Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Kerry Backs Up Iran's N. Rights
TEHRAN (Fars News Agency)- Former US presidential nominee John Kerry voiced full support for the Islamic Republic's right to use civilian nuclear technology on the basis of the rules and regulations of the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NTP).
Addressing a world Economic Forum meeting in Davos Switzerland on Saturday, Kerry also strongly rejected West's demanded prerequisites for the resumption of nuclear talks with Iran.
Kerry, whose remarks followed a speech by Iran's former President Seyed Mohammad Khatami, stated his support for Khatami's views, and said Americans find out - only when they are outside their country - that the world is different from what they imagine.
"We should give up pessimism and pick up a realistic view," he said, and further stressed the need for the US to change its policies towards the world countries and issues.
The US politician also approved of Khatami's views about increased tension and violence in the world, and concluded, "As Mr. Khatami said, violence increased in the region after the occupation of Afghanistan, Iraq and Bin Ladenism."
Earlier in the same meeting, former Iranian President Seyed Mohammad Khatami said that violence and terror have roots outside Iraq, and stressed that anyone willing to help to the settlement of the Middle-East problem should first prove his impartiality.
Noting the undesirable equations formed in the Middle-East, Khatami said, "If we intend to establish security in the world, then we should form an equation which serves democracy, stability and development."
Describing the world's indifference in the face of the Palestinian crisis as a catastrophe, he asked, "Why should the existence of a nation be ignored and why shouldn't a legal government like Hamas which has ascended to power through democratic elections be recognized?"
"Respecting people's votes and views, repatriation of the refugees and restoration of public rights set the only solution to the Middle-East crisis," the former Iranian president added.
He said anyone willing to help to the settlement of the ongoing crisis in the Middle-East should substantiate his impartiality. "And any plan for the region must be based on justice, partnership of all regional and Muslim states and restoration of the Palestinians' rights."
Referring to Iraq, he said that the present catastrophe in that country is the result of violence and terror which has foreign roots, and stated that the religious conflicts in Iraq are a phenomenon created by foreign elements.
"The United States is still dreaming of conquering Iraq," Khatami said, mentioning that the United States' attitude and the US administration's dismissal of the Baker-Hamilton report show that Washington has not yet comprehended the realities dominating Iraq.
Khatami further voiced Iran's strong support for an integrated Iraqi government, and called on all relevant parties to provide extensive and all-out assistance for the Iraqi government in soothing tensions, establishing security and reconstructing the country's economy.
Noting Iran-US relations, he said that the two countries are suffering from the wide gap of distrust, adding that the resumption of relations requires mutual understanding.
"It is not possible to resume relations while Iran shows flexibility and the counterparty pursues a policy of regime change in a country which enjoys the most democratic political system in the region," Khatami noted.
Also criticizing Washington's policies on Iran, he reminded, "Building confidence and provoking Arabs against Iran are contradictory measures."
http://english.farsnews.com/newstext.php?nn=8511080271
IMF gold trading rule changes set to boost the gold price
The International Monetary Fund is in the process of revising the laws that govern the trading of gold by the world's central banks which will radically change the ability of central bankers to suppress the gold price, a major factor depressing the price of the yellow metal that has been an open secret for years.
Sunday, January 28 - 2007 at 10:05
This sort of systemic market reform will likely have a huge impact on the gold market. It is like the 'Big Bang' changes to world stock markets that started in the 1980s and led to an explosion in equity ownership and higher price-to-earnings ratios.
That gold prices have been artificially depressed for decades is not hard to establish. Consider the nominal peak oil price last year of $78-a-barrel, twice the previous nominal peak value reached in 1980. Gold by comparison hit $725 an ounce last year, yet is still below its nominal peak value in 1980.
What has been happening is that central bankers have been swapping and loaning gold in the gold market to keep the price down to produce another false indication that inflation is under control.
Some analysts allege that they have actually now lent considerably more gold than they have in their vaults, so the world's gold's reserves are smaller than reported; and the lack of gold audits from central banks just adds to this suspicion.
IMF review
The IMF has been reviewing all aspects of the gold trade by central banks for the fifth edition of its Balance of Payments Manual which includes the regulations governing gold swaps and loans. IMF officials told ResourceInvestor.com that a draft edition will be posted for worldwide comment within two months.
It remains to be seen whether the central banks now manage to sabotage this attempt to control their alleged gold market manipulation. But the very publication of the draft rules, which have clearly been endorsed internally by the IMF, throws down a major challenge to the banks.
For gold traders, and even the general public, the suppression of the gold market is pretty obvious. Market news that should move the gold price up is often anticipated by the central banks which appear to shuffle a few transactions between themselves to send the price in the opposite direction.
Gold cartel to fall?
But such is the growing size and interest in the gold market that participants are increasingly ganging up in protest at such blatant manipulation that would not be tolerated in any other financial market. It looks as though the IMF has decided that enough is enough and decided to call it a day.
The ending of any price suppression or cartel in a market is usually a bullish signal. What would the gold price be in a free market without the central banks swapping and loaning gold amongst themselves?
Well, it does not take much imagination to see that a rebalancing of gold's position relative to other assets and currencies would follow. That the IMF has now put the gold market out for open discussion is clearly the first step towards a new era for the yellow metal.
How long that era will take to arrive is still a matter of conjecture. But the idea of stocking up on gold while prices are still low has intrinsic appeal; or buy silver or other precious metals which would also rise alongside the gold price, perhaps even higher.
http://www.ameinfo.com/108894.html
Shermann
Fake Terror: Jose Padilla, not so dirty after all - Updated
It is interesting how every now and then, the unwitting masses are blasted by a media wave of fearmongering, with announcements of impending doom and terror being made to remind us of our mortality, just to have that same media quietly admit that there was nothing to justify the hysteria.
It happened this summer with the liquid explosions scare that resulted in ridiculous anti-juice security measures in airports. And more recently with the warnings of a holiday terror surprise based on pure speculation.
So it is not surprising that one of the older apparitions of the terror threat to civilisation, the dirty bomber, is turning out to be squeaky clean compared to the monster he was initially presented as.
As always, at the time of the scare, the media hypes the threat and stokes fear and hysteria, in order to leave a lasting impression in the group mind. The impression is that there is a real enemy, 'Islamic terror', and thus the need to support the 'War on Terror' abroad and to give up freedom for security at home. What the media then does is downplay the revelations that the hysteria was based on official lies, biased reporting, and fearmongering speculation, but by then the damage is done, the propaganda goals achieved, and most will be none the wiser.
So what do we now know about Jose Padilla, the man who allegedly wanted to blow up a radiation dispersing bomb on American soil?
Blogger Umar Lee puts it down concisely in his piece ’Our Brother Jose Padilla’:
The New York Times ran a piece on this brother [Padilla] yesterday and it basically outlined how the government lied on this man, scared the public into thinking he was a dirty bomber, held him for 3 years in an unknown location doing Allah [God] knows what to him without any legal represenation, and in general treated him like any right-wing junta treats its political prisoners.
After all that ordeal, and the possibility that this has caused Jose to go crazy, the government now brings an indictment alleging this broke brother who worked at Taco Bell was part of a financial support network for “global jihad” ( a term the US invented so I doubt he was part of it) and sought to help Muslims in Chechnya, Bosnia, and Albania... and thats it. No dirty bomb, no terror plots, only the desire to defend Muslims who were being slaughtered and oppressed. Is that terror?
The New York Times reported:
His criminal trial, scheduled to begin late this month, will feature none of the initial claims about violent plotting with Al Qaeda that the government cited as justification for detaining Mr. Padilla without formal charges for three and a half years...
... effectively demoting him from Al Qaeda’s dirty bomber to foot soldier in a somewhat nebulous conspiracy.
The question is: a conspiracy to do what? Who is the conspiracy theorist here? The government that jails people for the crime of intending to do something there's no evidence they intended to do? Or those who point out that maybe there's another reason for the arrest, solitary confinement, sensory deprivation, and abuse of Jose Padilla as an 'enemy combatant' who happens to not have engaged in any combat?
But wait! The government HAS evidence. Conversations recorded show chatter about holidays to Busch Gardens. Surely Padilla and his co-conspirators were plotting something when they said:
“We take the whole family and have a blast,” Mr. Hassoun said. “We go to, uh, our Busch Gardens, you know ... You won’t regret it. Money-back guarantee.”
Mr. Padilla, laughing, suggested that they not discuss the matter over the phone.
“Why?” Mr. Hassoun said. “We’re going to Busch Gardens. What’s the big deal!”
Two guys talking about having a blast (oh, the wicked connotations!) with their families on a family trip to Busch Gardens. Surely this is all code for plotting terror!
Frankly, Padilla's prosecutors have nothing against the man, and the recorded conversations prove nothing against him other than that he, like most Muslims, supports Muslim causes in other countries. This is twisted into support of 'global jihad', while at the same time, the Times reports that "Mr. Padilla does not discuss violent plots" in any of the recordings. So once again, why is the man in prison?
I already answered my rhetorical question at the introduction to this blog. The only reason I can see for the hype of the 'dirty bomber' is to instill fear in the masses, demonise the designated enemy, and to pull a victory in the war on terror out of a magician's hat. Umar Lee also points out other reasons for parading Padilla as the boogey-man-enemy-combatant:
It is quite clear from this case that the goverment wanted to set an example; to show that they could take someone off the street and put them in jail and deny them of all of their rights and the legal process. Who better to do this than a Puerto Rican ex Latin King from a poor family. How much sypmathy was a spic raghead gonna get from mainstream America, they figured, and they were right as most of America remained silent.
An example indeed! An American, on American soil, and this can happen to him!? Watch out, citizen, the US is potentially one large Camp X-ray, and any dissidents are potentially 'enemy combatants'.
Before I conclude, I want to ask some questions noone seems to be asking. Jose Padilla was arrested in May 2002 as a suspected 'dirty bomber', and after 3 years without being charged, all allegations against him have been dropped, except for the charge that he intended to 'provide material support to terrorists' in the 1990s. And the only evidence against him is some recorded phone conversations. From the 1990s. Yet he was arrested in 2002, after the 1990s passed, after his 'suspicious' conversations from 1997 about going on holiday, after he did nothing that can be linked to those conversations.
And why were the conversations of Jose Padilla and Adham Hassoun being recorded as early as 1997? Way before 9/11 and the subsequent 'War on Terror'? Could it be because Mr Hassoun was 'an outspoken Palestinian', and thus was already being monitored by the intelligence services?
The official claim is that Hassoun and others were being spied on because they had phone calls to or from Sheikh Omar Abdel Rahman's phone line, itself tapped as the blind Sheikh was being convicted/framed for involvement in the 1993 WTC bombings and a 1995 plot to blow up buildings in New York.
But that frame-up, which spawned other 'terrorists' such as Hassoun (for conversing with framed 'terrorist' Abdel Rahman) and Padilla (for conversing with someone who conversed with framed 'terrorist' Abdel Rahman), is a case in the exposure of fake terror for another day.
-----------------------
UPDATE: (7/Jan/2007)
-----------------------
In today's New York Times, in an opinion piece titled The Imperial Presidency 2.0, we find the following on juggling accusations to keep the 'dirty bomb' alive:
Your point is well taken - The only explanation I can think of is that some investors are not in their right mind.
Greed and Panic.
Shermann
I know a couple of investors who have been picking up anything people will sell at the bid. They feel BIGN is getting ready to go, and is at a bottom.
Could be them.
Shermann
I have no idea why this has anything to do with Christianity other than taking the lords name in vain.
It just shows that he has sworn to protect and uphold the constitution of the US, and has no intention to do so.
Shermann
Pictures from Iran - What are we about to destroy???
http://www.lucasgray.com/video/peacetrain.html
Shermann
Ron Paul - America's Last Chance
By Ted Lang
Exclusive to Rense.com
1-26-7
I met Congressman Ron Paul at a speaking engagement presented by the Foundation for Economic Education in Irvington, New York, in December 2003. FEE is a libertarian think tank, and as Dr. Paul's best credentials are those identifying him as a true libertarian, meaning a "classical liberal" of the anti-Federalist genre of libertarians that helped found this country, true liberals such as Thomas Jefferson, Patrick Henry and Samuel Adams, his qualifications to lead US out of the slimy quagmire we now find ourselves in represents a blast of fresh air. Thanks to our corrupt system of government and its politics, he is just the kind of leader that can put America back on track.
At that engagement, several members of the small audience of only about 200 to 250, queried Dr. Paul as to his intentions regarding the 2004 presidential race. In fact, members of the audience that addressed Dr. Paul on that issue did more than merely inquire. They begged him to run! As a Republican all my life, I realized Bush was a traitor and a double-crosser even back then. Bush's actions in conniving with Mexico and Canada to create a North American Union thereby serving to erase American sovereignty and the protections we have via our Constitution, do indeed reflect Bush's contempt for that "godammed piece of paper," his contempt for his oath of office, his contempt for the American people, and his contempt for our national sovereignty.
When still a Republican, I naively hoped that Bush would clean up the mess created by Clinton, the latter actually collaborating with Bush I by setting in motion the means to flush America down the toilet to make way for the New World Order. I celebrated his "election" in hopes that he was sincere in putting America back on track. I am now convinced that the international bankers fixed BOTH elections. I am convinced that the same bankers were behind 9/11, and engineered that act to permit the complete execution of the unjust and unnecessary invasion and destruction of Iraq. And undoubtedly, Bush received his "marching orders" through Dick Cheney. Their plan is to use nuclear weapons against Iran to promote the international terror that the rogue terrorist government of Israel is so dependent upon to further its imperial incursions in the Middle East to control all its oil. This will enable Israel as the "Merchant of Menace."
Clearly, Dr. Paul's "announcement" was, therefore, regarded by me with great caution. And there are several reasons for this, let alone the primary one, that left me doubtful as to the veracity of this much-needed glimmer of hope. I had neither heard nor read any statement directly attributable to his intention to run for president from Dr. Paul himself. And considering his reluctance in 2003, a time when we really needed a better choice than between two Skull and Bones satanic cultists, it seemed to me that Congressman Paul would have presented a very viable alternative. But Dr. Paul wasn't interested then, so why now?
If one really needs that question answered, it is clear that such an individual is hopelessly out of touch with reality. And if one believes there is actually a chance for Dr. Paul to win the White House, I've got the answer: fahgeettaboutit! But nevertheless, a Ron Paul candidacy is indeed the very last hope America has. It isAmerica's last hope in that by its very nature alone it offers something entirely new in the old world of Machiavellian connivance and back room-back door big money Zionist-controlled politics. Those who would deny big money Zionist politics, abetted and supported by the big mainstream Zionist media, and rich and influential Zionist Hollywood, are those that are fooled by every election campaign in America designed to give voters the false hope of influencing and participating in our government.
Our government runs on money, and big money at that. Alex Jones' PrisonPlanet.com ran a George Carlin "comedy" video segment that originated on YouTubeentitled, "Owners of this Country." As usual, Carlin tells it like it is: "I'm talking about the real owners [of America] now, the big wealthy business interests that control things and make all the important decisions. Forget the politicians they are irrelevant! The politicians are put there to give you the idea that you have freedom of choice. You don't! You have no choice!"
Now compare Carlin's totally correct assessment with that of one of America's truly great industrialists and humanitarians, a man who needed no "union pressure" to pay his workers higher wages than obtainable by the best unionized shops anywhere. This philanthropist and leading industrialist was hated by Marxists, socialists, and communists, and therefore, the Zionists as well. In his Zionist-451 banned book written in 1921, The International Jew, Henry Ford wrote: "As always election campaigns are staged as entertainment, a diversion for the people; they are permitted to think and act as if they are really making their own government, but it is always the [Zionists] that win. And if after having elected their man or group, obedience is not rendered to [Zionist] control, then you speedily hear of 'scandals' and 'investigations' and 'impeachments' for the removal of the disobedient." This explains why there will be no Bush impeachment or any corrective action on the part of the Democratic Congress against Bush. He serves the Zionist Agenda!
Carlin again: "You have no choice! You have owners! They own you! They own everything! They own all the important land, they own and control the corporations, they've long since bought and paid for the Senate, the Congress, the statehouses and city halls, they got the judges in their back pockets, and they own all the big media companies so they control just about all of the news and information you get to hear. They've got you by the balls!"
Sound familiar? How long have I been preaching to this choir as concerns the Zionist media? How long have others on this website and Alex Jones' been telling you this? And although Carlin doesn't specifically hit on the "who" of big business, thereby opening himself up to attack by right-wing broadcast babblers and fascists who will smear him as a "lefty," or a "liberal," or even a "commie," isn't it really clear as to whom he is really attacking? Not sure?
Here's more from George: "They spend billions of dollars every year lobbying, lobbying to get what they want. Well, we know what they want! They want more for themselves and less for everybody else. But I'll tell you what they don't want. They don't want a population of citizens capable of critical thinking. They don't want well-informed, well-educated people capable of critical thinking." Again adding to this observation, albeit preceding Carlin's remarks by 86 years, Ford offers: "Usually a man with a 'past' proves the most obedient instrument, but even a good man can often be tangled up in campaign practices that compromise him. It has been commonly known the [Zionist] manipulation of American of American election campaigns have been skillfully handled, that no matter which candidate was elected, there was ready made a sufficient amount of evidence to discredit him in case his [Zionist] masters needed to discredit him. To arrange this is part of the thoroughness of Zionist control. And, of course, the American people have been sufficiently trained to roar against the public official immediately [when] the first [Zionist] hound emits its warning bay."
Ford concludes: "Amazing as is the technique of the [Zionist] political process, the readiness with which the American people can be counted on to do their part in forwarding the game is still more amazing." "Still more amazing"? And this having been written in 1921? No wonder the Zionists have smeared the greatest American industrialist in the history of this nation. No wonder they have smeared one of this country's greatest humanitarians. He rendered their union agitation, used so successfully to bring down the Christian and anti-Zionist monarchy of Tsar Nicholas II, and made it virtually useless here in America. Union strikes and Communist-Bolshevik labor "unrest" brought down the Tsar of Russia, a monarchy that came to the aid of Abraham Lincoln to protect America from the Zionist bankers. The Zionists never forget, and they never forgive!
Proof of Zionist power in American politics abounds. Allegations have been made tying together the assassinations of Lincoln, McKinley, and JFK, as well as the attempted assassination of Andy Jackson, because of their resistance to the Zionist bankers, their agenda, and their network. Why would Dr. Ron Paul want to get in the middle of all this, and especially why now? Of course, looking through the tiny window of American politics, only a narrow and limited view of the current political landscape of America is visible. So what is so different today, and what will be different in 2008 changing the political climate for the great Congressman in the 2008 campaign? The Internet is squeezing the Zionist news network, and the landslide Democratic congressional election victory is squeezing both AIPAC and the Democrats.
In the very restricted and limited sense of no-sense American politics, Bush [or Kerry} was the Zionists' choice because of their undying allegiance to Zionist Israel. And we know for a fact that BOTH political parties, as well as BOTH sides of the aisle in BOTH chambers of Congress are controlled by the most powerful lobby in the world. This was irrevocably proven when the House of Representatives voted 407 to 9 resolving Israel's "right" to annex a large portion of Palestinian territory in 2004, and condoning the illegal attack and mass murder of Christians in Lebanon by a vote of 410 to 8 in 2006. It is the upper echelons of the Zionist Network, through their powerful lobby, AIPAC, that controls all politics and therefore all actions of government in America.
Therefore, in spite of Congressman Ron Paul being on the roster of the Republican Party, in reality, the GOP doesn't recognize him as one of their own. It matters not that the voters overwhelmingly continue to elect him, and that he receives, in all probability, more financial support from voters not only outside his own district, but from Americans outside of his home state of Texas as well. Yet, the GOP, in redistricting maneuvers and other methods of political slight-of-hand, continues to marginalize him, ostracize him, and the members of Congress totally ignore him. His greatest weapons are truth, honesty, love of country, and his allegiance to the United States Constitution, that "godammed piece of paper" Bush and obviously the Congress so hate, loathe and despise. Think of the words of Carlin!
It is my assessment, that Paul, just as was the case with the Greatest American, General and President George Washington, doesn't really want to serve. Yet the reluctant Washington remains our greatest American president for both the sacrifices he made for this country in war, and the dedicated service and moral leadership he provided as president. Digressing for a moment, my number one runner-up would undoubtedly be John Fitzgerald Kennedy, considering how he attempted to stand up to our deadly, corrupt system. His sexual life would be his only moral liability. But the risk of physical harm should be carefully weighed by Dr. Paul, considering the proclivity to violence displayed by our shadow government.
Dr. Paul's interview, also recorded on Alex Jones' PrisonPlanet.com, quoted the Congressman in terms of his observation regarding the recent landslide elections. The elections' unfavorable to the GOP outcome, along with the worse-than-horrible GOP choices for president identifiable as madman warmongers and fascists, assures that the GOP will lose the next presidential election. Consider the "firecracker fascist," Rudy "Kazootie" Giuliani he saved New York City from guns and firecrackers. And then we have "Madman" McCain, another shiny jackboot and mass-murdering wannabe.
With three quarters of our population and our fighting military against the war in Iraq, and 87 percent of those polled by MSNBC wanting Bush impeached, the White House Moron will indeed engineer a "Gulf of Tonkin" incident to launch an attack on Iran, right on schedule with the Zionist Agenda Bush is required to follow. And as both Ford and Carlin pointed out, it is unimportant as to whether the Democrats or the Republicans win. In this country, as in all wars, there is always just one winner: the Zionist House of Rothschild-Rockefeller.
Dr. Ron Paul is out of the loop of our narrow and extremely corrupt bought-and-paid for political system. He cannot win, as was already pointed out on this website by others. But he is easily capable of a very, very big win as regards his responding to and representing the will of the majority of the American people. His campaign function will be that of rallying the people and informing them. We are all in the Zionist banking and corporate sandbox, including Dr. Paul. We need to think OUTSIDE the box we need to think and rally outside THEIR sandbox. America is more than ready for a populist movement. America is more than ready for a grassroots overthrow of the Democrat-Republican political machine entrenched in Washington, a machine controlled totally by AIPAC as well as a myriad of powerful, influential Zionist organizations of "the Network."
No American has been elected to the White House in about 30 years, a figure George Carlin offers as well. It's not only time to take America back, but to throw the bums out, investigate them, and then hang 'em high, when, not if, they are found guilty! Just as he is marginalized by the GOP and the entire Congress, we should help isolate him even further and ignore our corrupt, criminal government and support him financially and also in terms of our time and talent. We can all work together to organize a grass roots movement throughout this country to get the truth out and to expose our morally bankrupt, criminal and corrupt politicians who have sold US out!
© THEODORE E. LANG 1/2507 All rights reserved
Ted Lang is a political analyst and freelance writer.
The Democratic Party
Is Not A Church
"Ynet (Israel) http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/ 0,7340,L-3355786,00.html Israeli billionaire and media mogul Haim Saban is at the top of the list of donors to political campaigns in the US. Fox Network revealed over the weekend that Saban has donated approximately US $13 million to various candidates. According to the report, Saban, a close friend of the Clintons, is one of the major donors to the Democratic Party, though he has also contributed to Republican candidates, including President George Bush and Governor of California Arnold Schwarzenegger."
Democratic Party is NOT a top-down from-God church; Hillary Clinton is not the Virgin Mary and AIPAC are not "the Jews" deserving your tolerance and respect -- on the contrary AIPAC is nothing more than corrupting and enslaving blood money from racist war-profiteering billionaires like Rupert Murdoch who have used up the neocon-hijacked Republican Party elephant and now want a fresh mount -- the starved-for-cash jackasses -- to carry on their crusade for new and expanded genocidal wars and for ever more intrusive and intimidating police-state power to ensure their continued control and exploitation of the American people. But I'm counting on it that the party is not predestined to be "dumb-ass" in 2008.
By Dick Eastman
1-27-7
The concept is worth repeating. The Democratic Party is not some church whose political positions and leadership come from on high. Hillary Clinton is not the divinely appointed immaculate virgin commanding unquestioning adoration and elevation. And AIPAC are not "the Jews," AIPAC is not Judaism, and AIPAC is not well-meaning people seeking peace and security for all in the Middle East. These three points all must be taken into account as true Democrats ask themselves if where the party is now headed is really right.
AIPAC is not deserving of your respect or even your toleration or courtesy in its diabolically clever grab for control of your party. AIPAC is the money power behind the foreign policy and war policy and "anti-terrorist police state" policies that you have associated with George W. Bush and Dick Cheney and Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz. The bought and subverted the leadership of the Republicans starting when they took over Reagan's administration and turned it into a neo-con Wall-Street globalism party and they have controlled it ever since -- until now, when the Republican party is the disgrace of the world and facing revolt in the minds of all thinking people. And so AIPAC turns to your party (which their money has also been quietly controlling at the top for some time too) like a pony express rider looking for a fresh mount.
Let me ask a few questions of you fearlessly loyal "my-party-right-or-wrong" Democrats. Do like what you hear about "the liberals" and the "goodness and rightness" of Bush war and police-state policies from multi-billioniare media-monopolist Ruppert Murdoch's radio mouthpieces like Michael Savage (né Michael Wiener) and Sean Hannity? What would you do if Murdoch and AIPAC took over your party and with their money put Sean Hannity up to win the Democratic nomination for '08? Would you still be loyal, would you still say "my party right or wrong"? Now think about this. Ruppert Murdoch and AIPAC are both solidly behind Hillary Clinton for President in 2008 like they have been behind Bush and Cheney in 2000 and 2004. So here is another question -- do multi-billionaires put up backing for people who think independently? Does Ruppert Murdoch have any Fox commentators that do not preach his views? Do you think he would ever exert his money and influence to advance people who really and truly "have concern for people issues" that might conflict with his own interests or does he insterad advance politicians who only say they have these concerns but who really will serve his interests and his whims of the billionaire? Murdoch is not abetting the elevation Hillary Clinton to the presidency because she is a strong woman who will take care of the littel people or because "only Hillary is electable" -- but because Hillary Clinton is a political whore -- specifically Ruppert Murdoch's political whore, AIPAC's political whore -- yes, an intimidating dominatrix to many Democrats under her shadow who contemplate her "inevitable" supreme position and the mysterious and devilishly invincible power now behind her-- but still a pro-war, pro-globalization, pro-Israel-lobby(boss-pimp AIPAC)- sell-out whore -- and has been all of her political career.
True democrat Democrats know they are in trouble. They see this blood-money covenent that the DNC has made with Ruppert the Serpent and the rest of AIPAC and they tell themselves that this is necessary if the party wants to win in the next general election. Clearly the Democrats have forgotten who they are and what they stand for.
Meanwhile others in the party, the vast majority struggling full-time to make ends meet for their families -- these people, not looking closely and merely trusting the party on its former reputation -- these good people are bedazzled and hoodwinked by all the sophisticated political tricks used by the political operatives that AIPAC billionaires etc. hire. For example, a whole flock of bland positionless pointless nonentities announce their candidacies -- where did these nobodies get the money to start a presidential bid??? -- obviously these phonies are all props to glorify our Blessed Immaculate Virgin -- they are merely a clown show of obvious losers in the race to give you, early on, the impression that "Hillary Clinton leads the pack" -- when the fact is that no real candidate who is really anti-war, anti-globalization and anti-AIPAC domination has been allowed to emerge -- and that is because of another trick -- by a trickster named Dennis Kucinich -- who is chosen by AIPAC's agents in the party to get in front of the anti-war movement (again!!!) and keep it under his control (again!) seeing that it amounts to nothing (again!) while absorbing all the volunteer work and contributions of anit-war people (again!) -- so that Hillary Clinton (last time it was John Kerry) will not have to face what she dreds most, viz., a real candidate who has taken off the gloves, is telling the people the facts they have been kept from hearing, and is not folding up and blowing away in response to any of the usual party fixer's dirty tricks.
Perhaps it is outdated "religion" not to make deals with serpents. Perhaps genuflecting to Our Lady of the Foregone Assumption is all that is left if you want to get along in this world that already belongs to the Ruppert Murdoch and everything that is behind AIPAC. But I always throught that a political party in a free country serves the true interests of the people in the party. I always considered that when Wall Street came in and hijacked the leadership of a party of the people that it was a bad thing. I always thought that while a party needs money to operate, that a party of the people should be supported by the people, by those who think enough of the principles of the party to fish into their pockets and support it -- and that the worse things are the more they would be willing to make sacrifices in their personal lives to give that support -- and that they would not make pacts with the devil who will realize his choice for president with black-op magic.
One famous quote of Hillary Rodam Clinton is that you can't make money in law, unless you work for the banks. She was not talking about your local credit union. We all remember -- it was not just propaganda hatched from Hillary Clinton critic Barbara Olsen who was killed on Flight 77 on Sept. 11 -- how Hillary made a million-to-one killing in her first dabble in the commodities market after she had done work for some New York firms. It is not considered polite for loyal Democrats to bring that up -- but maybe it is time for that to break some norms in the party when they become too constraining.
Keep this in mind: Hillary Clinton is not the leading candidate in the Democratic Party -- that is a lie of the Murdoch etc. monopoly media -- the fact is she has no real opponent in the party contest yet -- other than a flock of bogus "easy" opponents who have appeared to make it look like Hillary is "way-out-ahead." Kucinich is not real. Edwards sold his soul for party position after they clipped his wings over his scream back in 2004. That was the year AIPAC wanted Kerry and wanted Kucinich to lose which he gladly did, refusing even to contest an obviously fixed election. I have received over a dozen letters from people who worked with Kucinich who concluded that Kucinich was not in the race to win, that Kucinich was merely going through motions to look like a campaign was being conducted -- the volunteers around the country were misdirected and often remained idle for want of leadership of any kind.
But what about all those attractive issues that HRC is for -- those special issues that mean so much to some of us? Let me tell you how that works. The Clintons, as you will remember, believe in super scientific polling and high-speed computer analysis -- remember the cray computers in the Clinton White House put there for this purpose and this purpose only -- which test different issues on different groups to find the "words" that will win popularity -- a super high-tech "thumb" that the Clinton's always had up in the air -- and so they always played your song -- they have put together a package to win the votes of people who vote the "issues not the man" -- pork and patronage and a song addressed to diffferent blocks of people really hurting promising to address their needs. But the plutocracy are the only one's he served -- as one Clinton staffer said "the President keeps all the promises he intended to keep" -- Bush played to the anti-abortion people in the same way, remember, and to the "middle-class" but his administration for eight years served neither one of those two groups of suckers, did it? Hillary Clinton is exactly the same. Kucinich too and the other candidates have been given issues that will just accomplish what they need to accomplish as candidates assigned to attract supporters and money but then to self-sabotage at the right moment.
The real democratic Democrats know that AIPAC represents the war profiteers and the twisted "Zionism" of the Ruppert Murdoch sociopathic billionaire types (yes, including the Zionist merchant bankers of London and Wall Street who lend the money for these wars and who, as genuine racists (Arab-hating Jewish supremacists -- I am talking about the billionaire bankers and media moguls sociopaths, i.e., AIPAC, not "the Jews") -- the wars that will cost a trillion dollars -- an amount of money impossible to imagine -- a lot of money to receive -- enough to motivate AIPAC to be as bold and cunning as it has been -- certainly ample money to turn the heads of most party bosses and workers -- not to mention the specifically hired infiltrators of the party -- to raise up a Clinton and a Kucinich to exalt her and lay his anti-war troops at her feet at the right moment. A trillion dollares -- for the war-profiteers and for everyone they bribe and buy to make it all possible -- but the trillion they receive is a trillion that comes from the lives of the people -- and how can I describe that cost to you? How can I show you how impoverished you are and how much more impoverished you will become. You only know what you see, not what you might have had had there been a different kind of leadership in this country.
I know. Blah blah blah you have heard it all before -- so what do I propose?
Simply this.
1. Let every person of good will who understands the situation join the democratic party in an effort to throw out Clinton, Kucinich, AIPAC and Murdoch and, yes, Nancy Pelosi. (Ever wonder how she got where she is -- is she a woman who earned it -- or was her sex merely part of the incentive package that AIPAC interests used to put their operative in the Speaker's chair?)
2. Let every Democrat and all people of good will demand of this Congress that it adopt something like the bait-and-switch Kucinich plan for getting out of Iraq -- only let's take the bait but refuse the switch and let's insist that the bait be implimented now as a full-course meal and not in 2009 when the next president takes over -- let Congress enact it by resolution and by cuts of spending. And let's have every Democrat insist that Congress make a specific delcaration that there is no authority for the president to use military for against Iran without a formal delcaration from Congress.
3. Let every Democrat insist that Hillary Clinton and Dennis Kucinich withdraw their nominations -- there is no rule against doing this -- appeals like this have always been made, candidates being asked to withdraw for the good fo the party.
4. Every true democratic Democrat to insist that AIPAC money be refused and that those accepting AIPAC money be denied high position within the party.
5. That to quickly raise up a real anti-war candidate that a special extraordinary committee come together to select a true anti-war anti-globalization anti-AIPAC (but not anti-Jewish and not anti-the-existence-of-Israel) candidate. On this committee -- if you can take a plan from Kucinich you can take a suggestion from me -- would be
Bill Moyers
Seymour Hershe
Jimmy Carter
Cindy Sheehan
Al Gore
Alex Jones
They will pick a candidate to run for the Democratic nomination.
Let other selection groups (ad hoc electors) of known good guys come together and raise other candidates in this way -- and let us then choose from the candidates that these different distinguished people pick.
That is my suggestion. I pray you take it. And at this point I leave it all to you. It's up to you democratic Democrats. If you can field a real candidate against this war and against organized-crime plutocracy and imperialism (banker globalism) then I will vote for your candidate. If I see you can't get it together I am going to join any movement to draft and back David Duke in whatever third party he chooses to run.
I think you like government jobs (patronage) and party jobs and pork -- let's see if you also want freedom and peace and the general welfare and democratic principles and a future for everyone as well -- and let's see if you like the latter more than the former.
Sincerely,
Dick Eastman
Yakima, Washington
Here the other messages on beating the plutocracy's rigging of the two-party system.
<>http://groups.yahoo.com/group/frameup/message/20458
<>http://groups.yahoo.com/group/frameup/message/20472
<>http://groups.yahoo.com/group/frameup/message/20385
<>http://groups.yahoo.com/group/frameup/message/20375
<>http://groups.yahoo.com/group/frameup/message/20457
<>http://groups.yahoo.com/group/frameup/message/20417
<>http://groups.yahoo.com/group/frameup/message/20277
<>http://groups.yahoo.com/group/frameup/message/20317
<>http://groups.yahoo.com/group/frameup/message/19849
Bush Is About To Attack Iran -
Why Can't Americans See It?
By Paul Craig Roberts
1-27-7
The American public and the US Congress are getting their backs up about the Bush Regime's determination to escalate the war in Iraq. A massive protest demonstration is occurring in Washington DC today, and Congress is expressing its disagreement with Bush's decision to intensify the war in Iraq.
This is all to the good. However, it misses the real issue the Bush Regime's looming attack on Iran.
Rather than winding down one war, Bush is starting another. The entire world knows this and is discussing Bush's planned attack on Iran in many forums. It is only Americans who haven't caught on. A few senators have said that Bush must not attack Iran without the approval of Congress, and postings on the Internet demonstrate world wide awareness that Iran is in the Bush Regime's cross hairs. But Congress and the Media and the demonstration in Washington are focused on Iraq.
What can be done to bring American awareness up to the standard of the rest of the world?
In Davos, Switzerland, the meeting of the World Economic Forum, a conference where economic globalism issues are discussed, opened January 24 with a discussion of Bush's planned attack on Iran. The Secretary General of the League of Arab States and bankers and businessmen from such US allies as Bahrain and the United Arab Emirates all warned of the coming attack and its catastrophic consequences for the Middle East and the world.
Writing for Global Research, General Leonid Ivashov, vice president of the Academy on Geopolitical Affairs and former Joint Chief of Staff of the Russian Armies, forecasted an American nuclear attack on Iran by the end of April. General Ivashov presented the neoconservative reasoning that is the basis for the attack and concluded that the world's protests cannot stop the US attack on Iran.
There will be shock and indignation, General Ivashov concludes, but the US will get away with it. He writes:
"Within weeks from now, we will see the informational warfare machine start working. The public opinion is already under pressure. There will be a growing anti-Iranian militaristic hysteria, new information leaks, disinformation, etc.... The probability of a US aggression against Iran is extremely high. It does remain unclear, though, whether the US Congress is going to authorize the war. It may take a provocation to eliminate this obstacle (an attack on Israel or the US targets including military bases). The scale of the provocation may be comparable to the 9/11 attack in NY. Then the Congress will certainly say 'Yes' to the US president."
The Bush Regime has made it clear that it is convinced that Bush already has the authority to attack Iran. The Regime argues that the authority is part of Bush's commander-in-chief powers. Congress has authorized the war in Iraq, and Bush's recent public statements have shifted the responsibility for the Iraqi insurgency from al-Qaeda to Iran. Iran, Bush has declared, is killing US troops in Iraq. Thus, Iran is covered under the authorization for the war in Iraq.
Both Bush and Cheney have made it clear in public statements that they will ignore any congressional opposition to their war plans. For example, CBS News reported (Jan. 25) that Cheney said that a congressional resolution against escalating the war in Iraq "won't stop us." According to the Associated Press, Bush dismissed congressional disapproval with his statement, "I'm the decision-maker."
Everything is in place for an attack on Iran. Two aircraft carrier attack forces are deployed to the Persian Gulf, US attack aircraft have been moved to Turkey and other countries on Iran's borders, Patriot anti-missile defense systems are being moved to the Middle East to protect oil facilities and US bases from retaliation from Iranian missiles, and growing reams of disinformation alleging Iran's responsibility for the insurgency in Iraq are being fed to the gullible US media.
General Ivashof and everyone in the Middle East and at the Davos globalization conference in Europe understands the Bush Regime's agenda.
Why cannot Americans understand?
Why hasn't Congress told Bush and Cheney that they will both be instantly impeached if they initiate a wider war?
I agree. We are getting to that point of finality.
I do look forward to seeing more free shares in my accounts!!!
Shermann
I am taking the Bears.
Dont like the over/under.
I think the bears defense will really rattle Peyton, and shut down the run game.
Much like the Charger and Steeler games from last year.
Shermann
You might enjoy this site also:
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/index.html
Shermann
Cato Institute Scholars Comment on Domestic Policy Proposals in the State of the Union Address
Wednesday 24 January 2007
Health Insurance:
Michael F. Cannon, director of health policy studies
The president's health care proposal shows that he is way ahead of both Democrats and many in his own party when it comes to reforming health care. Though economists on the left and right have been screaming it for decades, few politicians understand that the unlimited tax exclusion for employer-sponsored health insurance does enormous damage to America's health care system. The president's proposal to limit that deduction, and to make it available to those without access to employment-based coverage for the first time, is nothing short of revolutionary.
Tax Policy:
Chris Edwards, director of tax policy studies
Rather than vacuous promises of bipartisan cooperation on the budget, President Bush should have made an unequivocal promise that he will oppose all tax increases in the final two years of his administration. While the White House is eager to sit down with Democrats and discuss entitlement reforms, any deal that included raising payroll taxes would only exacerbate the massive transfer of wealth from young workers to older retirees under the current system. The president should have pushed for the price indexing of initial Social Security benefits to reduce the program's costs and relieve the huge tax burden that will otherwise be imposed on young Americans.
Energy Independence:
Jerry Taylor, senior fellow
President Bush spent a lot of his State of the Union Address talking about ethanol. According to the president, ethanol is the magical elixir that will solve virtually every economic, environmental and foreign policy problem on the horizon. In reality, ethanol is enormously expensive and wasteful. If all the corn produced in America last year were dedicated to ethanol production (and only 14.3 percent of it was so dedicated), U.S. gasoline consumption would drop by only 12 percent. For corn ethanol to completely displace gasoline consumption in this country, we would need to appropriate all cropland in the United States, turn it completely over to corn-ethanol production, and then find 20 percent more land on top of that for cultivation. If ethanol has commercial merit, it will not need government subsidies. If it doesn't no amount of subsidies will help.
Education:
Andrew Coulson, director of the center for educational freedom
In his State of the Union address, the president proposed that "persistently underperforming" public schools, as defined by the No Child Left Behind act, would be required to offer their students "promise scholarships" that could be used to transfer to private schools or to out of district public schools, or to receive after-school tutoring.
Promoting educational choice is an excellent idea, but attempting to do it from the Oval Office is not. Even if the U.S. Constitution did not leave power over education in the hands of the states and the people (which in fact it does), a national school choice program would still be undesirable.
Neal McCluskey, education policy analyst
As it heads into reauthorization of the No Child Left Behind Act, it looks like the White House will be offering the same empty promises to fix American schooling that federal politicians have been delivering for decades.
The fact of the matter is that for as long as Washington has been promising to promote "world-class" performance in our schools, the overwhelming result has been academic stagnation. That, and the constant enrichment of the bureaucrats and special interests who control federal education policy and work to keep standards and accountability as low as possible. Indeed, between 1965 and 2005 total inflation-adjusted federal expenditures for elementary and secondary education exploded from roughly $9 billion to nearly $68 billion, while scores on the National Assessment of Educational Progress essentially flat-lined. And it looks like the President wants to raise spending yet again, promising to provide brand new Title I money focused on high schools.
For decades the federal government has proven only one thing in education: That it is a remarkably generous patron of a horribly broken system. It won't prove anything different if the President's proposals are enacted.
Lon Chaney always lives in our daily lives.
We dont have to follow!!!!
Shermann
That is the beauty of life.
Everything comes to pass.
But, who am I to say. The best way to earn money is to get people to spend money on what you sell.
Buy American, and Buy in Home-town. That works!!!
Shermann
The people who follow have no idea what is to come.
Everyone has to do what their conscience allows.
Not an easy thing to figure out.
Shermann
Pelosi is as corrupt as the next congressman. Feel free to check into her campaign finances!!!
SHermann
Ya think someone told him to say that????
Shermann
Education is a big key....Jobs are good too.
It is not a matter of agreeing. It is a matter of doing.
It will happen, as it is inevitable.
If we go into Iran the whole world will change, probably for the better.
Many demons will be exorcised. We have no business in Iran, but it will wake the American people.
Shermann
It is a good day to die!!!!
Imagine a peace walk from San Francisco to DC.
So many people would join, and ironically, so many people would not be white christians like I am.
Shermann
Go to the website Afghanistanafterdemocracy.com and buy the book.
It will open your eyes to what is really going on.
Shermann
Go to the website Afghanistanafterdemocracy.com and buy the book.
It will open your eyes to what is really going on.
Shermann
Go to the website Afghanistanafterdemocracy.com and buy the book.
It will open your eyes to what is really going on.
Shermann
Why is Howard Dean a Great Man.
He Cannot be bought. He has implemented policies in Vermont the whole country can benefit from.
This is not something the political body wants, or the people that fund them.
Shermann
Jesus' tale does not belong to a major key of the [wisdom] tradition... Rather, this parable is variation in a minor key: wealth's correct usage. The parable cleverly equates the mismanagement of the miraculous harvest with idolatry... The parable The Land of a Rich Man [focuses] the radical identification of God's kingdom with community and the demand to provide for the needs of others. "If a brother or sister is ill-clad and in lack of daily food, and one of you says to them, 'Go in peace, be warmed and filled,' without giving them the things needed for the body, what does it profit?" (James 2:15-16). Or as another saying has it, "What does it profit a man, to gain the whole world and forfeit his life?" (Mark 8:36) ... Not to place community first violates the First Commandment, is idolatry. No apocalyptic explosion will rid the world of evil; the parabolic kingdom exists only in the deeds of a loving community. The miracle must be managed.
Shermann
The problem is that Partisanship is being used against the american people like racism used to be used.
We all have to rise above that.
Do you actually think there is that much difference between the Bushes, Clintons, and Kerry????
It is a shell game, and it is rigged.
But, while everyone is yelling at each other, their eyes are taken away from the prize.
Shermann
Unfortunately, this article is so full of bias it invalidates itself.
This is not a question about right and wrong. The only way not to be wrong is not to do anything.
We need to protest the fact that all american contracts in Iraq are going to american companies, and the Iraqis are not being employed.
We are not letting any other countries help except the UK, and it is for money and oil.
We need to emphasize that the whole world, and especially the Iraqi neighbors need to be involved.
Write your Senators, Representatives, and the White House.
The more the better.
Shermann
Well, that is stating the obvious.
Do you have any idea what is going on here.
Would you rather go after the puppet or the puppetmaster????
Shermann
“Listen! A sower went out to sow. 4 And as he sowed, some seed fell on the path, and the birds came and ate it up. 5 Other seed fell on rocky ground, where it did not have much soil, and it sprang up quickly, since it had no depth of soil. 6 And when the sun rose, it was scorched; and since it had no root, it withered away. 7 Other seed fell among thorns, and the thorns grew up and choked it, and it yielded no grain. 8 Other seed fell into good soil and brought forth grain, growing up and increasing and yielding thirty and sixty and a hundredfold.” [9 And he said, “Let anyone with ears to hear listen!”]
Shermann
And for a fact you know it is something that was said that was untrue, and willingly said as untrue???
Shermann
The keys to life are forgiveness and love.
We cannot expect people to exceed themselves before we do the same.
That would include the decider.
Have you ever considered that he feels alone on an Island subject to only Cheney and the others views???
Where was the cry for help.
Was it when he said that the religion of Islam shares the same god as christians.
Maybe it was in the speech where he said there were explosives in the twin trade towers.
We are all caged by our own devils and circumstances.
Love thy brother as thy own also means love thy enemy as thy own.
Shermann
Great post - I could not agree more.
It is a shame that we cannot get the news on the news here.
The two Israeli soldiers were captured in Lebanon, not in Israel. Wonder why!!!!
Israel had no business dismantling the infrastructure of Lebanon. Just keeping it in termoil so it wont be a threat.
Pretty much the worst parts of the old testament.
Shermann
Great post - I could not agree more.
It is a shame that we cannot get the news on the news here.
The two Israeli soldiers were captured in Lebanon, not in Israel. Wonder why!!!!
Israel had no business dismantling the infrastructure of Lebanon. Just keeping it in termoil so it wont be a threat.
Pretty much the worst parts of the old testament.
Shermann
That is supposition. However the US Supreme Court was totally wrong in 2000.
Bush won the popular vote in 2004, and I live in Ohio. Bush did win Ohio, although J. Kenneth Blackwell did everything he could to supress the vote.
All this is sour grapes. We need to fix our electoral system so the best peron wins, and we need to give the best person a chance to win. Neither Kerry or Bush were good candidates in 2004.
There is only one party with 2 halves in the end. Most of both are bought and paid for.
Shermann
The truth will kill us or set us free.
I am willing to take that challenge.
Shermann
The point stands by itself Regardless whether it is the Dark Overlord or Feinstein.
We have to return the country to the people. Howard Dean should have been the presidential nominee instead of John Kerry. Enter the DLC to trash their own parties candidate.
The republicans were laughing their butts off.
This is a lesson that needs to be remembered.
Shermann
The Grand Distraction
January 3, 2007
by Nibras Kazimi
An embarrassing internal feud among Saudi royals has been on public display for over two weeks. It first came to light on December 11, 2006, when Saudi Arabia's ambassador to Washington, Prince Turki al-Faisal, summoned his staff and told them that he's calling it quits. The Saudi government was so red-faced about what happened, they instructed their press not to report anything about Prince Turki's resignation for a week.
Ostensibly, the ambassador's tantrum came about when his side lost a policy dispute over how to deal with Iran ? Prince Turki favored talking to the Iranians, while another royal faction, led by the national security adviser, Prince Bandar bin Sultan, advocated a military showdown with the Saudis playing second fiddle to America if there is an invasion.
I don't believe that Iran is at issue here: The Saudi royal family wants to stay in power, and it does not view Iran as a strategic threat to its rule. The chief threat arises from the jihadists ? home-grown or otherwise ? whom the royals correctly perceive as a pan-Middle Eastern phenomenon that is likely to grow much larger before beginning to recede. The supposed dual threats posed by Iran to America and Israel and by Shiism to the Sunni Arab order are smokescreens to confuse Western democrats and radical fundamentalists alike. Prince Bandar, who now has King Abdullah's ear, is planning to play all of the regime's threats against each other to ensure regime survival, even though it may end up hurting American interests in Iraq and careening a country like Lebanon into the abyss.
Under Prince Bandar's plan, America will attack Iran with all diplomatic, military, and intelligence means possible, and thereby become embroiled in yet another difficult project in the Middle East. Iran would have to set aside its Persian imperialist instincts while taking this blow. The jihadists, who in the post- Abu Musab al-Zarqawi era have made anti-Shiism a central tenet of their struggle, will be unleashed against the Shiites in Lebanon, Syria, and Iraq, thereby diverting the jihadists from pursuing their goal of overthrowing the Saudi regime.
Back in June 2005, I wrote a column titled "The Saudi Mega-Plot" that described what today is Prince Bandar's strategy. Back then, I likened this plan to what the Saudis did in Afghanistan throughout the 1980s when they supported the mujaheddin against the Soviets and managed to knock off several menacing birds with one stone: their own disgruntled home-grown Wahhabi radicals went off to die in the Hindu Kush; the "godless" communist push south was halted; the Americans were kept happy, and the Khomeini regime in Iran ? seeking to lead Muslims worldwide ? was upstaged.
Prince Turki, then chief of Saudi intelligence, was the architect of this Afghan Distraction. Prince Bandar was then the much-feted ambassador in Washington who oiled the American end of the deal. The plan worked out fine, and all the short-term objectives were met. One unintended long-term consequence turned out very badly for all concerned: the emergence of Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda.
Prince Bandar is still stuck in the policy world of the 1980s and 1990s, much like his close friend, the former secretary of state, James Baker, whose Iraq Study Group report was criticized in some quarters as being "old-school" and unconnected with the very changed realities of the Middle East. Whereas Prince Turki ? who bore the brunt of internal and global accusations for creating the bin Laden monster ? knows better from experience: One should not rush into ambitious mega-plots.
Yet Prince Bandar's plan is proceeding, and its first step is to market the Saudi regime as the defender of the Middle East's Sunnis against a Shiite and Iranian bid to take over the region. But it would be a mistake to think that the Iranians are so delusional as to believe they stand a chance of dominating the world of Islam.
Events in Lebanon and among the Palestinians have disabused the Iranian leadership, even the excitable likes of President Ahmadinejad, of the idea that they could lead the world of Islam by beating up on Israel. The Iranians are finding out, like the early Khomeinist firebrands who were hell-bent on exporting revolution, that they can be easily discredited by their Sunni rivals for who they are: heterodox Muslims. Lebanon's Hassan Nasrallah, who only a few months ago was hailed by Arabs and Muslims as a second Gamal Abdel Nasser during Hezbollah's war with Israel, slammed his turban into a glass ceiling: Sunnis in Lebanon mistrusted him as a power-hungry Shiite when he tried to use his anti- Israel stature to obtain a larger slice of the Lebanese political pie.
Furthermore, Iran realized just how short-lived Arab Sunni favor really is when the Hamas prime minister of the Palestinians, Ismail Haniya, came to Iran asking for support and money and got plenty of both, while refusing to be seen praying alongside Shiites. After giving the Friday sermon in Tehran, Haniya conducted his prayers in private. Haniya could not risk being derided by his Sunni detractors back in Gaza as a sycophant of the Shiites.
Anti-Shiism is a useful tool for the Saudis since it robs the jihadists of one of their main rallying points. And in this, the Saudis can legitimately claim to be hardcore anti-Shiites, even though they've neglected other areas of Wahhabi dogma, such as waging jihad against the West and vanquishing other milder versions of Sunni Islam. Zarqawi did not invent his anti-Shiite ideology. He borrowed heavily from material produced, financed, and propagated by the official Saudi hate-speech industry.
So it was no surprise that 38 leading Saudi clerics issued a proclamation on December 7 inciting Sunnis against Shiites in Iraq, which was followed by a fatwa dated December 17 by the leading Wahhabi religious authority alive, Sheikh Abdel-Rahman bin Nassir al-Barrak, that essentially brands all Shiites, including lay persons, as legitimate targets for Sunni hostility since they are "more dangerous" to Islam "than the Jews and the Christians." The Saudi royal family is stealing a march on the jihadists while simultaneously making itself useful for the new jihadist agenda.
A chastised Iran is surely in America's best interest and the world's too, but it should not come at the cost of sectarian bloodshed in Iraq and Lebanon. President Bush wants to enhance regional stability by promoting enlightenment and civil peace, whereas the Saudis want to protect their rule by propagating xenophobia.
Iran must be contained, and Iraq must be made to work. Accepting Prince Bandar's tactics may temporarily beat back the Iranians, but will fuel the sectarian fire in Iraq. America is trying to contain Sunni-Shiite tension in Iraq, while the Saudi-protected Wahhabi establishment spews an unending stream of hate and incitement. Saudi help in this matter isn't helpful. Prince Bandar's quick-fix should be dismissed.
http://www.hudson.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=publication_details&id=4398
This article appeared in The New York Sun on January 3, 2007
Kewl Author!!! His blog is:
http://talismangate.blogspot.com/
Shermann
'No Proof' Of Iran Nuclear Arms Program Says Secret CIA Report
BBC News
1-24-7
The US Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) has not found conclusive evidence that Iran is developing nuclear weapons, a US magazine has reported.
Veteran investigative reporter Seymour Hersh, writing in The New Yorker, cites a secret CIA report based on intelligence such as satellite images.
Correspondents say the alleged document appears to challenge Washington's views regarding Iranian nuclear intentions.
The article says the White House was dismissive about the CIA report.
The US and Europe say Iran is pursuing a clandestine nuclear weapons programme - a charge Iran has strongly denied.
'Hostile' response
The CIA assessment, according to unnamed officials quoted in the article, casts doubt on how far Iran has actually progressed to making a nuclear weapon.
"The White House is not going to dignify the work of an author who has viciously degraded our troops." --Dana Perino, White House spokeswoman
"The CIA found no conclusive evidence, as yet, of a secret Iranian nuclear weapons program running parallel to the civilian operations that Iran has declared to the International Atomic Energy Agency," Mr Hersh wrote.
It says the agency based its conclusions on technical intelligence, such as satellite photography and measurements from sensors planted by US and Israeli agents.
The article says: "A current senior intelligence official confirmed the existence of the CIA analysis, and told me that the White House had been hostile to it."
White House spokeswoman Dana Perino criticised the article, calling it an "error-filled" piece in a "series of inaccuracy-riddled articles about the Bush administration".
"The White House is not going to dignify the work of an author who has viciously degraded our troops, and whose articles consistently rely on outright falsehoods to justify his own radical views," she was quoted by AFP news agency as saying.
The BBC's Adam Brookes in Washington says if the New Yorker article is correct, it would suggest that the CIA is being more cautious than the Bush administration in evaluating whether or not Iran is on its way to building a bomb.
And he says, as with Iraq, it suggests political battles to come over how intelligence is used as a basis for American foreign policy.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6167304.st