Tuesday, June 21, 2011

Obie OUT? Kissinger Leaves Bilderbergers? "They" Think We'll Let Them Lie Again: "Eisenhower's Worst Fears True. We Invent Enemies To Buy the Bombs"

(I met Eva Heinz (no, no relation) from Stuttgart, Germany, who is here checking her email at Starbucks in Greensboro. She was accompanied by her husband Joe, who is shopping with their 7-month-old Mara for a few last-minute items before their return home. Ah! To be in a cosmopolitan city!)
So, Kissinger was actually in danger of being arrested at the Bilderberger meeting in Switzerland. (Gee, I wish I could have seen that panicked crowd.) Food for thought, isn't it? Maybe it's the beginning of that mythical "light at the end of the tunnel" he was always alluding to during his purposely history-deficient running of the Vietnam War. That "light" revealing the gross corruption running rampant everywhere.
Sources in the BIS and CIA confirm the Bilderberger meeting held starting June 9th in St. Moritz, Switzerland, was cancelled halfway through because prominent participants, including Henry (Heinz) Kissinger faced imminent arrest.
And speaking of being exposed . . . the mystery has been solved (about the precious Paul Ryan). From my buddy Tom Harper we learn that . . .
The Astroturf 60 Plus Association is running a $1.4 million advertising campaign to convince senior citizens that Paul Ryan is on THEIR side. The chairman of 60 Plus, Jim Martin, said: “The Democrats and Obama are destroying Medicare. It's time to put an end to their 'mediscare' tactics.” No doubt, we’ll all be treated to a bunch of orchestrated “spontaneous” demonstrations on behalf of Paul Ryan’s agenda. Whatever their mis-spelled signs say, their underlying message will be “I’m old and I want to bend over for Wall Street.” As long as we’re talking about Paul Ryan: You may have wondered why Ryan and his fellow corporate prostitutes are so adamant about preserving the oil industry’s $45 billion tax subsidies. Mystery Solved. Paul Ryan and his wife own a large stake in four companies that lease land to the same oil companies that are benefiting from OUR tax dollars. The companies are run by Paul Ryan’s father-in-law. How cozy. Also: One of Ryan’s fellow errand boys, Fred Upton (R—Hooker), owns $250,000 worth of ExxonMobil stock. At one time, slippery dealings like this were known as “corruption” and “conflict of interest.” Not any more, apparently.
Leave it to our friends across the big water to break it to the world about our politics (proving that the rest of the world has sobered up from the warlord kool-aid long before the U.S.). From The Guardian (UK) (emphasis marks added - Ed.) we read the following wise counsel.
Peace, he implied, is for wimps. Real men buy bombs, and drop them.
In the tradition of Kissinger, we now get Robert Gates' (bought-and-paid-for) wisdom.
Eisenhower's Worst Fears Came True. We Invent Enemies to Buy the Bombs Britain faces no serious threat, yet keeps waging war. While big defence exists, glory-hungry politicians will use it. By Simon Jenkins June 17, 2011 "The Guardian" - Why do we still go to war? We seem unable to stop. We find any excuse for this post-imperial fidget and yet we keep getting trapped. Germans do not do it, or Spanish or Swedes. Britain's borders and British people have not been under serious threat for a generation. Yet time and again our leaders crave battle. Why?

Last week we got a glimpse of an answer and it was not nice. The outgoing US defence secretary, Robert Gates, berated Europe's "failure of political will" in not maintaining defence spending. He said Nato had declined into a "two-tier alliance" between those willing to wage war and those "who specialise in 'soft' humanitarian, development, peacekeeping and talking tasks". Peace, he implied, is for wimps. Real men buy bombs, and drop them.

This call was echoed by Nato's chief, Anders Fogh Rasmussen, who pointed out how unfair it was that US defence investment represented 75% of the Nato defence expenditure, where once it was only half. Having been forced to extend his war on Libya by another three months, Rasmussen wanted to see Europe's governments come up with more money, and no nonsense about recession. Defence to him is measured not in security but in spending.

The call was repeated back home by the navy chief, Sir Mark Stanhope. He had to be "dressed down" by the prime minister, David Cameron, for warning that an extended war in Libya would mean "challenging decisions about priorities". Sailors never talk straight: he meant more ships. The navy has used so many of its £500,000 Tomahawk missiles trying to hit Colonel Gaddafi (and missing) over the past month that it needs money for more. In a clearly co-ordinated lobby, the head of the RAF also demanded "a significant uplift in spending after 2015, if the service is to meet its commitments". It, of course, defines its commitments itself.

Libya has cost Britain £100m so far, and rising. But Iraq and the Afghan war are costing America $3bn a week, and there is scarcely an industry, or a state, in the country that does not see some of this money. These wars show no signs of being ended, let alone won. But to the defence lobby what matters is the money. It sustains combat by constantly promising success and inducing politicians and journalists to see "more enemy dead", "a glimmer of hope" and "a corner about to be turned".

Victory will come, but only if politicians spend more money on "a surge". Soldiers are like firefighters, demanding extra to fight fires. They will fight all right, but if you want victory that is overtime.

On Wednesday the Russian ambassador to Nato warned that Britain and France were "being dragged more and more into the eventuality of a land-based operation in Libya". This is what the defence lobby wants institutionally, even if it may appall the generals. In the 1980s Russia watched the same process in Afghanistan, where it took a dictator, Mikhail Gorbachev, to face down the Red Army and demand withdrawal. The west has no Gorbachev in Afghanistan at the moment. Nato's Rasmussen says he "could not envisage" a land war in Libya, since the UN would take over if Gaddafi were toppled. He must know this is nonsense. But then he said Nato would only enforce a no-fly zone in Libya. He achieved that weeks ago, but is still bombing.

It is not democracy that keeps western nations at war, but armies and the interests now massed behind them. The greatest speech about modern defence was made in 1961 by the US president Eisenhower. He was no leftwinger, but a former general and conservative Republican.

Looking back over his time in office, his farewell message to America was a simple warning against the "disastrous rise of misplaced power" of a military-industrial complex with "unwarranted influence on government". A burgeoning defence establishment, backed by large corporate interests, would one day employ so many people as to corrupt the political system. (His original draft even referred to a "military-industrial-congressional complex".) This lobby, said Eisenhower, could become so huge as to "endanger our liberties and democratic processes".

I wonder what Eisenhower would make of today's US, with a military grown from 3.5 million people to 5 million. The western nations face less of a threat to their integrity and security than ever in history, yet their defence industries cry for ever more money and ever more things to do. The cold war strategist, George Kennan, wrote prophetically: "Were the Soviet Union to sink tomorrow under the waters of the ocean, the American Military-Industrial Complex would have to remain, substantially unchanged, until some other adversary could be invented."

The devil makes work for idle hands, especially if they are well financed. Britain's former special envoy to Kabul, Sherard Cowper-Coles, echoed Kennan last week in claiming that the army's keenness to fight in Helmand was self-interested. "It's use them or lose them, Sherard," he was told by the then chief of the general staff, Sir Richard Dannatt. Cowper-Coles has now gone off to work for an arms manufacturer.

There is no strategic defence justification for the US spending 5.5% of its gross domestic product on defence or Britain 2.5%, or for the Nato "target" of 2%.

These figures merely formalise existing commitments and interests. At the end of the Cold War soldiers assiduously invented new conflicts for themselves and their suppliers, variously wars on terror, drugs, piracy, internet espionage and man's general inhumanity to man. None yields victory, but all need equipment. The war on terror fulfilled all Eisenhower's fears, as America sank into a swamp of kidnapping, torture and imprisonment without trial.

The belligerent posture of the US and Britain towards the Muslim world has fostered antagonism and moderate threats in response. The bombing of extremist targets in Pakistan is an invitation for terrorists to attack us, and then a need for defence against such attack. Meanwhile, the opportunity cost of appeasing the complex is astronomical.

Eisenhower remarked that "every gun that is made is a theft from those who hunger" – a bomber is two power stations and a hospital not built. Likewise, each Tomahawk Cameron drops on Tripoli destroys not just a Gaddafi bunker (are there any left?), but a hospital ward and a classroom in Britain.

As long as "big defence" exists it will entice glory-hungry politicians to use it. It is a return to the hundred years war, when militaristic barons and knights had a stranglehold on the monarch, and no other purpose in life than to fight. To deliver victory they demanded ever more taxes for weapons, and when they had ever more weapons they promised ever grander victories. This is exactly how Britain's defence ministry ran out of budgetary control under Labour.

There is one piece of good news. Nato has long outlived its purpose, now justifying its existence only by how much it induces its members to spend, and how many wars irrelevant to its purpose it finds to fight. Yet still it does not spend enough for the US defence secretary. In his anger, Gates threatened that "future US leaders … may not consider the return on America's investment in Nato worth the cost". Is that a threat or a promise?

I'm probably not as crazy as I usually think I am (after listening to the news about our "change" President particularly), but I would be crazy to vote for an admitted Republican for President. And if you think there is not a building anti-Obama movement on the Left, you haven't been paying attention. Even the writers at Salon know.
Friday, Jun 17, 2011 White House Spokesman and Kos Blogger Have Uncomfortable Chat At the Netroots Nation conference, the base has a go at the administration By Alex PareeneWar Room White House communications director Dan Pfeiffer went to Netroots Nation, the annual liberal activist conference, and as punishment for the administration's crimes against liberalism, he was interviewed by a Kos blogger named "Angry Mouse." Liberals, ladies and gentlemen: They demand to be taken seriously! Of course in a confrontation between a Kos blogger named "Angry Mouse" ("who often reacted to the communications director's answers to questions with an audible sigh or a skeptical, elongated 'OK,' according to The Hill) and a professional liar for the executive branch, I must reluctantly side with the blogger. Especially after this, as recounted by Dave Weigel:

Pfeiffer was only booed (lightly) once. That was when he was asked why Obama had filled out a survey in 1996 stating his approval of gay marriage, but had moved right on the issue as president.

"First of all," said Pfeiffer, "someone else filled out that questionnaire."

That's a very good point. Also Obama had his fingers crossed, and no one said "no backsies."

That was the most egregious example of communications directorese from Pfeiffer, but it did have competition. Angry Mouse (or, OK, Kaili Joy Gray) repeatedly questioned him on what the White House is doing about unemployment, and Pfeiffer was rather unwilling to admit that the answer is "nothing."

"You can expect the president to continue to propose additional initiatives," Pfeiffer said, referring to the nothing that has been proposed and the nothing that will be proposed. (They are apparently not even clear on the fact that the president can make recess appointments to the Fed. Do they want to be reelected?)

Pfeiffer didn't really have to submit to this. The White House desperately wants liberal dollars but I can't imagine they're particularly worried about liberal votes. Democrats are never scared of their base, because liberals are terrified of Republicans:

"We can either work together and finish that work that we started in 2008 or we can be relegated back to the sidelines and see what a Republican president ... does to this country," he said at the event, which was streamed online.

He's right! A Republican president will most likely do what the last three Republican presidents have done: Starve the government of revenue, allow industries to capture regulators, launch pointless and bloody foreign misadventures, and threaten to gut the welfare state. I mean, all of those things might be happening now, with a Democrat, but they would happen so much worse with Mitt Romney, probably! So vote Obama again!

Why the GOP should nominate Barack Obama in 2012 (Michael Lind)

With the possible exception of Jon Huntsman, the Republican presidential field is weak on candidates who could appeal to centrist swing voters, including moderate Republicans. But there is one 2012 prospect who has a proven track record of pursuing policies that owe a great deal to the moderate Republican tradition and who could potentially shake up the race for the GOP presidential nomination: President Barack Obama.

If Obama chose to run for reelection not as a Democrat but as a moderate Republican, he could bring about two healthy transformations in the American political system. The moderate wing of the Republican Party could be restored. And the Democratic presidential nomination might be opened up to politicians from the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party.

JPMorgan to pay $153.6M to settle fraud charges (AP)
AP - JPMorgan Chase & Co. has agreed to pay $153.6 million to settle civil fraud charges that it misled buyers of complex mortgage investments just as the housing market was collapsing.
Reap billions (trillions!), pay back millions! It's the new American Dream! (REAL) craziness comes from the Stark Raving Viking that makes a lot of sense today. He explains why the George H.W. Bush warship is leading our new ground-war charge in Libya and the mystery about from whence the E.coli sickness arose. (And you thought the only scandalous news came from pictures of sexual organs being texted.)
Monday, June 20, 2011

5 Undeclared Wars, Drug Smuggling Corporate Banksters

The largest boat in the arsenal, the George H. W. Bush, named for the CIA drug smuggling scumbag, is sailing with troops for the Ground War, and illegal invasion of Libya.

Uploaded by on Jun 19, 2011

New reports suggest the US is preparing to deploy as many as 30,000 troops to Libya this October in direct contradiction to earlier assurances that there would be no boots on the ground.

TRANSCRIPT AND SOURCES:

This is James Corbett of The Corbett Report with your Sunday Update from the Centre for Research on Globalization at globalresearch.ca. And now for the real news.

New, unconfirmed reports out late last week suggest that the US is preparing to deploy ground forces to Libya this fall in direct contradiction to all public assurances that the conflict was merely a “kinetic military action” and would not involve boots on the ground. The reports, citing military sources at Ft. Hood, indicate that additional Special Forces will be sent to the region in July, with the 1st Calvary Division and three corps to be deployed in the country in October or November. In total, nearly 30,000 troops are said to be preparing for this escalation.

These reports are further bolstered by recently-released video showing what appear to be NATO military advisers directly interfacing with rebel forces on the front lines of the ground conflict.

Now, a legal battle is shaping up on Capitol Hill between the White House and a bipartisan group of Congressman and Senators who are formally challenging the legality of Obama’s use of the military in the region long after the expiry of the sixty-day War Powers Act limit for the President to wage a military operation without congressional approval.

Remarkably, the Obama White House issued a breathtaking defense of its own illegal position last week, continuing to use the argument that the bombardment of the civilian population in Libya does not, in fact, constitute “hostilities” as set out in the War Powers Act.

This denial comes even as fresh reports surfaced last week that Tripoli’s Nasser University was bombed as part of the NATO campaign, with numerous university staff injured and killed. The Centre for Research on Globalization published exclusive photographs of the bombing on globalresearch.ca earlier this week. The photographs were supplied by Mohammed Al-Alam, one of the students at the university, and include graphic photos of the civilian deaths in the bombing.

The United States is not the only administration increasingly under fire for its participation in the NATO campaign. In an article late last week, Professor Michel Chossudovsky of the University of Ottawa details how the Canadian parliament passed a resolution in favour of extending Canada’s participation in the campaign. Despite a recent election sending numerous members of the far left and nominally anti-war New Democrats into the position of the official opposition in parliament, the only person to vote against the resolution was Elizabeth May, the leader of the Green Party.

For more on the preparations for ground war in Libya and their significance, I turned to Professor Chossudovsky, director of the Centre for Research on Globalization.

The corporate media has come under heavy fire from watchdog organizations and international observers who have concluded that reporters are purposefully hiding the extent of the atrocities being committed by the western-backed rebel forces even as dubious reports about Gaddafi’s atrocities, including tales that Libyan soldiers were given Viagra to help fuel rape sessions on the Libyan population, have been reported unquestioningly.

A new team of independent media and observers are heading to the region to report on the extent of the NATO bombardment and civilian casualties that have resulted from the conflict. Joining us last week to talk about the media manipulations of the conflict was Global Research associate Mahdi Nazemroaya.

As escalation in Libya becomes more likely, alternative media voices become more important in providing a counter-balance to officially sanctioned propaganda for the war effort. One of those voices, Pepe Escobar of the Asia Times, talked to The Corbett Report last Thursday about the specter of a ground war and the importance of an independent media in propagating real news about the Libyan operation.

NATO Preparing Ground War in Libya Kucinich, Paul: Obama Breaking the Law Deadly E. Coli Was Engineered?
Wait a minute there, good buddy! Are these the same 30,000 that you've announced are leaving Afghanistan? Cause we know that we don't have any extra troops as we've already signed up all the prisoners and drug users who want to make a deal in the country. ____________________

2 comments:

Cujo359 said...

Leave it to our friends across the big water to break it to the world about our politics (proving that the rest of the world has sobered up from the warlord kool-aid long before the U.S.).

They were drinking it a lot longer, and after waking up from the last bender to find just about every one of their major cities destroyed and their economies in ruins, they apparently decided they've had enough for a while.

War's a lot different when you're the home team.

Suzan said...

And yet they sent troops when we demanded support.

At least most of them are reneging now.

Thanks for commenting!

S