Friday, January 25, 2008


Update see below the Clintons' Campaign and US in Iraq to stay-

NATO seeks first-strike option
Keith Olbermann Iraq War Lies


Johnny Cash -When The Man Comes Around

A study by two nonprofit journalism organizations found that President Bush and top administration officials issued hundreds of false statements about the national security threat from Iraq in the two years following the 2001 terrorist attacks.

The study concluded that the statements "were part of an orchestrated campaign that effectively galvanized public opinion and, in the process, led the nation to war under decidedly false pretenses."

The study was posted Tuesday on the Web site of the Center for Public Integrity, which worked with the Fund for Independence in Journalism.

It is odd and disturbing that the legislators in the United States including Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama are not talking about Impeaching Cheney Bush and the rest of these enemies of Democracy - Cheney and Bush have turned American Democracy on its head - now torture , renditions , massive surveillance and the threat of Martial Law are considered the norm as they play the Fear card .

How far will Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama go in their bid for Presidency in appealing to those on the right . Will the world be no better off with either of these two in power instead of Bush. Will it just be business as usual. Hillary for instance says it will take her as President several years to get troops out of Iraq . She is also willing in every other speech she gives to use 9/11 and the Fear card to claim that she must act within this new reality. Is she afraid to challenge the notion that the United States must have control( hegemony ) over a large part of the world without taking into consideration what the governments or the people of other " Sovereign Nations " want. This is all just part of the American belief in " Manifest Destiny ". Other countries must Kow-Tow to American needs and beliefs or suffer the consequences . So if the People of Pakistan rise up against their American backed dictator Musharraf then America will send more weapons and money to Musharraf to combat the democratic forces at work in Pakistan. Of course the other plan the Americans have is to replace Musharraf with a kinder and gentler dictator who will act on America's behalf - this was the role Bhutto was to play. We should remember e when she was in power she too was corrupt and was running a brutal dictatorship herself. One can easily see why Hillary Clinton approved of Bhutto and considered her a personal friend one as completely corrupt as the other ( sisters in corruption ).


Anyway here's another disturbing story : Yes NATO we are told that in the present " crisis" (?) must have the ability to launch Nuclear Weapons without consulting the U.N. . So we are back to the Cold War years always just about to launch nuclear weapons . But if for instance NATO nukes Iran then their allies may decide to launch. This is really just Bush's shock and awe ratcheted it up a bit. It appears that the fear is that a non-NATO or Non-Western country might be the first to use nuclear weapons . So in order to protect Western Civilization against the " Evil Barbarians " at the gates the West must be the first to strike against all those evil countries who might have nuclear weapons or other Weapons of Mass Destruction or might be developing nuclear weapons or other WMDs because the assumption is that those countries main aim is to try to wipe out Western Civilization .

The problem is that a terrorist group exploding a nuclear weapon on Western soil does not necessarily represent a specific country . So will NATO just drop a nuclear bomb on the country or countries from which these terrorists come. Using this logic the United States or NATO would have been justified in launching a nuclear attack on Saudi Arabia and Afghanistan after 9/11 . Would this have made the world safer. If then any other country which possesses Nuclear Weapons could reasonably assume that they would be justified in using their Nukes against a perceived enemy . For instance what argument could be used to prevent Pakistan or India from attacking one another with Nukes or for that matter Israel could argue it had the right to drop nukes on Lebanon, Palestine or Iran etc. This is a matter of opening Pandora's Box or letting the Genie out of the bottle . Any of these scenarios might draw other nations such as Russia or North Korea or China into at the least a limited nuclear war or an all out nuclear war.

Does that include Israel and Pakistan North Korea India . Even Israel could in the future be taken over by extremists ( though think it already has been taken over by extremists )who might think that they would be justified in dropping a couple of nuclear weapons on Palestine or Lebanon in retaliation to on-going rocket attacks . If this happened Would NATO take action against Israel . The answer is probably not since Israel they tell us can do no wrong while these "Evil " Arab and Muslim Countries are pure evil and can do nothing right.

Pre-Emptive Nuclear Strike a Key Option, NATO Told

By Ian Traynor

22/01/08 "The Guardian" --- - The west must be ready to resort to a pre-emptive nuclear attack to try to halt the “imminent” spread of nuclear and other weapons of mass destruction, according to a radical manifesto for a new Nato by five of the west’s most senior military officers and strategists.

Calling for root-and-branch reform of Nato and a new pact drawing the US, Nato and the European Union together in a “grand strategy” to tackle the challenges of an increasingly brutal world, the former armed forces chiefs from the US, Britain, Germany, France and the Netherlands insist that a “first strike” nuclear option remains an “indispensable instrument” since there is “simply no realistic prospect of a nuclear-free world”.

The five commanders argue that the west’s values and way of life are under threat, but the west is struggling to summon the will to defend them. The key threats are:

· Political fanaticism and religious fundamentalism.

· The “dark side” of globalisation, meaning international terrorism, organised crime and the spread of weapons of mass destruction.

· Climate change and energy security, entailing a contest for resources and potential “environmental” migration on a mass scale.

· The weakening of the nation state as well as of organisations such as the UN, Nato and the EU.

To prevail, the generals call for an overhaul of Nato decision-taking methods, a new “directorate” of US, European and Nato leaders to respond rapidly to crises, and an end to EU “obstruction” of and rivalry with Nato. Among the most radical changes demanded are:

· A shift from consensus decision-taking in Nato bodies to majority voting, meaning faster action through an end to national vetoes.

· The abolition of national caveats in Nato operations of the kind that plague the Afghan campaign.

· No role in decision-taking on Nato operations for alliance members who are not taking part in the operations.

· The use of force without UN security council authorisation when “immediate action is needed to protect large numbers of human beings”.

And here's an article by Paul Craig Roberts at Information Clearing House (ICH):
The “Brutal World”

How did Western Civilization get a monopoly on “moral conscience” when it has no morality?

By Paul Craig Roberts

“The first use of nuclear weapons must remain in the quiver of escalation as the ultimate instrument to prevent the use of weapons of mass destruction.” Five Western military leaders.

23/01/08 "ICH" -- -- I read the statement three times trying to figure out the typo. Then it hit me, the West has now out-Owellled Orwell: The West must nuke other countries in order to prevent the use of weapons of mass destruction! In Westernspeak, the West nuking other countries does not qualify as the use of weapons of mass destruction.

The astounding statement comes from a paper prepared for a Nato summit in April by five top military leaders--an American, a German, a Dutchman, a Frenchman, and a Brit. It can be found here: [,,2244782,00.html ]

The paper, prepared by men regarded as distinguished leaders and not as escapees from insane asylums, argues that “the West’s values and way of life are under threat, but the West is struggling to summon the will to defend them.” The leaders find that the UN is in the way of the West’s will, as is the European Union which is obstructing NATO and “NATO’s credibility is at stake in Afghanistan.”

And that’s a serious matter. If NATO loses its credibility in Afghanistan, Western civilization will collapse just like the Soviet Union. The West just doesn’t realize how weak it is. To strengthen itself, it needs to drop more and larger bombs.

Who, what is threatening the West’s values and way of life? Political fanaticism, religious fundamentalism, and the imminent spread of nuclear weapons, answer the five asylum escapees.

By political fanaticism, do they mean the neoconservatives who believe that the future of humanity depends on the US establishing its hegemony over the world? By religious fundamentalism, do they mean “rapture evangelicals” agitating for armageddon or Christian and Israeli Zionists demanding a nuclear attack on Iran? By spread of nuclear weapons, do they mean Israel’s undeclared and illegal possession of several hundred nuclear weapons?

No. The paranoid military leaders see all the fanaticism, religious and otherwise, and all the threats to humanity as residing outside Western civilization (Israel is inside). The “increasingly brutal world,” of which the leaders warn, is “over there.” Only Muslims are fanatics. All us white guys are rational and sane.

There is nothing brutal about the US/Nato bombing of Serbia, Iraq, and Afghanistan, or the Israeli bombing of Lebanon, or the Israeli ethnic cleansing of the West Bank, or the genocide Israel hopes to commit against Palestinians in Gaza.

All of this, as well as America’s bombing of Somalia, America’s torture dungeons, show trials of “detainees,” and overthrow of elected governments and installation of puppet rulers, is the West’s necessary response to keep the brutal world at bay.

Brutal things happen in the “brutal world” and are entirely the fault of those in the brutal world. None of this would happen if the inhabitants of the brutal world would just do as they are told. How can the civilized world with its monopoly on morality allow people in the brutal world to behave independently? I mean, really! God forbid, they might attack some innocent country.

The “brutal world” consists of those immoral fanatics who object to being marginalized by the West and who reply to mass bombings from the air and to the death and destruction inflicted on them through myriad ways by strapping on a suicide bomb.

Unable to impose its will on countries it has invaded with conventional arms, the West’s military leaders are now prepared to force compliance with the moral world’s will by threatening to nuke those who resist. You see, since the West has the monopoly on morality, truth, and justice, those in the outside world are obviously evil, wicked and brutal. Therefore, as President Bush tells us, it is a simple choice between good and evil, and there’s no better candidate than evil for being nuked. The sooner we can get rid of the brutal world, the sooner we will have “freedom and democracy” everywhere that’s left.

Meanwhile, the United States, the great moral light unto the world, has just prevented the United Nations from censuring Israel, the world’s other great moral light, for cutting off food supplies, medical supplies, and electric power to Gaza. You see, Gaza is in the outside world and is a home of the bad guys. Moreover, the wicked Palestinians there tricked the US when the US allowed them to hold a free election. Instead of electing the US candidate, the wicked voters elected a government that would represent them. The US and Israel overturned the Palestinian election in the West Bank, but those in Gaza clung to the government that they had elected. Now they are going to suffer and die until they elect the government that the US and Israel wants. I mean, how can we expect people in the brutal world to know what’s best for them?
and :

US to Demand Free Reign in Iraq Long After Bush Leaves,Attaturk , Firedoglake, January 25, 2008.

So Iraq is now more democratic than we are?

U.S. to Insist Iraq Grant It Wide Mandate in Operations:

Well, you know what the modern GOP says about the bigger the cushion...the better meme to be pushin'.

With its international mandate in Iraq set to expire in 11 months, the Bush administration will insist that the government in Baghdad give the United States broad authority to conduct combat operations and guarantee civilian contractors specific legal protections from Iraqi law, according to administration and military officials.

This emerging American negotiating position faces a potential buzz saw of opposition from Iraq, with its fragmented Parliament, weak central government and deep sensitivities about being seen as a dependent state, according to these officials.

You know that is ridiculous, but it is the Bush Administration, adding ridiculous to the tragic is its raison d'etre. The contractor immunity is a farce of the first rank and it's kind of impressive in a way that even in their eighth year they still "got it" -- even if no one wants them to "have it".

and so it goes,

No comments: