partially in reaction to the holocaust and partially because they felt it was their biblical heritage, the Jews marched in and battled Arabs to create Israel.

Needless to say, it was not easy, and the hostility they encountered exaggerated the already dominant "us against the world" psyche that seems to permeate Jewish tradition. The fact that they had, in fact, dispossessed another people in much the same way that they themselves were dispossessed in Europe no doubt fed into the notion that they must beat down those they displaced, who were clearly all too justified in their animosity.

So Israel starts, morally, from behind the eight ball. Not all Israelis know this, but their leaders certainly do. But, as is so often the case in situations like this, once created, the country existed and could claim a right to keep existing. It's here that there were many, many opportunities for Israel to reclaim the high ground, negotiate and support a separate Palestinian state, and reinstitute its own morality. Yet at every juncture those in power not only failed to do that but worked quite hard to ensure that it could not happen. They used the 1967 war to try to increase their borders, speckling settlements throughout the West Bank explicitly so that it could not become a Palestinian state and would instead be subsumed under the banner of "Greater Israel". Their right wing worked hard, and successfully, to torpedo any chance of the Oslo Accords' success, despite the fact that this could hardly be considered a fair agreement for the Palestinians.

This is not to say that the Palestinians, and especially their leadership, are blameless. But Israel, while lamenting its lack of a negotiating partner, has never, in its history, been an honest negotiating partner itself. And as for the Palestinian "terror": very few countries have systematically terrorized a people as thoroughly and regularly as Israel has the Palestinians, so there's no point in even going there.

So when I see all the nonsense in the American media attempting to justify Israel's attacks on Gaza and Lebanon as "self defense" due to a few captured soldiers and rockets fired across the border, you'll have to excuse my lack of sympathy. Israel has perfected the art of kidnapping and killing its opposition. You reap what you sow.

Like a bully that laments that nobody likes him as he beats up everybody that looks at him the wrong way, Israel seems destined to forever be a country that complains of persecution as it oppresses and destroys all opposition, always avoiding honest and fair diplomacy. It's unfortunate; despite it's equivocal beginnings it could have developed into a great country that could have led the world in a positive direction. Instead, it is intent on promoting endless violence and war in the Middle East, and supporting a mind-numbing propaganda campaign to garner acceptance for the injustices it perpetuates.

Iran: A Cast of Characters

2006-05-24T14:25:00.000-07:00

A while ago I wrote that it was amazing how hell-bent everyone seemed on bombing Iran. Luckily, that has not yet happened, and it's clear there are plenty of people who are trying to prevent it. Many, many good articles have come out on this topic, and a pretty clear picture is emerging.

In some ways the easiest way to understand the current situation is to simply list and discuss the main protagonists. So here's a simplified, but I think useful, effort at doing this.

Iran: Iran's real goal is to establish itself as an internationally recognized actor in the region. It attempted to do this by negotiating with the US in 2003, and was summarily rebuffed by the neocon controlled administration. It is currently trying to use nuclear power as a wedge to achieve the same goal. While it would like to have nuclear weapons, it is a fairly stable, if oppressive, government and does not pose a regional threat, either directly or through terrorist organizations.

The Neocons: The neocons, which still have the bulk of control within the administration, are adamant that there must be "regime change" in Iran, and are currently using covert action of various kinds within Iran to attempt to achieve this. Given the likelihood that this will fail, they are pushing for a bombing campaign to move things along. There is no real reason to think bombing will work, but they have that "when in doubt, bomb" doctrine. Their ultimate goal is to control all of the energy resources in the Middle East in order to ensure Western corporate hegemony and America's status as the world's sole superpower, their long stated aim.

The Realists: The "realists", old guard Republicans who advocate a more moderate foreign policy, want to simply negotiate with Iran and achieve a workable diplomatic solution. Because of the failure in Iraq they hold more sway than they used to, but it's not clear they have enough clout to actually stop the bombing.

Israel: The Israeli right is pushing for the bombing option, and feels they may have to take the initiative themselves should Washington not go that route. They want desperately to remain the only nuclear power in the area.

The Military: The military is strongly opposed to the bombing. They understand how foolish it is, but it's unclear how long they can stand up to their civilian leadership.

The Democrats: The Democrats, while not loving the idea of attacking Iran, are, for the most part, under the sway of the right wing AIPAC lobby, which is adamant that we bomb. So they will offer very little opposition.

The Media: The mainstream media is dutifully playing along, tying the words "defiant Iran" and "crisis" together every chance they get so that people will think something really needs to be done.

Europe: Europe wants some sort of negotiated settlement; they are working with America ostensibly to restrain Iran but really are more concerned with limiting America's destructive actions.

Russia and China: Russia and China are trying to organize a counterweight to the overtly imperialistic American goals and are using the SCO, along with a general arms buildup, to achieve this. There is no question they will do anything short of war to try to stop the expanding US influence, and thus the ratcheted up rhetoric against them.

The Dollar: Iran, by selling oil in euros, and Russia, by selling in rubles, are trying to set up alternatives to the dollar for global reserves and weaken the US financially. China, of course, could cause a dollar collapse by selling its dollar holdings but that would create a worldwide recession that would cripple everyone, so it is reluctant to do this and is even resisting US pressure to loosen its currency.

At least the good news is that the vast majority seem to understand that bombing would accomplish virtually nothing positive and has a huge number of negatives. Hopefully, cooler heads will prevail.

The Buzzsaw

2006-05-01T09:41:00.000-07:00

Keith Olberman said in a recent interview that, essentially, the market was a great protector of the freedom of the press:

But the protection of money at the center of everything, including news to the degree that it is now, is that as long as you make the money, they don't care what it is you put on the air.

About two years ago, one of my sons, George, asked me how I could believe what I read in the press, given that they were owned by big corporations. I repeated, essentially, Olberman's argument: they were market driven, and would respond to those forces, not some external agenda unrelated to that.

Unfortunately, I have found out since that this is untrue. To most of America, and even most in the press, it can seem to be true because it often is. But there are unquestionably limits, and very important ones. And while the situation is no doubt worse now, these limits have been in place for quite some time.

Kristina Borjesson's book, "Into the Buzzsaw", is a collection of stories that describes people who have run across those limits, mostly during the Clinton administration, which by all accounts fostered a more benign atmosphere that the current one.

Here's Borjesson's definition of what she calls "the buzzsaw":

The buzzsaw is a powerful system of censorship in this country that is revealed to those reporting on extremely sensitive stories, usually having to do with high level government or corporate malfeasance. It often has a fatal effect on one's career. ... A journalist who has been through the buzzsaw is usually described as "radioactive", which is another word for unemployable.

She would know. She encountered it, when CBS assigned her to cover the explosion of TWA800. Two chapters in her book describe investigations into that event, one by her and one by David Hendrix. The importance of these investigations is not what happened to TWA800, which most likely was inadvertently brought down by a missile fired during a naval exercise (here is a good web site for info on this). What's important are the mechanisms used to repress that story, and promote a false one: eventually the "spark in the main fuel tank" myth was decided upon, evidently after the "bomb on board" story was considered and then rejected.

As a background, the TWA800 incident happened during an election campaign, on July 17, 1996. In addition to the defense department not wanting the embarrassment of accidentally killing hundreds of Americans, you can bet that Clinton was not eager to have this exposed during an election campaign. In fact, Hendrix reports that the Dole people were extremely interested in his findings, though they were never able to capitalize on them. So the censorship is not a partisan practice.

What she found is what I've seen as a pattern in the American press. First, after such an event, a great deal of honest reporting and investigation is done. At some point, however, the fix comes in, and that reporting is suppressed or marginalized while the "official" government version of the story, which is invariably a fabricated cover in these situations, is touted. The evidence discovered in the initial investigation is dismissed as inaccurate. It is a this point that those who persist in attempting to reveal the actual events can run into trouble. Borjesson herself was fired from CBS, as was a congressional aide who attempted to help in the investigation. Another journalist was arrested and convicted of stealing evidence. And, the part that Borjesson most loathes, is that after the official version comes out any journalist who attempts to contradict it encounters a smear campaign that illegitimately attacks them and tarnishes their reputation.

She is not alone. Others in the book have encountered the same process. Even very mainstream figures, such as Mary Mapes and Dan Rather, are not immune, as their experience in exposing Bush's national guard record on 60 minutes showed.

Another example is Greg Palast, who found that American papers would not cover his report on Jeb Bush's felon purging list after the 2000 election. His story on this list has since been verified, and was even mentioned in a New York Times editorial at one point as accepted fact, after the very same newspaper contributed to the suppression of the story three years earlier. Despite this, when he tried to submit a report on vote fraud in the 2004 election to the New York Times, he got an email back with the following questions: “Are you a conspiracy nut?” and “Are you a sore loser?”. Very professional - that's the New York Times showing its true colors. At the same time they put out a number of articles attempting to discredit any claims of vote fraud (here's one example), despite the extensive evidence on the ground that election fraud of many types had taken place (here are some links).

One can see it happening right now, in fact. In this article that came out a few days ago in USA Today, those finding problems with the official story of 9/11 are dismissed as gullible students who fall for "revisionist theories on the 2001 attacks by al-Qaeda terrorists". Stories such as these have nothing to do with honest journalism, and in fact are very much a part of the 9/11 operation, whether or not their authors understand that. When those disputing the government version start to be heard, attack stories dismissing them as "wacky conspiracy theorists" start to come out to counter that and the stifling of real investigation is even more rigorously enforced. It was recently reported that "The New York Times Tokyo Bureau Chief, Jim Brooks, said that he couldn't attend an official press function about 9/11 or he would be fired". Impossible to verify, of course, but quite believable. Especially as this was on the heels of some reasonable coverage of 9/11 in the Tokyo Journal.

This censorship is getting so bad that it's getting more recognition. Sonoma State University has a media research group called "Project Censored" which has a site and puts out a yearly book outlining the most important unreported and underreported stories of that year. The internet, of course, is a great repository for alternate media outlets; wading through them, with their often accompanying quirks and biases, can be difficult, but at least the information is out there if one makes the effort to find it. But unfortunately, most people who see only mainstream media outlets are under the illusion that they are getting honestly reported journalism, which is far from the truth.

Luckily, those "gullible students" seem to understand this. And I definitely have a better answer for George next time he asks that question.

Site Reviews: Some Interesting Sites with Quirks

2006-04-23T17:04:00.000-07:00

From now on I'll tend to do site reviews in groups - there are so many out there, I think this will work out better than trying to cover each is a separate blog. Today's reviews focus on a set of interesting sites that have some distinct caveats. I've found that in order to get the true story behind the mainstream news, it can be helpful to wade through sites that contain some strange points of views and odd material. People who distrust and want to look beyond the mainstream news tend to have idiosyncratic personalities and relish the role of the outsider; it's the nature of the beast. That doesn't mean they don't have good information or should be totally dismissed.

The first two sites I discuss, Madsen's and Hopsicker's, are essentially investigative sites.

The second two are sites with some analysis and lots of news links, and both are sites that have major caveats. Despite these, I find them useful and visit them often.

Wayne Madsen Report

Site: www.waynemadsenreport.com

Primary author: Wayne Madsen

Madsen focuses on investigative work in Washington DC. He often comes up with original material, and while it can be difficult to verify, I suspect that much, though not all, of it is accurate. He can be pretty opinionated, and occasionally he does seem to blow things out of proportion. The site can also be full of the minutiae about the details of his investigations. For example, he might list the check numbers of every financial transaction tracked down in a "follow the money" trail, or the plane numbers of every plane involved in a CIA rendition or drug smuggling operation. That can be a lot to wade through. But he does come up with original information, and he tends to update his reports daily, so I typically visit this site a few times a week.

Mad Cow Morning News

Site: www.madcowprod.com

Primary Author: Daniel Hopsicker

Like Madsen, Hopsicker does a lot of original investigative work. He has achieved a significant amount of fame in conspiracy circles for his investigation into Mohammed Atta, which is described in his book "Welcome to Terrorland". This book is, essentially, a very interesting piece of investigative journalism written in a trash novel sort of way. Luckily, the core of his findings, that the FBI timeline involving Atta and its depiction of him as a devout practicing Muslim are totally false, have been recognized and disseminated quite widely. The book also gives some insight into how the local press, after an event such as 9/11, initially does some good investigative work before that is shut down and reversed. And his investigations into the people surrounding Atta and the airports he trained at gives a feeling for the seamy side of the people involved in at least one level of the 9/11 operation.

He continues to do investigative work, almost entirely Florida based (and there's a lot going on down there to investigate), and this site publishes the results of those investigations. Unlike Madsen's reports, these come back only sporadically, so the site need not be checked frequently to keep track of what Hopsicker's up to.

What Really Happened

Site: www.whatreallyhappened.com

Primary Author: Michael Rivero

I view Rivero as being part of the "right wing" branch of conspiracy theorists, though I'm not sure that's a fair characterization - I just tend to group the anti-gun control guys that way. His site has a lot of interesting analyses on all sorts of events, and they're usually quite good; he also updates his news links every day. But there are some major caveats. The biggest is that he has an extreme - well, let's say, "focus" - on Israel, and especially Israeli spying and the Israeli influence on the US. I'm not so sure I'd go so far as to call him anti-semitic, but there's no question it's personal. His first wife was Jewish. I'm guessing it wasn't such a good experience. He's also a bit of a sarcastic wise guy.

Nonetheless, he updates the site daily with interesting news and opinion links, and I go there pretty much every day. And his own analyses of "conspiratorial" events are pretty involved and insightful. If you can get past the Israel obsession and the sarcasm, the site has a lot to offer.

Prison Planet

Site: www.prisonplanet.com (related sites: www.propagandamatrix.com, www.infowars.com)

Primary Editor: Alex Jones

Alex Jones is one of these outlandish "the world is a police state" type of radio hosts that I would have thought was crazy 10 years ago. But, alas, the powers that be have done more than meet him halfway, so his site now seems moderately, if not totally, sane. He occasionally writes an "I told you so" article. The site is also heavily commercialized, and as he gains in success due to the desire for this kind of information he gets even more shameless about peddling his wares.

The site tends to have lots of news links in this "police state" theme, and some fairly over the top articles. Jones also interviews many people, most legitimate, who are involved in attempting to expose things such as 9/11 - I can't say I've listened to these, as they're an option that requires a paid subscription, though I've read some transcripts, and they tend to be OK if you ignore the Alex Jones part. Jones himself is obsessed with such conspiracy red herrings as "Bohemian Grove" and the "Illuminati". Despite this, Jones' site does offer a lot of interesting news links, interviews, and occasionally some new information, so I tend to check it out pretty often.

Some Responses

2006-04-20T07:08:00.000-07:00

Most of the responses I get to what I write come to me via email to articles that are published in OpEdNews, not to this blog, so I thought I'd write about them briefly here.

By far the most came to the Israel Lobby piece. They come out of the woodwork for that kind of stuff. (By the way, the NY Times, the Great Satan of the printed press, actually had a pretty good oped piece about that a few days ago, and Normon Solomon wrote an excellent article on it - almost as good as mine.) The response to that was essentially half favorable, a quarter calling me an anti-semitic Israel hater, and a quarter calling me a zionist Israel lover. Can't please everybody.

Surprisingly, I've gotten a number of responses to my little Go Army ditty. Pretty much a number people saying "right on, put those MFers in the brig". There's a lot of pent up anger out there - good to know I'm not the only one.

GO ARMY!!!

2006-04-16T08:45:00.000-07:00

If anyone had told me, years ago, that I'd be behind a military coup in America, I would've laughed in their faces. Are you kidding? Please.

But right now, I'd welcome one. The people in uniform are so much better, so much more in touch with reality, than our civilian leadership.

There's a reason for this. They experience war. It's their friends that die. It's their friends that are maimed. They understand war firsthand.

Right now, they're calling for Rumsfeld's resignation. Good call. Excellent call.

As usual, there are public reasons, and private reasons.

The public reasons are that he's screwed up Iraq and intimidates our soldiers' leaders into following his ill-laid plans. Those are excellent reasons, and do cut to the heart of the matter.

But there are other reasons that do not show up in the news.

I think the main one, and the one that is driving the issue and its publicity right now, is the plan to bomb, and very possibly nuke, Iran.

This has been reported for a while, and has been brought to the attention of the mainstream media by Seymour Hersh's article about it.

This seems to have drawn a line for those in service. There have been so many travesties, and this was the last straw. They had to speak up.

Bad enough to kill Americans by doing 9/11. Bad enough to bring false pretenses to start a war in Iraq. Bad enough to foment a civil war in Iraq in order to weaken the country and keep it under American control.

But nuking a country? Breaking that taboo? That was crossing a line even a good soldier has trouble crossing.

I want to give my greatest thanks to the generals that are standing up, and standing for what is right in America. We'd be a lot better off if they were in charge.

JFK and 9/11

2006-04-12T09:25:00.000-07:00

Doug Thompson recently recounted a discussion he had many years ago with John Connally, the Texas governor who was shot during the Kennedy assassination.

Connolly was both gracious and charming and told us many stories about Texas politics. As the evening wore on and the multiple bourbon and branch waters took their effect, he started talking about November 22, 1963, in Dallas.

"You know I was one of the ones who advised Kennedy to stay away from Texas," Connally said. "Lyndon (Johnson) was being a real asshole about the whole thing and insisted."

Connally's mood darkened as he talked about Dallas. When the bullet hit him, he said he felt like he had been kicked in the ribs and couldn't breathe. He spoke kindly of Jackie Kennedy and said he admired both her bravery and composure.

I had to ask. Did he think Lee Harvey Oswald fired the gun that killed Kennedy?

"Absolutely not," Connally said. "I do not, for one second, believe the conclusions of the Warren Commission."

So why not speak out?

"Because I love this country and we needed closure at the time. I will never speak out publicly about what I believe."

I'd gone back and forth on the JFK thing, it seemed possible to make arguments both ways. But once I started researching 9/11, and understood more about how this kind of thing is done, it became quite obvious that JFK, as well as RFK, were not shot by "lone gunmen".

When I'd looked at this before, it didn't seem that relevant. At worst, a historical injustice.

My point of view has changed.

In many, many ways, the JFK assassination set the stage. It proved to those who did it that you could do something that dramatic, that heinous to the average citizen, and get away with it. It proved that you could fabricate a cover story and that the press would cooperate . It proved that you could quash dissent and investigation. And it proved that you could do it in America.

There seems to be a strong feeling on the left that, somehow, 9/11 is irrelevant. That to focus on it distracts from "real" issues such as Iraq and domestic spying. Again, almost to minimize the importance of 9/11, treat it as bygone history, and concentrate only on the misuse of the event by the administration.

There are a number of problems with this approach. It leaves in place the people that did it, and the mechanisms used for covering it up. It leaves in place the use of the "war on terror" as justification for the current administration's abuses, and allows the 9/11 rallying cry to continued to be used, and often accepted, to justify these abuses. And it leaves open the very distinct possibility that this kind of attack will be used again to justify further abuses.

There's a misconception that there is no proof for 9/11 being an inside job. There's plenty of proof. Obstruction of investigation before and after the fact, the NORAD failure, buildings collapsing in ways that could only be explained by planted explosives, planes being flown in ways the alleged hijackers could not have flown them, some of those very hijackers still being alive. There isn't just one smoking gun here - there are dozens of them (this is a good place to start research). What the left seems to want is some sort of "official" acknowledgement, one that will never come - just as Connally would never acknowledge publicly what he knew.

There is a strong tendency to deny and try to explain away the evidence. Part of the difficulty in accepting the reality behind 9/11 is confronting the significance not just of the nature of the event but what it and the surrounding cover-up implies. The harder part is not necessarily believing that some people in our own country would do such a thing, but that the entire government and media would assist in the deception that followed. An essay in 911truth.org says it best:

Understanding the full truth of 9/11 seems to require two separate awakenings.

The first, awakening to the fraudulence of the "official 9/11 story," is a pretty simple brain function and only requires a little study, logic or curiosity. ...

The second step, however, consciously confronting the implications of that knowledge -- and what it says about our media, politics and economic system today -- is by far the harder awakening ...

I found that reflected exactly what I had to go through. After seeing the overwhelming evidence on 9/11, it was Kristina Borjesson's essay on her experience investigating TWA800 in her book "Into the Buzzsaw" that was the final straw. It showed that the prototypical "conspiracy theorist" mechanisms of false investigations by the FBI and suppression of investigation by the media were, in fact, in place well before 9/11; that even under the Clinton administration, one that was far less repressive than the current one, such things occurred.

This is one of the reasons it is important to confront 9/11 directly. In a sense it is like a flare that was sent up to illuminate and expose those willing to do such an act and those willing to go along with it. Not acknowledging it means living under the illusion that the media honestly reports the news, something that I've learned is patently false. And this dishonesty is pervasive: most people understand that Fox distorts the news; far fewer realize that the New York Times does as well.

One of the keys to changing the current system is to discuss events such as 9/11 as openly as possible. To not be afraid of the "conspiracy theorist" label, which is exactly one of the fears those doing this use to try to socially isolate and ridicule people who understand their actions and try to publicize them.

What they do works because they create a world view, a "reality", so that people who question it, especially about something so important, seem crazy. As a Bush aide once said, "We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality". Nowhere was this more successfully done than with 9/11. Given the patriotic fervor the cover story for the event generated, it was relatively simple to suppress any expressions of doubt in its veracity.

But this changes as more and more people begin to connect the dots and see how the administration uses 9/11. Most of those trying to publicize problems with the official version now, such as David Ray Griffin and Steven Jones (1,2), only looked into it when they noted the abuse of the event by the government; many more are doing that every day, and the notion is not nearly as outlandish to most now as it might have seemed a few years ago.

There is a fairly direct lineage from the perpetrators of the sixties assassinations, through the Watergate and Iran-Contra scandals, to 9/11; the group of people who seem to enjoy and are able to implement covert actions in the name of maintaining power and modifying policy is alive and well and stronger than ever. They're currently attempting to consolidate their control through vote fraud, an effort that started showing results in the 2000 elections. There's no reason to think they won't continue to use these techniques if they continue to go unrecognized and unpunished.

There have been a number of false terrorist attacks abroad since 9/11, and domestic ones still appear to be on the table as an option. A GOP memo conjectured how another "terrorist" attack might help Bush's ratings, and Cheney discussed the possibility of a 9/11-like event precipitating an attack on Iran. As more people catch on, it makes the selling of the false reality of an attack difficult, and the attack less likely to take place. So, for example, when Ron Paul says "Fear of imaginary nuclear weapons or an incident involving Iran – whether planned or accidental – will rally the support needed for us to move on Muslim country #3" he may actually be lessening the possibility of such a "planned incident".

A lot is at stake here. Jim Garrison once said that "fascism will come to America in the name of national security." Incredibly prescient; that's exactly what's happening now. It's no coincidence that this administration has borrowed on the "big lie" technique perfected by the nazis. In fighting it, it's best to face reality, and not believe one of their biggest lies.

Two and a Half Men

2006-03-30T09:24:00.000-08:00

I guess one somewhat eccentric actor is ok. So CNN Showbiz Tonight was allowed, for three nights, to give interviews with Charlie Sheen, who was questioning 9/11, generally a taboo media topic unless huge "Conspiracy Theory" headlines accompany it.

But they crossed the line when, in pursuit of the stellar ratings they were getting, Ed Asner was to follow up on a fourth night. A little too much credibility from the old papa bear type of guy. So that was killed from the top. It would be hard to say the "prostitute loving, cocaine sniffing Asner" in the inevitable disparaging tin foil hat stories that follow such interviews.

And in a rather foolish attempt to deflect the Sheen coverage, we have Moussaoui, possibly equipped with a stun belt (just to make sure), suddenly deciding that, after all this time, he was not just the 20th hijacker, but was to have joined shoe bomber Richard Reid and commandeer a fifth plane into the White House. Sacre bleu! Never mind that nobody, in their wildest dreams, could think these two patsies are capable of doing that. But it serves as a distraction, and, perhaps, might reinforce the 9/11 myth in people's minds.

But some damage has already been done. Articles are beginning to come out that have good information in them(1,2). More crucially, after 4 years of seeing what 9/11 has been used to justify, more and more people are no doubt willing to step back and look at the wild "conspiracy theories" more seriously. That's what happened to me. I was completely on board with the bin Laden scenario for over 3 years until it started seeming way too convenient, too serendipitous, that he did exactly what this administration needed done.

I'll be writing a number of blogs on 9/11 down the road. About how the evidence that it was an inside job is truly overwhelming; how the mechanisms for spreading the cover story and suppressing investigation were already in place. There's already a lot out there on this; here are a few good places to start(1,2). But it's important to try to spread the word. The "war on terror" is just an Orwellian ruse, and understanding that 9/11 happened to initiate an imperialist and fascist agenda having nothing to do with terrorism is key to understanding what is going on in the world today.

The Israel Lobby

2006-03-24T12:45:00.000-08:00

What is our country based on, but freedom of expression, freedom of ideas? Seems to be a pretty important principle.

The effect of the Israel lobby is getting some coverage right now, due to the publication - in England, of course, no American outlet would touch it - of the paper "The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy". It's by two fairly well respected professors and discusses the influence of the Israeli lobby on the American government and media.

First, a quick disclosure. I'm Jewish, and a pro-Israel sort of guy. But that country, like our own, has been hijacked by an immoral right wing group that tries to justify imperialism, brutality, and curtailment of civil liberties in the name of national security. So it's very important to be honest and not let the threat of accusations of anti-semitism suppress legitimate criticism.

I read the article, and felt that overall it was excellent and said a number of things that really needed saying. The basic points are:

The pro-Israel lobby, and in particular AIPAC, has enormous influence on our government, to the point of being able to dictate certain policies and curtail debate.

They also have a huge influence in the American media, which portrays an overly pro-Israel view of the middle east conflict.

Honestly, these things are fairly well known to Washington insiders and those who pay close attention. But the paper is significant exactly because what it says is quite true, and as a result of this it is difficult for respectable, objective sources to publish this kind of information. Because the influence of the lobby is not openly discussed the net effect is that there is a powerful and often hidden warping of both our foreign policy and news reporting. As the paper says, "the Lobby boasts of its own power and then attacks anyone who calls attention to it".

Nothing proves the point better than the reaction to the paper itself. As I mentioned, the authors found it virtually unpublishable in America. The American mainstream media has ignored it (with a few notable exceptions), and I don't buy for a second that it's because it's not newsworthy. The Jewish media have tried to smear it by deriding its academic qualifications and making much of the fact that David Duke likes it, an obvious attempt to taint it by association with the truly anti-semitic "Jews control the world" crowd. Harvard has already been pressured into disassociating itself from it.

What more need be said? The opponents of the paper are doing an excellent job of vindicating one of its main theses.

The paper is off on certain points. As with many analyses of this nature, it does over-emphasize its arguments. Clearly, the war in Iraq was as much for American hegemony via energy resource control as it was about Israel. All one has to do is look at the makeup of the PNAC to understand that there are a number of agendas in the neocon policies that dovetail very nicely. And the hypocrisy of the administration and the brutality of the Iraq war have had at least as much to do with the fall of America's standing in the Islamic community as our support of Israel. And finally, of course, it assumes the Western backed terrorist attacks are solely Islamist based, and so erroneously asserts our support for Israel is the cause of these.

But overall it says quite soundly something that needs to be said. And suppressing or smearing this kind of reasoned discourse merely pushes America farther down the repressive road it's already on.

Spooked

2006-03-16T16:14:00.000-08:00

I recently got this email about my piece "Cold Blooded Killers" on Paul Wellstone's death:

I always thought it was a hit and I'm glad to read your commentary on it. It always seemed statistically unlikely that Paul Wellstone would die in a plane crash. There aren't that many plane crashes and if there is going to be one, and it will be the death of a Senator, what's the probability that it will be the one Senator who had the gut to stand up to the Bush and his cabal. Maybe this is why the rest of the crowd has lost its nerve. Thanks.

This brought to mind something that a Democratic congressman told Michael Ruppert soon after the crash, while discussing the possibility that Wellstone was murdered:

I don't think there's anyone on the Hill who doesn't suspect it. It's too convenient, too coincidental, too damned obvious. My guess is that some of the less courageous members of the party are thinking about becoming Republicans right now.

Along these lines, I have hunch about the actions of Mark Dayton, the other Democratic senator from Minnesota. In July, 2004, he bacame the first senator to challenge the 9/11 commission's report. Then, in the fall, he suddenly ups and leaves Washington until the election due to "terrorist threats" that nobody else in Washington seems too worried about. I remember when that happened: everybody who was paying attention, including me, thought it was very odd. Of course at the time I still had no idea what was actually going on; it took me a long time to catch on.

What I suspect is that he, too, had finally figured it out. 9/11, the anthrax attacks, Wellstone's murder, the whole bit. He finally realized it was true. Perhaps he even got threatened directly. One way or the other, he felt his life was in particular danger, not because of Arab terrorists, but because he finally knew who was really behind these events and knew that, as a maverick questioning the 9/11 commission, Washington was not a safe place to be. It may seem like a stretch but - perhaps not.

Capitol Hill Blue - A Review

2006-03-15T12:48:00.000-08:00

Web site: www.capitolhillblue.com

Background

This is Doug Thompson's site. He has worked as a journalist, as a congressional staff member, and as a lobbyist. Evidently this gave him more than a little distaste for Washington, since the site's motto is "Because nobody's life, liberty or property is safe while Congress is in session or the White House is occupied." The current site was formed in 1994; he claims it to be the oldest surviving internet news site. True or not, it's been around a long time by world wide web standards.

Discussion

While the site does have some news links and various op-ed pieces, far and away its greatest attraction is Thompson's "Rant". Very appropriately named, Thompson rails against the inbred corruption of both Congress and the White House.

While the rants are fun to read, what makes this blog-like site stand out is that he has a lot of Washington connections and sources that give him inside information. He's pretty good about verifying what he hears, so he comes up with stuff that's hard to find elsewhere and is usually reliable. He talked about the warrantless NSA spying well before the NY Times did, and similarly the declining atmosphere in the White House due to Bush's ill temper long before it was discussed by Newsweek. He recently quoted Bush as having said that the Constitution "is just a goddamned piece of paper" - pretty good stuff. It seems that White House aides like to talk to him - probably one of the few ways they can let off some steam. No wonder Rove is getting obsessed with leaks.

Amusingly enough, he was embraced by the right wing when Clinton was in office, and the left wing now. He claims to be a centrist.

Summary

Overall : Very good, but very limited.

Analysis: Thompson's understanding of the machinations and corruption in Washington is excellent. He doesn't stray too far from this, which is the area where he has the most expertise.

News: OK - some news links, but nothing out of the ordinary.

Bias: Extreme anti-Congress/White House bias, but for the right reasons. Not partisan in that he hates the Democrats and Republicans equally.

Pros: There's sometimes information here that is hard, if not impossible, to find elsewhere. Besides this, the Rant can be fun.

Cons: Non-Rant pieces on site are hit-or-miss. Some good, some terrible. The Rant itself can be a bit of a, well, rant.

Cold Blooded Killers

2006-03-12T15:58:00.000-08:00

When Cheney recently said that Iran will face "meaningful consequences" if it persists with its nuclear program, it rang a bell.

Here are a few quotes involving the Bush administration and Minnesota senator Paul Wellstone, who died in a plane crash 11 days before the 2002 elections.

Six months before WellStone's death, an article in The Nation magazine reported:

Paul Wellstone is a hunted man. Minnesota's senior senator is not just another Democrat on White House political czar Karl Rove's target list, in an election year when the Senate balance of power could be decided by the voters of a single state. Rather, getting rid of Wellstone is a passion for Rove, Dick Cheney, George W. Bush and the special-interest lobbies that fund the most sophisticated political operation ever assembled by a presidential administration. "There are people in the White House who wake up in the morning thinking about how they will defeat Paul Wellstone," a senior Republican aide confides. "This one is political and personal for them."

A few days before his death, at a meeting with war veterans, Wellstone said that Cheney had told him:

"If you vote against the war in Iraq, the Bush administration will do whatever is necessary to get you. There will be severe ramifications for you and the state of Minnesota."

The day after his death, Michael Ruppert reported:

The day after the crash I received a message from a former CIA operative who has proven extremely reliable in the past and who is personally familiar with these kinds of assassinations. The message read, "As I said earlier, having played ball (and still playing in some respects) with this current crop of reinvigorated old white men, these clowns are nobody to screw around with. There will be a few more strategic accidents. You can be certain of that."

There are plenty of other reasons to think that Wellstone's death was an assassination - or perhaps more accurately, a mob style hit, disguised as a plane crash. A good starting point for looking into this is here.

"Severe ramifications" - When Cheney said Iran will face "meaningful consequences", what it had reminded me of was his warning to Wellstone: "There will be severe ramifications".

Reading about this, even after seeing the brutality in Iraq, even after realizing that Cheney and Rumsfeld were key participants in 9/11, was eye-opening. This was not a detached operation involving the deaths of unknown people. This was a cold blooded, and yet personal, murder. This was someone who had crossed them too many times and had to be eliminated.

At that point I understood just how incredibly like the mafia this gang really is. They are not "conservative politicians". They are a criminal organization.

An Appeal for Help

2006-03-11T16:20:00.000-08:00

I got an email today in response to the "Support Our Troops" article, which was also posted on OpEdNews, where I publish some of the blogs.

Hi Jon, I am writting to thank you for your honesty. I wish more people cared about what is going on over there, And what heartache those left behind at home go through every secound of every day. My son is a US Marine. He got back from his 3 deployment to Iraq, He turned 19 over there the first year, the 2nd year he turned 20 in Fallujah,3rd year he turned 21 on the Syrian border. We are VERY LUCKY HE CAME HOME TO US. Everyday we continue to loose more lives, WHEN WILL IT END??? WHAT CAN WE DO??? I AM NOT WILLING TO LET MY SON GO OVER THERE AGAIN & I WILL DO EVERYTHING I CAN TO KEEP HIM FROM GOING AGAIN!! I do not understand why we have these toll numbers on McDonalds on how many hamburgers they have sold or the lottery numbers...Why isn't there a billboard in every city, with a running toll on it how many soldiers we are loosing every day??? I tried to get my elected representives to help me get a fund raiser on this and was told that the ""Current Administration would NEVER ALLOW THAT!!"

I've read lots of things like this, both from those in the military as well as their parents. But it's more painful when something is addressed directly to you. Honestly, I'm not sure what can be done - one of the most effective recourses, the power to vote, is being rapidly removed (I'll write about that in the near future). But it is important to do something. I've come to understand that no matter how bad one thinks this administration is, the truth is much worse, and I'd encourage all readers to try to do something, even something small, to try to halt what is, essentially, a true move towards fascism in America.

The Incompetence Excuse

2006-03-06T06:49:00.000-08:00

Accusing this administration of incompetence is easy to do. The president is a boob who can't tie his shoes without getting instructions through a hidden earpiece. He hires cronies like Brownie, who's main qualification for becoming head of FEMA was failing as a commissioner for a horse association. So when things go wrong, it's easy to attribute that to incompetence.

But often the truth is much worse, and incompentence is simply used as a cover-up for intentionally criminal acts. This article will look at the three most glaring examples of this.

Iraq

This is the most obvious, and most well accepted, instance of the incompetence excuse. If you were to believe this administration, it was all "curveball's" fault. Everybody was being misled! If only we had better intelligence.

Of course, we didn't need the Downing Street Memo to know that ''the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy''. As the NY Times puts it, while trying to squirm out of their lack of reporting on the memo while it was making international headlines, it wasn't that important because "Three years ago , the near-unanimous conventional wisdom in Washington held that Mr. Bush was determined to topple Sadam Hussein by any means necessary". The recent comments by Paul Pillar also serve to emphasize this point: the intelligence was irrelevant.

This one has gotten so much coverage that over half of the country understands it was a hell-bent administration, not incompetent intelligence, that led us into this war.

9/11

"Failure to connect the dots." That's the big catch phrase about 9/11. Once again, our intelligence community just didn't get it right. Once again, this alleged incompetence is hiding the reality that many powerful people in this administration were part of the 9/11 operation, and were working hard to make sure that the dots were not connected.

Colleen Rowley, the FBI agent whose attempts at investigating the 9/11 plot were thwarted from above at every turn, says it best: "jokes were actually made that the key FBIHQ personnel had to be spies or moles, like Robert Hansen, who were actually working for Osama Bin Laden to have so undercut Minneapolis' effort". Of course it was Cheney and Rumsfeld's moles that she was dealing with, though she had no way of knowing that. Many others have reported similar obstructions (see chapter 6, "Did US Officials Obstruct Investigations Prior to 9/11" of David Ray Griffin's "The New Pearl Harbor").

Similarly, the FAA and NORAD are the convenient foils for the failure to get fighters up in time to intercept the hijacked aircraft. The DoD order issued in June 2001 requiring Rumsfeld to OK such interceptions, the redirection of the planes into holding patterns or over the Atlantic, and the multiple war games going on that both confused NORAD personnel and served as cover for the operation are rarely mentioned.

And, most famously, there is the inability to capture bin Laden. As Kerry liked to say, we "outsourced" his capture to the Northern Alliance, a major military blunder. But the reality was quite different: the escape route was intentionally left open, and helicopters assisted in rescuing the remaining Al-Qaeda members.

It's possible to go on, but these examples illustrate how incompetence becomes a cover story for a complex plot that was, in the end, fairly competently carried out.

New Orleans

Who knew the levees were breached? And when did they know it?

If you read the news right now, you'd think that was a major issue, a crucial problem to be solved in ascertaining blame for the failure to help those stranded in New Orleans after Katrina.

Everybody knew the levees might be breached. The mainstream news was screaming this in the days before Katrina arrived - others, for much longer.

The lack of help for those in New Orleans was not due to incompetence, but to a systematic plan to deny them help. Here's the testimony of Aaron Broussard, president of Jefferson Parish, on "Meet the Press":

Let me give you just three quick examples. We had Wal-Mart deliver three trucks of water, trailer trucks of water. FEMA turned them back. They said we didn't need them. This was a week ago. FEMA--we had 1,000 gallons of diesel fuel on a Coast Guard vessel docked in my parish. The Coast Guard said, "Come get the fuel right away." When we got there with our trucks, they got a word. "FEMA says don't give you the fuel." Yesterday--yesterday--FEMA comes in and cuts all of our emergency communication lines. They cut them without notice. Our sheriff, Harry Lee, goes back in, he reconnects the line. He posts armed guards on our line and says, "No one is getting near these lines."

"Three quick Examples." He's right - there were many reports coming out then not of an inability to help, or of incompetence in providing help, but of the intentional withholding of help and interference with help being otherwise provided. "FEMA comes in and cuts all of our communication lines". That is not incompetence. That is sabotage. Similarly, it is active interference that prevents the Coast Guard from delivering fuel or Wal-Mart from delivering water. This is not a matter of someone not knowing that there was a dire situation in New Orleans; quite the opposite, it is someone who did know what was going on there actively stopping people, both governmental and not, from going in and helping.

Why was help thwarted? Was it a turf fight of some sort, or an attempt to experiment with martial law? Was it part of more a complex plot involving bombing the levees and clearing out poor people, as those in the ninth ward claim? I certainly can't answer these questions, but I do know that much more than incompetence was involved.

In Conclusion

The incompetence excuse often ends up being a safe haven for the left. It's acceptable, it doesn't challenge any mainstream notions, and it lets them get their digs in. But it is important not to ignore the facts, the ones that point out acts that are quite intentional, and always harmful. History does tend to repeat, and allowing them to get away with criminal behavior, again and again, and only accusing them of incompetence, will increase the probability that these acts will continue.

I've noticed that, more and more, people are beginning to realize just how radical and unscrupulous this administration is. It's important to continue to expose this, and not help them cover up their most drastic acts.

Support Our Troops

2006-02-28T13:52:00.000-08:00

Nothing I've seen explains this administration’s attitude toward our troops better than the juxtaposition of the following headlines:

Veterans May Face Health Care Cuts in 2008

US Army Pays Halliburton Despite Audit Concerns

Eisenhower's military/industrial complex warning is the most famous, and rightly so, but I think in the current context General Butler lays it down a bit better:

War is a racket ... in which the profits are reckoned in dollars and the losses in lives. It is conducted for the benefit of the very few, at the expense of the very many. Out of war a few people make huge fortunes.

Never has that been truer than right now, when the desire to monopolize control of oil, for both power and profit, is causing the deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocent people. And the troops are viewed much as the turn of the century coal barons viewed their miners: necessary, but expendable, assets. They are to be paid as little as possible, and their lives and health only matter in so far as the bad publicity too many deaths might generate.

The proposed cuts in veteran health care, which is a recurring theme with this administration, are even more insidious than they sound. The current war is notorious for creating a greater percentage of wounded than previous wars. There are two reasons for this. One is that body armor and rapid medical evacuations lead to many severely wounded vets that would have been fatalities in previous wars. The other is the extensive use of depleted uranium, which is now viewed as a likely contributor to the "Gulf War Syndrome" of the first gulf war and which is currently wreaking havoc both on the Iraqis and our soldiers. It was just discovered that the initial shock and awe assault released so much of this toxic substance into the atmosphere that the increase in radiation was measured as far away as Great Britain. And what company was involved in suppressing that information? Halliburton, of course.

Anecdotal stories reinforce the notion of a callous military. Like the soldier who was charged for the body armor that got destroyed when he was wounded. Or those threatened with the loss of death benefits if they wore better body armor. Stories like these may be the exception, and not the rule, but they are common enough to indicate a real problem, a pattern of disdain for the needs of the soldiers doing the actual fighting.

Yesterday Zogby released a poll indicating 72% of the troops in Iraq think we should leave within a year. Being closer to the situation, the truths of the war are more obvious to them, despite the indoctrination they receive.

I hope these realities are also becoming clear to those sporting "Support Our Troops" bumper stickers. The best way to support our troops is to bring them home, and to replace the current administration with one that really cares about them.

Update: Domes and Nukes

2006-02-27T13:31:00.000-08:00

I don’t have time for a real blog today, but there are a few short items worth noting relevant to past ones.

On the one involving the Shrine destruction. There have been a few pieces of evidence coming in indicating it was an occupation operation. The first is that it was a demolition requiring a lot of skill and time; this was not just a few guys throwing in some sticks of dynamite. They drilled through the pillars and planted explosives – a very carefully conceived and executed plan. In addition, there has been at least one report coming out that American and Iraqi National Guard troops showed up the night before, told people to stay indoors, and left early the next morning just before the explosion. While this could be disinformation from the vast al Qaeda media network, the one whose resources dwarf those of poor Rumsfeld's impoverished defense department, I suspect it’s true. Of course, since the al-Aribiya reporter that showed up there to interview people was promptly kidnapped and executed it’s hard to get first hand accounts. And not that there aren’t a lot of really nasty guys running around Iraq, but it’s amazing how many journalists who might have bad things to say about the occupation meet unfortunate ends. I’ll write an appropriate full blog on that at some point in the future.

On a more positive note, the NY Times, the newspaper I love to hate (their motto should be “all the news we want you to hear”) had a big, headlined op-ed piece today that said that which must not be said: It may be ok for Iran to have nukes, after all. Blow me down. Maybe tomorrow they’ll break down and talk about vote fraud or 9/11. I’m not holding my breath, but it was still good to see them have the guts to publish that piece, given that their news reporting, which is often much more biased than their usually reasonable editorial page, has been focusing on the evils of Tehran for quite a while now.

The Troublemaker in the Middle

2006-02-24T13:18:00.000-08:00

I’ve often found when reading the NY Times that the true story is hidden within the article as a quote from a local.

Let’s take bin Laden as an example. Buried in an article on the CIA in the Pakistani tribal areas, a school teacher, when asked where bin Laden was, said "America brought Osama bin Laden to this region. They know his whereabouts better than me." Similarly, in an article on Edward Caraballo’s experience in an Afghan jail, he mentions: ''They all love Bush, because he liberated their country, and they all say Osama bin Laden is Bush's friend.''

In today’s paper, the most truthful part is revealed, once again, by a local, in this case an Iraqi clothing merchant: "I can tell you the main reason behind all our woes — it is America. Everything that is going on between Sunnis and Shiites, the troublemaker in the middle is America." Not that they don’t have a history. But in the current context, Ahmadinejad is quite right to blame the occupying forces for the destruction of the Askariya Shrine.

It took me a long time to believe that his axis of evil – America, Britain, and Israel – were actually involved in “terrorist acts” inside of Iraq. It just seemed so counter-productive. Didn’t they have enough problems there anyway?

But the evidence started dripping in. First were reports that the military was planting bombs in the cars of Iraqi civilians. Then two Britains, dressed as Arabs, were found driving around with explosives.

And then, after the 400th second in command to al-Zarqawi was caught, it began dawning on me that he was being put in a bin Laden-like mythical position (1,2,3). Given that almost every incarnation of al Qaeda has had extensive western support, it stood to reason that al Qaeda in Mesopotamia (perhaps they watch Jon Stewart) was essentially a cover for covert operations.

Elias Akleh began writing some interesting articles about coalition sponsered terrorism (1,2). All of a sudden the early attacks on the UN and Red Cross in Baghdad, which had been so confusing at the time, made sense. And evidently there’s a bit of history to these techniques.

And simultaneous with this, it was becoming clear that journalists were, indeed, being targeted – murdered – by Americans, and that the “Salvador option” talked about a year ago was surfacing as the vicious hit squads so reviled right now.

It took all this for me to realize just how ruthless our operations had become, above and beyond the normal horrors of war, and just how enamored of brutal covert operations the defense department was. Killing innocent civilians is just part and parcel of what they do.

So when I see a golden dome being blown up, followed by sectarian attacks, I tend to agree with the clothing merchant: “the troublemaker in the middle is America”.

Why would they do this? It seems so at odds with what we’re trying to achieve there. As today’s NY Times editorial says, the destruction of the shrine “was no everyday act of terrorism. It was a deliberate attempt to make it politically impossible to create a national unity government capable of leading Iraq to democratic stability.” To understand why we would be working against our own overt goals, it must be understood that one of the major reasons for invading Iraq was to establish military bases there.There was never any intention of leaving; that would defeat the entire purpose of the war, which had nothing to do with Sadam or WMD. The last thing the neocons want is a stable government, heavily influenced by Iran, that would actually ask us to leave. And Iraq was getting way too close to that for comfort. As a senior administration official almost gleefully notes: "Just in the last 36-hour period, Sunni Arabs who were urging us to withdraw forces from cities like Baghdad are now urging us to stay. I don't know if the American military is reconsidering its posture, but I can tell you that the Iraqis are reconsidering."

I guess it feels good to be wanted.

From the Wilderness – A Review

2006-02-22T11:59:00.000-08:00

Website: http://www.fromthewilderness.com/

Background

This is Michael Ruppert’s organization. He was an LAPD narcotics investigator who, on discovering CIA drug trafficking, was fired, but kept his focus on exposing what goes on under the covers in our government. His book, "Crossing the Rubicon: The Decline of the American Empire at the End of the Age of Oil" summarizes much of his investigations, with the major emphasis being the role of drug trafficking and the CIA in the corporate world, the role of members of our government, and in particular Dick Cheney, in the 9/11 attacks, and the peak oil phenomena and its ramifications.

Discussion

While I have not done an extensive analysis on exactly who came up with what first in the world of 9/11 investigations, I think it is safe to say that Ruppert is responsible for a number of major discoveries. Unlike some other investigators that focus on physical evidence, he works exclusively with the surrounding published material, much of which has turned out to be extremely important in deciphering the events of that day. His emphasis on the significance of Cheney being put in charge of a slew of relevant agencies under the guise of an “anti-terrorism” effort in May 2001, a change requiring Rumsfeld to approve the use of Norad fighters to intercept hijacked planes in June 2001, and the various Norad exercises on the day of the attacks has been extremely valuable in understanding the planning behind 9/11.

Ruppert has also been very active on the lecture circuit and has helped spread the word about the attacks – a difficult and important task where a contrived “war on terror” is being used as justification for so much of what is happening.

He has recently focused almost completely on the “Peak Oil” phenomenon and its ramifications. In fact, he can also rightly claim to be far ahead of the curve on this: he was warning of this years ago, and the likelihood that it’s happening is becoming more and more accepted in the mainstream. While there are some who don’t believe there is a current peak oil event, I think the consensus opinion is that it is quite real, and Ruppert was very on target in this regard.

The web site, though, has – to a large extent intentionally - become almost solely a good source for peak oil news and analysis, and interpreting the events of the day in the context of this phenomenon. Given that this does seem to be a dominant motivation for the wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, and possibly Iran, it’s hard to minimize its importance. Ruppert does sometimes sound a bit apocalyptic, however, when discussing the coming years as oil production ceases to meet demand; hopefully the effects will not be as severe as he hypothesizes.

Despite this, Ruppert's contributions have been extremely important. So while there is a slight caveat about the direness of his warnings during every potential oil supply interruption, I listen very carefully when he talks.

Summary

Overall : Very Good – Excellent on what they cover, though the emphasis right now is on oil and energy issues.

Analysis: Excellent – Again, the scope is limited, but they often do fairly original work that may not be where my focus is but that is worth being aware of.

News: Good – Updated almost daily with a very selective set of articles, sometimes with commentary, with the usual oil/energy focus.

Bias: Dominant “Peak Oil” focus - Discussions on the implications of peak oil dominate the site.

Pros: Some solid, and often important, original research. An excellent site for understanding possible ramifications of peak oil and keeping abreast of relevant news relating to it.

Cons: Currently most of the analysis and news centers on the peak oil phenomenon and related events, so there is limited scope beyond this. Having said that, given that so much of the current geopolitical storm is energy related, this covers a decent amount of territory.

Iran

2006-02-20T15:25:00.000-08:00

I really don’t know where to start on this one.

It’s not that the neocons, after what everyone else sees as an incredible failure in Iraq, still want to attack Iran. I’d long ago realized just how oblivious to human suffering they were, and how once they were fixated on something, they would aggressively pursue it regardless of circumstances. And the plan always was to go into Iran : "Anyone can go to Baghdad. Real men go to Tehran." – how cute. So there’s no surprise there.

What is shocking is just how on board everyone else is with this. The Democrats are positioning themselves somewhat to the right of the war-mongering administration, Europe is playing along sycophantically as if regretting they weren’t involved in that fun Iraq escapade, and the media is cooperating far more than they did for the Iraq build-up, even after just having castigated itself for that mistake.

There is an almost uniform, consistent message coming out:

Iran is defying the world and trying to build a nuclear device.

If they get one, they’ll certainly attack Israel (thanks, Ahmadinejad) and – look at those circles of destruction showing the range of their missiles – are likely to attack anyone else they feel like.

We’ll try real hard to settle this diplomatically. And there is really no military solution. Unless there is.

Of course, it’s not hard to see the next step. Darn, diplomacy just isn’t working on those irrational Iranians. Shock and Awe II, maybe with mini-nukes added. And, to safeguard the Iraqi border, we’ll simply have to occupy oil-rich Khuzestan.

I feel sympathetic with Heather Wokusch’s analogy: “Witnessing the Bush administration’s drive for an attack on Iran is like being a passenger in a car with a raving drunk at the wheel.” But the part of all this that I find mind-boggling is how widespread the support for it is. It doesn’t take a whole lot to see how the IAEA and UN are being used simply so the US gets to say that “diplomacy failed”, since we just went through that experience with Iraq, and yet it’s difficult, if not impossible, to find a mainstream media outlet that makes this point. Quite the opposite, they’re all right on board, emphasizing how “Iran is different – really – they must be stopped”.

Ron Paul remains one of the few honest voices in congress. But there is no reason to think his message will spread.

And it’s truly sad when Pat Buchanan sounds like a beacon of sanity when compared with the NY Times, which is trumpeting the dangers of Tehran along with the rest of the media.

But that seems to be where we are.

Center for Research on Globalization – A review

2006-02-19T15:57:00.000-08:00

Website: www.globalresearch.ca

Background:

This is the web site of Center for Research on Globalization, which is led by Michel Chossudovsky, an economics professor at the University of Ottawa. According to its site it’s “an independent research and media group of writers, scholars and activists” who publish “news articles, commentary, background research and analysis on a broad range of issues, focusing on social, economic, strategic, geopolitical and environmental processes”.

Discussion:

I find this site extremely informative. Its articles represent a broad array of topics with an analysis that works from suppositions that I’ve found quite accurate and are those of this blog: that the powerful interest groups of the world work in fairly Machiavellian ways that are only superficially discussed in the western, and in particular American, press. And Chossudovsky himself has moved quite seamlessly from understanding the inherent ruthlessness behind the machinations of the globalization process under Clinton to the imperial militarism under the pretext of the 9/11 attacks and the war on terror of the current administration.

Summary:

Overall : Excellent – Good articles that attempt to analyze what is really happening in the current world situation.

Analysis: Excellent – The site’s strength.

News: So-so – While it is not a site that points to news sources and only a few articles are added daily, there is enough meat here to get a sense of what’s is happening around the world.

Bias: Very Good - I find the site fairly balanced, though clearly it is not fond of corporate globalization. It has been accused of an anti-Israel bias; I find this to be generally untrue, with the possible exception of the occasional rabid author.

Pros: A very solid site with fairly knowledgeable authors who are willing to look under the covers.

Cons: No direct mainstream news links, only a handful of articles added each day.

Terrorist Surveillance Program

2006-02-17T13:06:00.000-08:00

A recent poll in USA Today, intrepidly trying to get the pulse of the American people, found that "By 50%-47%, Americans say the administration was wrong to allow wiretapping of international communications involving terrorism suspects without obtaining court warrants." As is often the case, the phrasing of the question disguises the real issue.

Some of the “terrorist surveillance” done by the FBI and DoD has been reported in the mainstream media, thanks to lawsuits brought by the ACLU. Usually those infiltrated are such Al-Qaeda affiliated groups as “Quakers for Peace”, “Moms against Military Recruiting”, and “Vegans opposing Chinchilla Abuse”. But while this gets a lot closer to the real need for warrantless spying, we’re not quite there yet. Exactly what is Grover Norquist worried about when, in speaking out against NSA spying, he warns that “at some point Hillary Clinton might be making these decisions”?

Paul Craig Roberts cuts to the chase in an article that has many excellent points:

We have reached a point where the Bush administration is determined to totally eclipse the people. Bewitched by neoconservatives and lustful for power, the Bush administration and the Republican Party are aligning themselves firmly against the American people. Their first victims, of course, were the true conservatives. Having eliminated internal opposition, the Bush administration is now using blackmail obtained through illegal spying on American citizens to silence the media and the opposition party.

Before flinching at my assertion of blackmail, ask yourself why President Bush refuses to obey the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. The purpose of the FISA court is to ensure that administrations do not spy for partisan political reasons. The warrant requirement is to ensure that a panel of independent federal judges hears a legitimate reason for the spying, thus protecting a president from the temptation to abuse the powers of government. The only reason for the Bush administration to evade the court is that the Bush administration had no legitimate reasons for its spying. This should be obvious even to a naif.

Ahh, now we get to the core of the matter. Political control through blackmail – a time honored tradition. It now becomes much clearer why somebody like Grover Norquist, who has quite a few skeletons in his closet, understands that unlimited spying can be a bad thing: it has nothing to do with terrorism, and everything to do with control of both allies and enemies – political enemies, the real threat to the administration, not someone with a turban in a cave.

Additional insight can be gained by peeking into the White House’s enemies list, as described by Doug Thompson in a Capitol Hill Blue article:

Spurred by paranoia and aided by the USA Patriot Act, the Bush Administration has compiled dossiers on more than 10,000 Americans it considers political enemies and uses those files to wage war on those who disagree with its policies. ...

The computerized files include intimate personal details on members of Congress; high-ranking local, state and federal officials; prominent media figures and ordinary citizens who may, at one time or another, have spoken out against the President or Administration.

Capitol Hill Blue has spoken with a number of current and former administration officials who acknowledge existence of the enemies list only under a guarantee of confidentiality. Those who have seen the list say it is far more extensive than Richard Nixon’s famous “enemies list” of Watergate fame or Bill Clinton’s dossiers on political enemies. …

“If you want to know who’s sleeping with whom, who drinks too much or has a fondness for nose candy, this is the place to find it,” says another White House aide. Karl (Rove) operates under the rule that if you fuck with us, we’ll fuck you over.”

The snooping is so pervasive that aides in the White House have taking to using disposable phones, for fear that they will become victems of their own administration’s eavesdropping. From another Doug Thompson article:

Wary White House aides, under constant scrutiny from a paranoid Bush administration hell bent on stopping leaks, have turned to a technique used by drug dealers and criminals to avoid detection – prepaid, disposable cell phones. …

“Every time a new story emerges in the press, everyone here comes under suspicion,” says one aide. “We spend most of our time covering our asses instead of tending to the nation’s business.”

White House sources tell us that even senior aides like embattled Presidential advisor Karl Rove uses the prepaid phones to avoid having certain calls show up on call logs or other records that might be subpoenaed.

If it’s beginning to sound like Stalinist Russia, where one never knew who would be purged next, you’re beginning to get the idea. The program never had much to do with terrorists.

Caught in the Middle

2006-02-15T12:58:00.000-08:00

“Agent Provocateur” – this was the title of an interesting op-ed piece in the NY Times today. It was interesting for a few reasons. First, it almost acknowledged the fairly obvious fact that the current “cartoon crisis” is a manufactured situation. Of course it did this by citing the opinions of average Pakistanis, but it didn’t deride them as “unbelievable conspiracy theories” as is so often done. In fact, it almost seemed sympathetic to the notion. Here is a quote toward the end of the article:

Later, over dinner, a member of my family said: "It's just racism. You act in ways that you know will provoke the extremists to start ranting and then you get bearded men frothing at the mouth, and — because those are the only images that get significant news coverage — you can then turn around and say, 'You see, all Muslims are fanatics.' "

"And that plays straight into the hand of the right wing in Europe whose greatest strength comes from racist polemic?" I finished. That really didn't seem a million miles away from suggestions of a conspiracy.

That’s beginning to get pretty close to what’s going on, certainly a lot closer than you’ll read in most news articles. While the immediate need for the provocation is almost certainly to get more popular support in Europe for the impending attack on Iran, the more general purpose is to foment the idea of a “clash of civilizations”. And the desire for this notion to gain momentum seems to come from the extremists on both sides: the increasingly fascist right wing of the western powers and the radical Islamists. And despite their public declarations of each other as the ultimate enemy, they seem to, and often do, work together; I suspect the current cartoons and ensuing riots are just such an occasion.

Earlier in the article is a quote from a school teacher, who was asked what the point of the cartoons’ provocation was:

“Whoever knows what’s going on? It’s something internal going on in those places. Or something to do with their own politics about, who knows, Iran, Israel. It could be anything.”

This reminded me, in its tone, of a quote from an Iraqi I read a while ago: “I would never have believed the Arabs to be so vicious or the Americans so merciless”. There’s a sense of helplessness, of being caught up in the middle of events that have a great, and almost universally disastrous, effect on individual lives, because of the ambitions of a small number of hostile, deluded leaders. And these disastrous results are not limited to Islamic countries; they are clearly being felt in Europe and America, where our freedom and democracy are being threatened by the very people that claim to be protecting them. I sincerely doubt, as the neocons like to claim, that our children will be singing our praises years from now.

A Conspiracy Blog

2006-02-15T09:32:00.000-08:00

This will be a political blog. It will be “conspiracy theorist” in that I’ve discovered that, yes, indeed, 9/11 was an inside job and the Kennedy’s were not killed by Oswald and Sirhan Sirhan. Though I think “reality theorist” may be a better term, since when you look into these things without the blinders it becomes pretty obvious that the public is being conned. The blog will also be liberal – or is the proper term for that now “progressive”? – as that has always been my leaning.

Generally, I’ll make comments on current events with a view towards looking under the cover of what is being reported in the mainstream media. Luckily, there are many other good sources for this type of information, and I'll be shameless about using and referencing them as needed.

I’ll also review other sites that have some insight into the current world situation. In attempting to research 9/11, I found that one of the great difficulties was wading through all the sources for information and their various prejudices and backgrounds. I’ll attempt to sort through some of that in a limited way.

Finally, I hope to have some blogs on the idea of “conspiracy theory”. Why is it so incredibly easy to pull off something as huge and with as much condemning evidence as 9/11, and yet completely get away with it? I’ve thought about this a lot, and there are a number of answers, so in the course of this blog I’ll try to bring some of those ideas to light.

Testing

2006-02-10T15:59:00.000-08:00

Hello, world.