PRO

Planetary Rescue Operations [Filtered & blocked by Google!]

Archive for the ‘Obama’ Category

Big Oil and “Homeland Security”

Posted by msrb on June 8, 2010

When Enough of an Incompetent President is Enough!

Obama is wasting hundreds of billions of dollars in Iraq and Afghanistan, in part to protect the Big Oil, yet he is losing the war  to Big Oil at home

Executive Branch Lacks the Worst Case Scenario Toolkit to Protect American People

By Ralph Nader [Nader.Org]

When the Executive Branch does not have worst case scenario planning for each kind of energy source—oil, gas, coal, nuclear, wind, solar and efficiency—the people are not protected.

Enter the 24/7 oil gusher-leak by BP and Transocean – the rig operator – and the impotence of the federal government to do anything but wait and see if BP can find ways to close off the biggest and growing oil leak in American history. Where is the emergency planning or industry knowhow?

Of course, we all saw Barack Obama’s first full press conference in ten months where he said, “In case you were wondering who’s responsible? I take responsibility. It is my job to make sure everything is done to shut this down…The federal government is fully engaged, and I’m fully engaged. Personally, I’m briefed every day. And I probably had more meetings on this issue than just about any issue since we did our Afghan review.”

Sure, so he’s being kept informed. Those are not the words of leadership five weeks after the preventable blowout on the Deepwater Horizon 40 miles off the Louisiana coast. His problem is how long it took for the White House to see this as a national disaster not just a corporate disaster for BP to contain.

That default was not just failing to determine the size of the spill (over ten times greater than BP originally estimated) or the farcical non-regulation, under Republicans and Democrats, by the Minerals Management Service of the Interior Department. It was a failure to realize that our government has no capability, no technology to take control of such disasters or even to find out whether solutions exist elsewhere in the oil and geologic industries. It’s like a spreading fire where the perpetrator of the fire has the primary responsibility to put the fire out because there Is no properly equipped public fire department.


He wouldn’t know the difference!

James Carville, an Obama loyalist and defender, called out his champion from new Orleans, where he now lives, and told him: “Man, you got to get down here and take control of this!” With what? Obama has a 16 month long record of turning his back on advice from the Cajuns of Louisiana to environmental groups in Washington, DC. He shook off warnings about the pathetic federal regulators, so called, cushy with the oil industry. During his campaigns, he allowed McCain’s “drill, baby, drill” to turn him more overtly toward favoring offshore drilling, instead of turning onto offshore windpower.

As the multi-directional and multi-depth oil swarm keeps encircling the Gulf of Mexico, strangling the livelihood of its people, the life of its flora and fauna, with its implacably deadly effect, Obama and his supposedly street smart advisors, led by Rahm Emanuel, started out with a political blunder. Presidential specialist, Professor Paul Light at New York University put his finger on it when he said: “The White House made a deliberate political calculation to stand off…to sort of distance themselves from BP, and they’ve been hammered on that.”

The White House Action Comedy: A Roomful of Voyeurs


We thought we voted in a hands-on President and all we got was a roomful of voyeurs. [U.S. President Barack Obama (C) listens during a briefing about the situation along the Gulf Coast following the BP oil spill, at the Coast Guard Venice Center, in Venice, Louisiana, in this White House handout photo taken on May 2, 2010 and released on June 7, 2010.]

Early on, Defense Secretary Robert Gates told him that the federal government does not possess superior technology to BP. And BP CEO Tony Hayward admitted that BP was not prepared for such a blowout. He said “What is undoubtedly true is that we did not have the tools you would want in your tool kit.” Gates really meant that Uncle Sam had nothing superior to nothing or, in less charitable words, was completely out to lunch with the chronic deregulators who still infect our national government.

Obama’s cool is turning cold. He is not reacting fast enough to the public rage that is building up and over-riding his vacuous statements about taking responsibility and being briefed daily. Much of this public rage, incidentally, is coming from the southern Gulf rim, whose elected politicians consistently opposed any regulation of their campaign contributing oil companies in order to avert just these kinds of disasters. Only Florida’s Congressional delegation said—stay out of Florida’s waters.

Politico reported that “Obama skipped the memorial service for the 11 workers killed on the rig earlier this week, instead flying to California, where he collected $1.7 million for Democrats and toured a solar panel plant. On the day that the significant clots of oil started appearing on the Louisiana coast, Obama was sitting down for an interview to talk hoops with TNT’s Marv Albert.”

He must move to properly sequester all the assets of BP and Transocean to fully pay for their damage, thus assuring Americans that BP will not be able to concoct another Exxon/Valdez escape strategy. He must scour the world of knowledge and experience regarding capping underseas oil blowouts, and not just wait week after week for BP to come up with something.

Nobody says that being president is an easy job, even in the best of times. But a President, who can go all out spending hundreds of billions of dollars in Iraq and Afghanistan in ways that bleed the taxpayers and breed more anti-American fighters, in part to protect Big Oil in the Middle East, better come back home and stop Big Oil’s war here in the Gulf of Mexico. That’s how he’d better start defining “homeland security.” (See Citizen.org for more on BP.)

Related Links:

Advertisements

Posted in big oil, Homeland Security, Obama, offshore drilling, Voyeurs | Tagged: , , , , | Leave a Comment »

The Copenhagen Catastrophe

Posted by msrb on December 22, 2009

How would you know it was a disaster?

The simple answer: watch their lips!

First the three Wise Monkeys packaged as one:

The U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon: “Finally we sealed a deal … The ‘Copenhagen Accord’ may not be everything everyone had hoped for, but this … is an important beginning.”

Yes Mr Secretary General, it’s the beginning of the end.

Yvo de Boer, head of the U.N. Climate Change Secretariat: “This basically is a letter of intent … the ingredients of an architecture that can respond to the long-term challenge of climate change, but not in precise legal terms. That means we have a lot of work to do on the long road to Mexico.”

Ohhh yesss, thank you kindly Mr Climate Change Secretariat. Could you send a certified copy of your ‘letter of intent’ to nature for her approval. She is involved in all this, you know!

South African negotiators called the outcome of the Copenhagen climate talks “disappointing” and “unacceptable.”

Buyelwa Sonjica, South African minister of environmental affairs: “Not acceptable, it is definitely not acceptable.”

“In Copenhagen, parties were still too far apart, and too involved with process rather than substance, to reach a formal negotiating process,” Sonjica said, criticising “some ill-restrained interventions” and poor decisions by the Danish organizers.

South Africa’s chief negotiator Alf Wills:

The Danish hosts “destroyed the trust” of delegates by introducing an unacceptable  draft text.

German Chancellor Angela Merkel: “The decision has been very difficult for me. We have done one step, we have hoped for several more.”

You mean personally? Does the hemorrhoid bother you so much? Perhaps, you ought to take it easy for a while and abstain from taking so many steps. Try to rest for a while.

Sarkozy of Israel: “We have an agreement ,,, The text we have is not perfect.”

Nothing of yours is, or will ever be, Mr Sarko-zy.

Brazil’s climate change ambassador, Sergio Serra: “We have a big job ahead to avoid climate change through effective emissions reduction targets, and this was not done here.”

Obama, the man from the White House:  “For the first time in history, all of the world’s major economies have come together to accept their responsibility to take action on the threat of climate change.”

Sound bite number?

China’s premier, Wen Jiabao: ” [my government has played an] important and constructive [role in Copenhagen negotiations.]”

Is that so?

Antonio Hill, Oxfam’s climate change adviser: “The Copenhagen accord is hugely disappointing but it also reveals how the traditional approach to international negotiations, based on brinkmanship and national self-interest, is both unfit for pursuing our common destiny and downright dangerous.”

Archbishop Desmond Tutu, a global ambassador for the charity: “The failure of the political process in Copenhagen to achieve a fair, adequate and binding deal on climate change is profoundly distressing. A higher purpose was at stake but our political leaders have proven themselves unable to rise to the challenge. We must look to the future. Our leaders must regroup, learn and make good their failure for the sake of humanity’s future.”

Gordon Brown said: “The talks in Copenhagen were not easy and as they reached conclusion I did fear the process would collapse and we would have no deal at all … We must learn lessons from Copenhagen and the tough negotiations that took place. Never again should we face the deadlock that threatened to pull down these talks. Never again should we let a global deal to move towards a greener future be held to ransom by only a handful of countries.”

“One of the frustrations for me was the lack of a global body with the sole responsibility for environmental stewardship. I believe that in 2010 we will need to look at reforming our international institutions to meet the common challenges we face as an international community.” Brown added.

Related Links:

Posted in Archbishop Desmond Tutu, Buyelwa Sonjica, Obama, Sarkozy, Wen Jiabao | Tagged: , , , , , , | 1 Comment »

The OBL Dummy and It’s Israeli Ventriloquists

Posted by msrb on September 14, 2009

The OBL Dummy’s Ventriloquists Seek Continued Unconditional Support for Israel

Whichever way you look at it, the new tape recording by OBL dummy’s ventriloquists has all but has a three-pronged goal: To stupefy, provoke sympathy and extract continued unconditional support for the Jewish State.

It attempts to achieve its goal, first and foremost, by associating the [deceased?] OBL and his terrorists with the 9/11 events with a 180-degree about-turn, changing OBL’s position from one of  “I didn’t do it,” to “The reason for our dispute with you is your support for your ally Israel, occupying our land in Palestine.”

[BTW, Palestine does NOT belong to him, anymore than it does to the Zionist Jews from Europe. And NOT all Palestinians are Muslims. ]

The tape is released at a crucial time, 9/11 anniversary, to dwell on people’s raw emotions, at a time when people’s feelings are maximally susceptible to emotional skewers, and they are most likely to making emotional [rather than] logical and evidential judgments. It does so by forcing the audiences to take sides, having connected a known terrorist, OBL [and by association, all Muslims, Palestinians, Arabs, Iraqis, Afghans …,] with the “evildoers,” on the one hand, and the state of Israel with the “good guys,” the United States, on the other.

The Ventriloquists then get chummier with the American public:

“The time has come for you to liberate yourselves from fear and the ideological terrorism of neo-conservatives and the Israeli lobby,” Reuters reported OBL tape as saying.

Could they also advise the American kids to eat their greens, quit drinking Coke and brush their teeth before going to bed, in their next tape release, please?

In the 11-minute tape entitled “A statement to the American people,”  Bin Laden [sic] said:

“If you think about your situation well, you will know that the White House is occupied by pressure groups.”

Just a moment! If the ventriloquists say the dummy is OBL, then shouldn’t he know the difference between “occupation” by “pressure groups” and a complete and utter occupation by Zionist agents/agenda?

Never mind the traces of explosive that were used for the demolition of WTC towers, which have been found at the Ground Zero, analyzed and documented,  OBL ventriloquists are still trying to mesmerize the people with  “al-Qaeda launched the 9/11 attacks” chant.

Jeff Gates, the author of the following related article is well-informed, and his work  makes good reading:

What Role Did The U.S.-Israeli Relationship Play In 9-11?

By Jeff Gates

September 13, 2009. Information Clearing House — On the day of the 9-11 attacks, former Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was asked what the attack would mean for US-Israeli relations. His quick reply was: “It’s very good. Well, it’s not good, but it will generate immediate sympathy (for Israel).”

Intelligence wars rely on mathematical models to anticipate the response of “the mark” to staged provocations. Reactions thereby become foreseeable-within an acceptable range of probabilities. When Israeli mathematician Robert J. Aumann received the 2005 Nobel Prize in economic science, he conceded that “the entire school of thought that we have developed here in Israel” has turned “Israel into the leading authority in this field.”

With a well-planned provocation, the anticipated response can even become a weapon in the arsenal of the agent provocateur. In response to 9-11, how difficult would it be to foresee that the U.S. would deploy its military to avenge that attack? With fixed intelligence, how difficult would it be to redirect that response to wage a long-planned war in Iraq – not for U.S. interests but to advance the agenda for Greater Israel?

The emotionally wrenching component of a provocation plays a key role in the field of game theory war planning where Israel is the authority. With the televised murder of 3,000 Americans, a shared mindset of shock, grief and outrage made it easier for U.S. policy-makers to believe that a known Evil Doer in Iraq was responsible, regardless of the facts.

The strategic displacement of facts with induced beliefs, in turn, requires a period of “preparing the mindset” so that “the mark” will put their faith in a pre-staged fiction. Those who induced the March 2003 invasion of Iraq began “laying mental threads” and creating agenda-advancing mental associations more than a decade earlier.

Notable among those threads was the 1993 publication in Foreign Affairs of an article by Harvard professor Samuel Huntington. By the time his analysis appeared in book-length form in 1996 as The Clash of Civilizations, more than 100 academies and think tanks were prepared to promote it, pre-staging a “clash consensus” five years before 9-11.

Also published in 1996 under the guidance of Richard Perle was A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm (i.e., Israel). A member since 1987 of the U.S. Defense Policy Advisory Board, this self-professed Zionist became its chairman in 2001. As a key adviser to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Perle’s senior Pentagon post helped lay the required foundation for removing Saddam Hussein as part of a Greater Israel strategy, a key theme of A Clean Break released five years before 9-11.

A mass murder, articles, books, think tanks and Pentagon insiders, however, are not enough to manage the variables in a “probabilistic” war-planning model. Supportive policy makers are also required to lend the appearance of legitimacy and credibility to an operation justified by intelligence fixed around a pre-determined agenda.

That role was eagerly filled by Senators John McCain, Joe Lieberman, a Jewish Zionist from Connecticut, and Jon Kyl, a Christian Zionist from Arizona, when they co-sponsored the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998. Echoing Tel Aviv’s agenda in A Clean Break, their bill laid another mental thread in the public mindset by calling for the removal of Saddam Hussein three years before 9-11.

The legislation also appropriated $97 million, largely to promote that Zionist agenda. Distracted by mid-term Congressional elections and by impeachment proceedings commenced in reaction to a well-timed presidential affair involving White House intern Monica Lewinsky, Bill Clinton signed that agenda into law October 31, 1998 – five years before the U.S.-led invasion that removed Saddam Hussein.

After 9-11, John McCain and Joe Lieberman became inseparable travel companions and irrepressible advocates for the invasion of Iraq. Looking “presidential” aboard the aircraft carrier USS Theodore Roosevelt in January 2002, McCain laid another key thread when he waved an admiral’s cap while proclaiming, alongside Lieberman, “On to Baghdad.”

By Way of Deception

The chutzpah with which this game theory strategy progressed in plain sight could be seen in the behavior of Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, another Zionist insider. Four days after 9-11, in a principals’ meeting at Camp David, he proposed that the U.S. invade Iraq. At that time, the intelligence did not yet point to Iraqi involvement and Osama bin Laden was thought to be hiding in a remote region of Afghanistan.

Frustrated that President George H.W. Bush declined to remove Saddam Hussein during the 1991 Gulf War, Wolfowitz proposed a No-Fly Zone in northern Iraq. By 2001, the Israeli Mossad had agents at work for a decade in the northern Iraqi city of Mosul. Intelligence reports of Iraqi ties to Al Qaeda also came from Mosul – reports that later proved to be false. Mosul again emerged in November 2004 as a center of the insurgency that destabilized Iraq. That reaction precluded the speedy exit of coalition forces promised in Congressional testimony by senior war-planner Wolfowitz.

The common source of the fixed intelligence that induced America to war in Iraq has yet to be acknowledged even though intelligence experts agree that deception on such a scale required a decade to plan, staff, pre-stage, orchestrate and, to date, cover up. The two leaders of the 9-11 Commission report conceded they were stopped by Commission members from hearing testimony on the motivation for 9-11: the U.S.-Israeli relationship.

The fictions accepted as generally accepted truths included Iraqi WMD, Iraqi ties to Al Qaeda, Iraqi meetings with Al Qaeda in Prague, Iraqi mobile biological weapons laboratories and Iraqi purchases of “yellowcake” uranium from Niger. Only the last fact was conceded as phony in the relevant time frame. All the rest were disclosed as false, flawed or fixed only after the war began. An attempt to cover-up the yellowcake account led to the federal prosecution of vice-presidential chief of staff Lewis Libby, another well-placed Zionist insider.

Did game theory-modeled pre-staging also include the Israeli provocation that led to the Second Intifada? An intifada is an uprising or, literally, a “shaking off” of an oppressor. The Second Intifada in Palestine dates from September 2000 when Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon led an armed march to Jerusalem’s Temple Mount one year before 9-11.

After a year of calm-during which Palestinians believed in the prospects for peace-suicide bombings recommenced after this high-profile provocation. In response to the uprising, Sharon and Netanyahu observed that only when Americans “feel our pain” would they understand the plight of the victimized Israelis. Both Israeli leaders suggested that shared mindset (“feel our pain”) would require in the U.S. a weighted body count of 4,500 to 5,000 Americans lost to terrorism, the initial estimate of those who died in the twin towers of New York City’s World Trade Center-one year later.

The American Valkyrie?

When successful, game theory warfare strengthens the agent provocateur while leaving the mark discredited and depleted by the anticipated reaction to a well-timed provocation. By game theory standards, 9-11 was a strategic success because the U.S. was portrayed as irrational for its reaction – the invasion of Iraq that triggered a deadly insurgency with devastating consequences both for Iraq and the U.S.

That insurgency, in turn, was an easily modeled reaction to the invasion of a nation that (a) played no role in the provocation, and (b) was known to be populated by three long-warring sects where an unstable peace was maintained by a former U.S. ally who was rebranded an Evil Doer. As the cost in blood and treasure expanded, the U.S. became overextended militarily, financially and diplomatically.

As “the mark” (the U.S.) emerged in the foreground, the agent provocateur faded into the background. But only after catalyzing dynamics that steadily drained the U.S. of credibility, resources and resolve. This “probabilistic” victory also ensured widespread cynicism, insecurity, distrust and disillusionment along with a declining capacity to defend its interests due to the duplicity of a game theory-savvy enemy within.

Meanwhile the American public fell under a regime of oversight, surveillance and intimidation marketed as “homeland” security. This domestic operation even features rhetorical hints of a WWII “fatherland” with clear signs of a force alien to the U.S. with its welcome embrace of open dissent. Is this operation meant to protect Americans or to shield those responsible for this insider operation from Americans?

By manipulating the shared mindset, skilled game theory war-planners can wage battles in plain sight and on multiple fronts with minimal resources. One proven strategy: Pose as an ally of a well-armed nation predisposed to deploy its military in response to a mass murder. In this case, the result destabilized Iraq, creating crises that could be exploited to strategic advantage by expanding the conflict to Iran, another key Israeli goal announced in A Clean Break-seven years before the invasion of Iraq.

Which nation benefitted from the deployment of coalition forces to the region? Today’s mathematically model-able outcome undermined U.S. national security by overextending its military, discrediting its leadership, degrading its financial condition and disabling its political will. In game theory terms, these results were “perfectly predictable”-within an acceptable range of probabilities.

In the asymmetry that typifies today’s unconventional warfare, those who are few in numbers must wage war by way of deception-non-transparently and with means that leverage their impact. Which nation-if not Israel-fits that description?

Treason in Plain Sight?

Game theory war-planners manipulate the shared mental environment by shaping perceptions and creating impressions that become consensus opinions. With the aid of well-timed crises, policy-makers fall in line with a predetermined agenda-not because they are Evil Doers or “imperialists” but because the shared mindset has been pre-conditioned to respond not to the facts but to manipulated emotions and consensus beliefs. Without the murder of 3,000 on 9-11, America’s credibility would not now be damaged and the U.S. economy would be in far better shape.

By steadily displacing facts with what “the mark” can be induced to believe, the few-within-the-few amplify the impact of their duplicity. By steady manipulation of the public’s mindset, game theory war-planners can defeat an opponent with vastly superior resources by inducing those decisions that ensure defeat.

Intelligence wars are waged in plain sight and under the cover of widely shared beliefs. By manipulating consensus opinion, such wars can be won from the inside out by inducing a people to freely choose the very forces that imperil their freedom. Thus in the Information Age the disproportionate power wielded by those with outsized influence in media, pop culture, think tanks, academia and politics-domains where Zionist influence is most rampant.

Induced beliefs act as a force-multiplier to wage intelligence wars from the shadows. At the operational core of such warfare are those masterful at anticipating the mark’s response to a provocation and incorporating that response into their arsenal. For those who wage war in this fashion, facts are only a barrier to overcome. For those nations dependent on facts, the rule of law and informed consent to protect their freedom, such insider treachery poses the greatest possible threat to national security.

America is far less safe than before 9-11. Tel Aviv clearly intends to continue its serial provocations, as evidenced by its ongoing expansion of the settlements. Israel has shown no sign of a willingness to negotiate in good faith or to take the steps required to make peace a possibility. To date, Barack Obama appears unwilling to name senior appointees who are not either Zionists are strongly pro-Israeli. The greatest threat to world peace is not terrorists. The greatest threat is the U.S.-Israeli relationship.

In the same way that a decade of pre-staging was required to plausibly induce the U.S. to invade Iraq, a similar strategy is now underway to persuade the U.S. to invade Iran or to support and condone an attack by Israel. The same duplicity is again at work, including the high profile branding of the requisite Evil Doer. From its very outset, the Zionist enterprise focused on hegemony in the Middle East. Its entangled alliance with the U.S. enabled this enterprise to deploy American might for that purpose.

Only one nation had the means, motive, opportunity and stable nation state intelligence required to take the U.S. to war in the Middle East while also making it appear that Islam is the problem. If Barack Obama continues to defer to Tel Aviv, he can rightly be blamed when the next attack occurs in the U.S. or the European Union featuring the usual orgy of evidence pointing to a predetermined target. Should another mass murder occur, that event will be traceable directly to the U.S.-Israeli relationship and the failure of U.S policy-makers to free America from this enemy within.

Jeff Gates, A widely acclaimed author, attorney, investment banker, educator and consultant to government, corporate and union leaders worldwide, Jeff Gates’ latest book is Guilt By Association—How Deception and Self-Deceit Took America to War (2008). His previous books include Democracy at Risk: Rescuing Main Street From Wall Street and The Ownership Solution: Toward a Shared Capitalism for the 21st Century.

Related links:

Posted in Afghans, Arabs, Iraqis, Muslims, Obama, obama foreign policy, Palestinians | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

CIA Has a Duty to Investigate 9-11

Posted by msrb on June 15, 2009

submitted by a reader

Whatever the politics du jour, CIA under a new, accountable management is duty-bound to investigate 9-11 events

CIA director Leon Panetta says it’s almost as if  Dick Cheney wishes to see another attack on the United States to prove he is right in criticizing President Obama for stopping CIA’s “harsh interrogation” techniques of terrorism suspects.


Central Intelligence Agency Director Leon Panetta delivers remarks at a National Italian American Foundation policy luncheon on Capitol Hill in Washington, June 11, 2009. REUTERS/Jonathan Ernst. Image may be subject to copyright.

“I think he smells some blood in the water on the national security issue,” Panetta said in an interview published in The New Yorker magazine’s June 22 issue.

“It’s almost, a little bit, gallows politics. When you read behind it, it’s almost as if he’s wishing that this country would be attacked again, in order to make his point.”

Mr Panetta has called Cheney’s actions “dangerous politics,” saying that “he had favored the creation of an independent truth commission to look into the detainee policies of former President George W. Bush. But the idea died in April when Obama decided such a panel could be seen as politically vindictive.”

What Mr Panetta doesn’t know is that Bush-Cheney gang are quite capable of staging yet another attack on America, even a deadlier one than the 9-11 attacks.

Perhaps, instead of worrying about creating an independent truth commission to investigate the detainee policies of George W. Bush, Mr Panetta should concentrate his efforts into conducting an investigation into Bush-Cheney gang’s role in the attack on America on 9/11.

Whatever the politics du jour, CIA has a duty to investigate 9-11 events. They might discover how Bush-Cheney gang is plotting to attack America again!

A World Based on Lies Shall Collapse!

It’s in the interest of the President, his Admin, the US Citizens, and ROW to free the 9-11 truth!

Related Links:


Posted in Bush-Cheney Gang, Dick Cheney, Leon Panetta, Obama, waterboarding | Tagged: , , , , | 1 Comment »

Operating above and beyond the law

Posted by msrb on March 5, 2009

Sent by a reader

‘Mr Pilger is aware no doubt that King John was forced to sign Magna Carta, which was meant to limit his powers by law. Powers of the cabal, the criminal fraternity that runs Britain and the US,  go way beyond the laws of both lands, as well as international laws.’ —Reader’s Comment

War Comes Home To Britain

by John Pilger
Published 05 March 2009  in New Statesman

Freedom is being lost in Britain. The land of Magna Carta is now the land of secret gagging orders, secret trials and imprisonment. The government will soon know about every phone call, every email, every text message. Police can willfully shoot to death an innocent man, lie, and expect to get away with it. Whole communities now fear the state. The Foreign Secretary routinely covers up allegations of torture; the Justice Secretary routinely prevents the release of critical cabinet minutes taken when Iraq was illegally invaded. The list is cursory; there is much more.

Indeed, there is so much more that the erosion of liberal freedoms is symptomatic of an evolved criminal state. The haven for Russian oligarchs, together with corruption of the tax and banking systems and of once-admired public services such as the Post Office, is one side of the coin; the other is the invisible carnage of failed colonial wars. Historically, the pattern is familiar. As the colonial crimes in Algeria, Vietnam and Afghanistan blew back to their perpetrators, France, the US and the Soviet Union, so the cancerous effects of Britain’s cynicism in Iraq and Afghanistan have come home.

The most obvious example is the bombing atrocities in London on 7 July 2005; no one in the British intelligence mandarinate doubts these were a gift from Blair. And yet “terrorism” describes only the few acts of individuals and groups, not the constant, industrial violence of great powers. Suppressing this truth is left to the credible media. On 27 February, the Guardian’s Washington correspondent, Ewen MacAskill, in reporting President Obama’s statement that America was finally leaving Iraq, as if it were fact, wrote: “For Iraq, the death toll is unknown, in the tens of thousands, victims of the war, a nationalist uprising, sectarian infighting and jihadists attracted by the US presence.” Thus, the Anglo-American invaders are merely a “presence” not directly responsible for the “unknown” number of Iraqi deaths. Such contortion of intellect is impressive.

In January last year, a report by the respected Opinion Research Business (ORB) revised an earlier assessment of deaths in Iraq to 1.033 million. This followed a peer-reviewed study in 2006 by the world-renowned Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health in Baltimore, published in the Lancet, which found that nearly 655,000 Iraqis had died as a result of the invasion. US and British officials immediately dismissed the report as “flawed” – a deliberate deception. Foreign Office papers obtained under Freedom of Information disclose a memo written by the government’s chief scientific adviser Sir Roy Anderson, in which he praised the Lancet report, describing it as “robust and employs methods that are regarded as close to ‘best practice’ given [the conditions] in Iraq”. An adviser to the Prime Minister commented: “The survey methodology used here cannot be rubbished, it is a tried and tested way of measuring mortality in conflict zones.” Yet, speaking a few days later, the Foreign Office minister Lord Triesman said: “The way in which data are extrapolated from samples to a general outcome is a matter of deep concern.”

The episode exemplifies the scale and deception of this state crime. Les Roberts, co-author of the Lancet study, has since argued that Britain and America might have caused in Iraq “an episode more deadly than the Rwandan genocide”. This is not news. Neither is it a critical reference in the freedoms campaign organised by the Observer columnist Henry Porter. At a conference in London on 28 February, Lord Goldsmith, Blair’s former attorney general, who notoriously changed his mind and advised the government the invasion was legal, when it wasn’t, was a speaker for freedom. So was Timothy Garton Ash, a “liberal interventionist”. On 17 April 2003, shortly after the slaughter had begun in Iraq, a euphoric Garton Ash wrote in the Guardian: “America has never been the Great Satan. It has sometimes been the Great Gatsby: ‘They were careless people, Tom and Daisy – they smashed up things . . .’” One of Britain’s jobs “is to keep reminding Tom and Daisy that they now have promises to keep”. Less frivolously, he lauded Tony Blair for his “strong Gladstonian instincts for humanitarian intervention” and repeated the government’s propaganda about Saddam Hussein. In 2006, he wrote, “Now we face the next big test of the west: after Iraq, Iran” (my italics). This also adheres precisely to the propaganda; David Miliband has declared Iran a “threat” in preparation for the next war.

Like so many of New Labour’s Tonier-than-thou squad, Henry Porter celebrated Blair as an almost mystical politician who “presents himself as a harmoniser for all the opposing interests in British life, a conciliator of class differences and tribal antipathies, synthesiser of opposing beliefs”. Porter dismissed as “demonic nonsense” all analysis of the 11 September 2001 attacks that suggested there were specific causes: the consequences of violent actions taken by the powerful in the Middle East. Such thinking, he wrote, “exactly matches the views of Osama Bin Laden . . . With America’s haters, that’s all there is – hatred.” This, of course, was Blair’s view.

Freedoms are being lost in Britain because of the rapid growth of the “national security state”. This form of militarism was imported from the United States by New Labour. Totalitarian in essence, it relies on fear-mongering to entrench the executive with venal legal mechanisms that progressively diminish democracy and justice. “Security” is all and it relies on propaganda promoting rapacious colonial wars, even as honest mistakes. Take away this propaganda, and the wars are exposed for what they are, and the fear evaporates. Take away the obeisance of many in Britain’s liberal elite to American power and you demote a profound colonial mentality that covers for epic criminals such as Blair. Prosecute these criminals and change the system that breeds them, and you have freedom. Copyright the author or newspaper.

Related Links:

Posted in cabal, colonialism, David Miliband, Iraq Genocide, Obama | Tagged: , , , , | 1 Comment »

This can only happen in America!

Posted by terres on November 28, 2008

Nearly two-trillion dollars out of pocket and millions of unemployed Americans later, not a single regulator, CEO or corporate executive has been indicted on fraud, or fired for mismanagement or incompetence.

In the Public Interest: Open The Books Save The Economy

by Ralph Nader

[November 11, 2008]

It has never been more clear how much corporations depend on We, the People for their very existence. Corporations are given the right to exist through a public charter. For public corporations, shareholders are bestowed with limited liability, and they benefit from a public system of securities regulation that gives investors confidence to invest. In the best of times, corporations benefit both from public goods (public roads and infrastructure, public investment in R&D) and targeted benefits (tax subsidies, loan guarantees, and much more). In the worst of times, as we now see, the largest corporations can expect massive public support. Bloomberg reports that the United States has already committed an amazing $7.76 trillion — more than half of U.S. GDP — in funds for bailouts, guarantees, share purchases, insurance programs, swaps and more.

Don’t We, the People have the right to expect something in return?

How about starting with public release of the income tax returns of all corporations above a certain size (say, $10 million in assets)?

In October, a former Bush administration head of the Internal Revenue Service, Mark Everson, proposed exactly that in the Washington Post.

Wrote Everson, “Federal tax returns include important information about corporations beyond that available in financial statements. Making corporate returns available for public inspection would provide a powerful tool to analysts who follow companies and industries, and it would help others better evaluate counterparties and risk. It would assist other federal and state regulators, who currently are prohibited from reviewing the details of federal returns. (The IRS itself is precluded from sharing returns with the Securities and Exchange Commission and the Justice Department except in narrow circumstances.) Large corporations file their federal tax returns electronically, so the data can easily be shared. Information returns filed by not-for-profits are already available online.”

Disclosure of corporate income tax returns would help offset the intentional obscurity and complexity surrounding corporate records that has so directly contributed to the current financial crisis.

It would also lead to much better tax policy. President-elect Obama has stated that he and his administration will carefully review every budget expenditure, in order to save taxpayer dollars and eliminate or curtail programs that have outlived their usefulness or never should have been started. This is a welcome commitment. Aside from cutting wasteful Pentagon spending, however, the really big ways to improve the government’s balance sheet are in eliminating unfair, inefficient corporate tax loopholes, and escapes to tax havens abroad.

The complexity of the tax code — itself the product of long-term, persistent and intensive lobbying — invites esoteric gaming by large corporations, aided and abetted by lawyers and accountants.

Some tax provisions are included in the Code with almost no one other than the lobbyists who wrote them understanding what their implications will be.

And some tax provisions are muscled through by powerful interests, but impose public costs not fully understood at the time of enactment, while offering minimal public benefits.

If corporate tax returns were made public, citizen advocates and other monitors would be able to root out tax abuses, and rally to have them repealed. The government — that is, the taxpayers — would stand to recoup tens of billions of dollars, or more, to be more appropriately allocated.

Corporations, naturally, would object to mandatory disclosure of their tax returns. They would claim a right to privacy. But corporations are legal fictions, not people with legitimate privacy concerns. There should be no corporate right to privacy.

Corporations would also argue that disclosing tax returns would force them to reveal proprietary information. But that claim pales beside the broad public interest in gaining access to corporate returns, especially in this period of cascading mega bailouts. And, if corporations can identify some narrow and legitimate right to proprietary protection, let them do so. Then those specific areas can be excluded from disclosure.

Disclosure of corporate tax returns would be administratively simple. As Everson notes, the IRS already requires that corporations file their returns electronically. And there are precedents even from the pre-digital age. Wisconsin, for example, required corporate tax returns to be disclosed, before modifying its rules several decades ago.

In the first week of December, the auto industry CEOs will again appear before the Senate Banking and House Financial Services committees, to make the case for receiving billions in tax payer bailout monies. Hopefully, they will find a way to get to Washington other than by chartering their corporate jets. Chairman Chris Dodd and Chairman Barney Frank should instruct the CEOs that they should come with their corporate tax returns in hand, ready to share them with the American people. That will open the gates for a new standard of openness that should apply to all corporations. End.

Related Links:

Posted in auto industry, bailout, loan guarantees, Obama | Tagged: , , , , | Leave a Comment »

More Quotes on Financial Markets Meltdown

Posted by feww on September 25, 2008

submitted by a reader

What People Say about Rewarding WS Thieves

Mr Warren Buffett:
The rescue plan is “absolutely necessary” to avoid an “economic Pearl Harbor.” [Which version of the Pearl Harbor account do you believe in, Mr B?]

Mr George Soros:
“Now that the crisis has been unleashed a large-scale rescue package is probably indispensable to bring it under control. Rebuilding the depleted balance sheets of the banking system is the right way to go. Not every bank deserves to be saved, but the experts at the Federal Reserve, with proper supervision, can be counted on to make the right judgments.” [And no, it wasn’t their “proper supervision” that got them into this mess in the first place?]

US Federal Reserve Thief [Chief?] Ben Bernanke:
“Act quickly!”  Support the proposed $700bn bailout of the financial markets, or risked “serious consequences.” [Would you still keep your job, if that happened?]

President [sic] GW Bush:
“Given the situation we’re facing, not passing a bill now will cost these Americans much more later.” [What’s this got to do with passing?]

Henry Paulson, Treasury Secretary
Mr Paulson told the House Financial Services Committee that the bailout was about “benefiting the American people, because today’s fragile financial system puts their economic well-being at risk.” [Could you say that again, this time meaningfully?]

Sens.  McCain and Obama:
“This is a time to rise above politics for the good of the country,” [and sit down again?]

The brown biscuit went to Jack Welch, of course!

Jack Welch, Former General Electric Co Chairman and CEO:

Making the “deep downturn” sound inevitable and scaring the hell out of the business world by saying the first quarter of 2009 will be “brutal,” unless of course the proposed $700 billion government rescue package for Wall Street was approved, Welch said:

“I am now caving … Get ready for real tough times. They’re coming.”

Welch praised Henry Paulson, Ben Bernanke and New York Fed President Timothy Geithner, for what they had so far achieved, no doubt, and even called them “brilliant public servants” who have “not let ideology get in the way of taking action.” [Wow! Moderators were left speechless with emotion, tears gathering in their eyes!]

“Thank God we have Bernanke, Paulson and Geithner,” Welch said. “We have to act.” [Who is “we?” Why must “we” act if we have “brilliant public servants” like “thank-god-Bernanke” and his clique?]

Then, as if to strengthen his point, the utter nonsense he was spewing out at the World Business Forum in New York on Wednesday, begging credibility by pretending to be one of “us,” he said:

“We have to look at the damn investment bankers… They’re playing with other people’s money. The only penalty was a cut in their bonus, not their head.” [What about the CEOs, former and present, Mr Welch, should they be awarded compulsory haircuts, too?]

MSRB Moderators:

  1. Steal my money once, shame on you, you’re a thief protected by the Federal Government!
  2. Steal my money twice, shame on me, I’m a FOOL who doesn’t deserve any money!
  3. Steal my money again? Just take it, but don’t scare me with the market meltdown ruse!

Related Links:

Posted in fool me once, fool me twice, Jack Welch, Mccain, Obama | Tagged: , , , , | 1 Comment »