One last look before they destroy it

Thanks to Kurt Nimmo for finding this.

It's a slide show of Iran with Yusuf Islam's (Cat Steven's) Peace Train as soundtrack.

Israel, the U.S. and the Money-Making Killing Machine

Israel, the U.S. and the money-making killing machine

Yesterday a donor conference announced pledges from 36 countries to donate money to help rebuild Lebanon’s infrastructure after Israel destroyed much of it. Leading the list was the United States and France.

One country was missing from the list. The one that caused the damage: Israel.

So let me get this straight. U.S. tax dollars gave Israel all the weapons to destroy a weak country’s infrastructure and kill thousands of people. Now our tax dollars will be spent to help clean up their mess. Nice racket for Israel.

Of course all these aid pledges represent a time-honored imperial strategy where the donor countries’ money is earmarked to be spent with those countries’ corporations. So U.S. corporations get to make money making the weapons Israel uses to kill Muslims and, yes, Christians in Lebanon and Palestine and then they get to make money reconstructing the destroyed countries.

We TOLD You So!!!

From Rod Dreher, Gen X Right-Winger:

My All Things Considered commentary

... As someone who came of political age under Reagan, I've been a conservative for most of my life... I disdained the Vietnam-era "hippie" mentality with regard to national security. I took it for granted that those people were hung up on Vietnam, and ought not be listened to because they were blame-America-first liberals... I formed my political views on national security in the confident glow of Reaganism. For me, it was a fact of life that Republicans were strong, capable and confident, and Democrats were weak, vacillating and incompetent (Carter's failed hostage rescue mission was the template).

When Bush led us into the Iraq War, I thought the liberals who predicted doom -- and, crucially, the conservatives (like Buchanan) who did as well -- were either fools, cowards or unpatriotic. But now I see that I was the fool. In the NPR piece, I wrote about how I sat there watching Bush's speech and thought that when they get old enough to understand these things, I have got to teach my children never, ever to take the word of presidents or generals at face value. To question authority, because the government will send you off to kill and die for noble-sounding rot (e.g., crusading for democracy in the Middle East). And it hit me that this is precisely the message that so many of those who lived through the Vietnam experience tried to tell my generation -- in my case, and in the case of so many other Gen X Reagan Youth, in vain.

I wonder if my kids will take me seriously in the future when I tell them what happened in this war, and how the Republican administration that their father believed in and voted for twice brought this country to this terrible place, through its mendacity and incompetence. Or will they think me a crank? Will they have to learn for themselves?

I am torn between complimenting the guy for being man enough to admit he was wrong or scolding him for being such a moron to buy into the "confident glow of Reaganism" crap. I guess I'll choose the latter, because Gen X was set up for Reaganism by forces beyond their control.

Learning by experience is hard, though. For those of us who can remember Vietnam it's Deja Vu All Over Again:

Deja Vu (All Over Again)

Did you hear 'em talkin' 'bout it on the radio?
Did you try to read the writing on the wall?
Did that voice inside you say I've heard it all before?
It's like Deja Vu all over again

Day by day I hear the voices rising
Started with a whisper like it did before
Day by day we count the dead and dying
Ship the bodies home while the networks all keep score

Did you hear 'em talkin' 'bout it on the radio?
Could your eyes believe the writing on the wall?
Did that voice inside you say I've heard it all before?
It's like Deja Vu all over again

One by one I see the old ghosts rising
Stumblin' 'cross Big Muddy
Where the light gets dim
Day after day another Momma's crying
She's lost her precious child
To a war that has no end

Did you hear 'em talkin' 'bout it on the radio?
Did you stop to read the writing at The Wall?
Did that voice inside you say
I've seen this all before?
It's like Deja Vu all over again
It's like Deja Vu all over again

John Fogerty
C2004 Cody River Music / ASCAP

"The wintertime is coming, the windows are filled with frost..."

Now the wintertime is coming,
The windows are filled with frost.
I went to tell everybody,
But I could not get across.

Bob Dylan, “It Takes a Lot to Laugh, It Takes a Train to Cry.”
Copyright © 1965; renewed 1993 Special Rider Music

Check out Laura Knight-Jadczyk’s essay on climate change. The short version is that an ice age is coming, it could come FAST, and evidence of this is being supressed or downplayed. Don’t be fooled by the warm weather. The warming trend we’ve been seeing in recent decades is just the prelude for a catastrophic cooling. Has to do with higher precipitation, fresh water melting into the North Atlantic, disturbance of the Gulf Stream, and much more.

The Israel Lobby: Stifling Debate to Refute that they Stifle Debate

James Wolcott has a great post on the attempts by the Israel Lobby (the one that doesn't exist) to silence Jimmy Carter:

I also refuse to divest myself of admiration, respect, and support for Jimmy Carter in his embattled hour following the rabbinical flakeout over Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid. What's particularly craven and crass in the mass resignation letter is the following handwringing passage:

According to Web site monitoring by the Anti-Defamation League, U.S. white supremacists have enthusiastically embraced your suggestion that the Israel lobby stifles debate in this country, saying it confirms Jewish control of government and foreign policy as well as and the inherently "evil" nature of Jews. If you doubt the support you are giving and receiving, please refer to: ADL

From there you can get to the postings of four different White Supremacist organizations that both support and make use of the contents of your book and what you have said in public.

Anyone can link to anything on the web, and anyone who thinks that Jimmy Carter shares sympathies with White Supremacist groups is a liar, a fool, or a tool.

Let me see if I understand this irony: To counter Carter's claim that the Israeli lobby stifles debate in this country, the Anti-Defamation League is going to stifle debate and slime the former president with guilty by association to prove how wrong he is.

The New York Observer's Philip Weiss, who's been a standup guy for Carter (one of the few) throughout this mudslide, writes at MondoWeiss:

The campaign by the U.S. Jewish leadership to smear Jimmy Carter will one day be taught in history books, as an effort by a privileged elite to suppress the truth. Slavery and segregation also had powerful defenders who misrepresented those conditions. Despite all their well-connected efforts, these people will lose for two simple reasons: the facts are against them, and a movement has begun to discover those facts.

Hasten the day.

Charley Reese is one of the rare syndicated columnists who is not afraid to take on the lobby:

Israel's Bad Influence

Scott Ritter, a former U.N. arms inspector in Iraq, has written a book, "Target Iran," in which he accuses the Israeli government and its American lobby of pushing the U.S. into attacking Iran.

Ritter writes, "Let there be no doubt: If there is an American war with Iran, it is a war that was made in Israel." He accuses some members of the lobby of dual loyalty and urges that the American Israel Public Affairs Committee be required to register as a foreign agent.

He also blasts the Israeli lobby for its use of the Holocaust and for crying anti-Semite every time Israel is criticized. "This is a sickening trend that must be ended," he writes.

By coincidence, an Israeli general has verified everything Ritter says. According to an article published in Today.AZ on Jan. 2, Israeli Brig. Gen. Oded Tira published a statement urging an all-out effort by Israel and its lobby to push a U.S. attack on Iran.

"President Bush lacks the political power to attack Iran," the general is quoted as saying. "As an American strike in Iran is essential for our existence, we must help him pave the way by lobbying the Democratic Party (which is conducting itself foolishly) and U.S. newspaper editors. We need to do this in order to turn the Iran issue to a bipartisan one and unrelated to the Iraq failure."

The general urges the Israeli lobby to turn to Hillary Clinton and other potential presidential candidates in the Democratic Party so that they support immediate action by Bush against Iran. The lobby must also approach the Europeans, he adds, so Bush won't find himself isolated, and he calls for Israel to "clandestinely cooperate with Saudi Arabia so that it also persuades the U.S. to strike Iran."

As Ritter says, a U.S. war in Iran will be a war made in Israel.

Of course, Israel's American supporters, most of whom are ignorant of nuclear energy, ignorant of the history of Israel and ignorant of the people in the Middle East, will trot out their usual specious arguments.

But let's lay out the undeniable facts. Israel considers Iran its main threat. Israel wants a U.S. attack against Iran. The Israeli lobby does what the Israeli government tells it to do. Anybody who claims the Israeli lobby is just another lobby is either ignorant or lying. The Israeli lobby is the second most, if not the most, powerful lobby in America.

So, sit back and watch the Israeli amen corner start the propaganda to push America to war with Iran just as it did in the case of Iraq. It will try to have you believe that Iran can make nuclear weapons as easily as baking cakes. The truth is that even if Iran decided to seek nuclear weapons, the Iranians are a good 10 years away from having any. The truth is that Iran, even if it had nuclear weapons, is no threat to the U.S.

All of which reminds me of my favorite undiplomatic comment by a diplomat. Some time ago at a private party in London, the French ambassador said of Israel, "Why does the world put up with such a (expletive) little country causing so much trouble?" Outraged British Zionists demanded his recall, but the French government ignored them.

Sooner or later, Americans are going to wake up to the fact that Israel's influence on the American government is detrimental. If Israel wants a war with Iran, let the Israelis fight it. Of course, seeing how poorly they did against Hezbollah, I suspect that the Israelis, despite their public threats, would not choose to fight the Iranians.
In my opinion, Americans who want American youth to die and bleed for the benefit of a foreign country are guilty of more than dual loyalty.

“There is no right way to do the wrong thing.”

I heard a someone in the Navy call into the NPR show On Point today about the escalation plan in Iraq. After all the “experts” weighed in, he was able to cut through all the nonsense by saying, ““There is no right way to do the wrong thing.”

The example he used was what if, since Bush is unpopular and the United States is struggling, China decided to “liberate” Americans. Because of the language and cultural differences, of course things wouldn’t go well. Then, in Beijing, the conclusions would be, “we didn’t send in enough troops in the beginning.” The caller concluded, “Yes, it would be bad for the U.S. to leave, we would lose face, etc., but sometimes you have to take your medicine.”

But even Bush isn't stupid enough to think an extra 20,000 troops rotated in over the course of months will change much. But, it will do two things, both important to Bush. It will kill a lot of people. He likes that. It will also protect the Green Zone when the war moves to Iran and the supply lines get broken by furious Shiites in southern Iraq, according to Robert Parry:

Indeed, one source familiar with high-level thinking in Washington and Tel Aviv said an unstated reason for Bush's troop "surge" is to bolster the defenses of Baghdad's Green Zone if a possible Israeli attack on Iran prompts an uprising among Iraqi Shiites.

How bad will this get?

Paul Craig Roberts , the former Reagan official, writes that Bush turned his back on the U.S. establishment and has thrown his lot in with the Israeli Neocons. He has crossed the Rubicon. This means that the U.S. will now attack the Shiites in Iraq and/or Iran. This will lead to a slaughter of U.S. forces that will spark calls for revenge by the U.S. public. Revenge on whom, though? Will the U.S. public blame Iran or Israel? This explains the defensiveness of the Israel lobby with respect to Jimmy Carter's book. According to Roberts, the plan by the neocons is to commit genocide against the Arabs, having the U.S. do the dirty work for Israel.

...When word leaked that Bush was inclined toward the "surge option" of committing more troops by keeping existing troops deployed in Iraq after their replacements had arrived, NBC News reported that an administration official "admitted to us today that this surge option is more of a political decision than a military one." It is a clear sign of exasperation with Bush when an administration official admits that Bush is willing to sacrifice American troops and Iraqi civilians in order to protect his own delusions.

The American establishment, concerned by Bush's egregious mismanagement, moved to take control of Iraq policy away from him. However, recent news reports and analysis suggest that Bush has turned his back to the American establishment and his military advisers and is throwing in his lot with the neoconservatives and the Israeli lobby. This will further isolate Bush and make him more vulnerable to impeachment.

...Raed Jarrar (CounterPunch, January 4) suggests that the Shi'ite militias, such as the one led by Al-Sadr, are the intended targets of the "surge option." There seems no surer way to escalate the conflict in Iraq than to attack the Shi'ite militias. For longer than the US fought Germany in WW II, 150,000 US troops in Iraq have been thwarted by a small insurgency drawn from Iraq's minority population of Sunnis. It hardly seems feasible that 30,000 additional US troops, demoralized by extended deployment, can succeed in a surge against the Shi'ite militias when 150,000 US troops cannot succeed against the minority Sunnis.

The reason the US has not been driven out of Iraq is that the majority Shi'ites have not been part of the insurgency. The Shi'ites are attacking the Sunnis, who are forced to fight a two-front war against US troops and Shi'ite militias and death squads.The US owes its presence in Iraq, just as the colonial powers always owed their presence in the Middle East, to the disunity of Arabs. Western domination of the Muslim world succeeded by not picking a fight with all of the disunited Arabs at the same time.

Attacking the Shi'ite militias while fighting a Sunni insurgency would violate this rule. If Bush ignores US military commanders and expert opinion and accepts the surge option advanced by the delusional neocon allies of Israel's right-wing Likud Party, US troops will be engulfed in general insurgency. This is why General John Abizaid resigned on January 5. He wants no part of the Republican Party's sacrifice of US soldiers to sectarian conflict.

...Bush is like Hitler. He blames defeats on his military commanders, not on his own insane policy. Like Hitler, he protects himself from reality with delusion. In his last hours, Hitler was ordering non-existent German armies to drive the Russians from Berlin.

By manipulating Bush and provoking a military crisis in which the US stands to lose its army in Iraq, the neoconservatives hope to revive the implementation of their plan for US conquest of the Middle East. They believe they can use fear, "honor," and the aversion of macho Americans to ignoble defeat to expand the conflict in response to military disaster. The neocons believe that the loss of an American army would be met with the electorate's demand for revenge. The barriers to the draft would fall, as would the barriers to the use of nuclear weapons.

Neocon godfather Norman Podhoretz set out the plan for Middle East conquest several years ago in Commentary Magazine. It is a plan for Muslim genocide. In place of physical extermination of Muslims, Podhoretz advocates their cultural destruction by deracination. Islam is to be torn out by the roots and reduced to a purely formal shell devoid of any real beliefs.

Podhoretz disguises the neoconservative attack against diversity with contrived arguments, but its real purpose is to use the US military to subdue Arabs and to create space for Israel to expand.

Not enough Americans are aware that this is what the "war on terror" is all about.

This is unprecedented. White House sources leaked that Bush insisted on the escalation option against the unanimous opposition of the Joint Chiefs of Staff! Then General Abizaid resigns.

Here is Xymphora:

If the full Baker plan is followed, it is the death of Israeli colonialism, and the end of Wurmser’s Zionist Plan for the Middle East. The surge – a completely ridiculous, completely Vietnam-esque, plan of doing more of the same thing which has caused all the problems in the first place – is intended to slow up American withdrawal until it has been ensured that Iraq will have to break up (if American troops withdraw now, the danger is that Iraq will stay intact under Iraqi control, or – shudder – under radical Iranian control). The surge is presented as a workable alternative to the Baker plan, and is intended to replace the other dangerous Baker ideas, including settling the Palestinian problem and making nice with Syria and Iran, all in a last-ditch effort to protect the interests of the American Establishment in the Middle East. The stakes are thus extremely high – the death of the American Empire versus the death of the dream of an Israeli Empire. If Bush opts for a surge, it will prove that the American Establishment is so weak and decadent that it no longer deserves its empire.

Two powers, the United States and Israel with deadly weapons and ruthless spies, in a fight to the death. This does not bode well.

Mutinies in the field, coups in the capitol, detention of top administration officials, even civil war. It doesn't sound so far-fetched any more.