I first ray of hope? One Dem candidate calls another a ‘whore’ for AIPAC during live debate

The Raw Story reports:

Things got heated during a Democratic primary debate for the U.S. Senate in Connecticut on Thursday when one candidate told another that he was “whore” over his support of a pro-Israel lobbying group.

“I’m appalled that when I talk about the neoconservatives somehow it’s twisted to be some sort of a racist comment,” long-shot candidate Lee Whitnum said in response to U.S. Rep. Chris Murphy. “This is documented fact. The neoconservative role in the taking down of Iraq [with an] unnecessary war is fact. It’s not opinion.”

“I’m dealing with whore here who sells his soul to AIPAC [American Israel Public Affairs Committee], who will say anything for the job,” Whitnum explained, pointing towards Murphy and then adding that state Rep. William Tong was “ignorant” for defending him.

“What I would like to propose is a prosecution of settlers here, American settlers, who go to Israel and maim or kill in the Promised Land. Since 2000, 66,000 of the indigenous culture have been killed, many of them by American settlers. This is viewed all over the Middle East and we are hated for this worldwide.”

Murphy responded calmly during his closing remarks: “I’d advocated for all of the candidates to be a part of these debates. I might think twice about those with that kind of awful language being used on the airwaves.”

Watch the video below from NBC Connecticut, broadcast April 5, 2012.

A 9/11 Every Day For Ten and a Half Years

Very refreshing article from Informationclearinghouse.info:
(original URL: http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article19332.htm)
-------

Most of Us Will Eat Shit Until the Day We Die

By Arthur Silber

12/02/08 "Once Upon A Time" - -- -Let us begin with the proposition of greatest importance. From my essay, "The Missing Moral Center: Murdering the Innocent":

There is one final point to be made about all this -- and that has to do with the supreme value of a single human life. In our desensitized, dehumanized age, most people have almost no appreciation for what I'm talking about, and our political establishment and media only make this grievous failing worse. Each of us is unique; not one of us can be replaced. Each of us has a family, loved ones, friends and a life that is a web of caring, interdependence, and joy. When even one of us is killed or horribly injured for no justifiable reason, the damage affects countless people in addition to the primary victim. Sometimes, the survivors are irreparably damaged as well. Even the survivors' wounds can last a lifetime.

This is of the greatest significance. There is nothing more important or meaningful in the world. No moral principle legitimizes our invasion and occupation of Iraq, just as it will not justify an attack on Iran. Therefore, when the first person was killed in Iraq as the result of our actions, the immorality was complete. The crime had been committed, and no amends could ever suffice or would even be possible. That many additional tens or hundreds of thousands of people have subsequently been killed or injured does not add to the original immorality with regard to first principles. It increases its scope, which is an additional and terrible horror -- but the principle is not altered in the smallest degree.

So think of the five-year-old Iraqi girl who is no more, or think of any one of the countless other victims of this criminal war and occupation. Think of their families and friends. Think of the lives that have been altered forever, and of the wounds that will never heal. Think about all of that.

Contemplate the devastation and the horror. Make it real to yourself. And ask yourself if forgiveness is possible.

We now know -- at least, those of us who are minimally honest know -- that the United States government has murdered in excess of one million Iraqis. In yet another attempt to break through the massive wall of resistance erected by our government, the U.S. media, and the American public, I once put this in terms that I hoped would hit home more directly:

For ease of computation, we'll use approximate figures. Assume the U.S.'s war crimes have resulted in one million deaths. That is roughly 1/26 of the total Iraqi population. An equivalent number of American deaths would be 11.5 million people. 3,000 Americans were murdered on 9/11. In terms of casualties, 11.5 million deaths represent 3,800 9/11s -- or a 9/11 every day for ten and a half years.

Let me repeat that: a 9/11 every day for ten and a half years.

Perhaps you think these casualty figures are highly inflated. Fine. Cut them in half. That's a 9/11 every day for a little over five years.

Every day.

Do you begin to understand now?

Our government, our media and most Americans remain absolutely determined not to understand.

Let us proceed to a second proposition of great significance. The ruling elites in the United States have been committed to a foreign policy of American hegemony for over a century; this has been especially true in the decades following the end of World War II. This foreign policy of global hegemony, to be actualized by overthrow, assassination, war, murder, torture and occupation as required, has been and remains a fully bipartisan affair. Both Republicans and Democrats, insofar as the parties bearing those names are central institutions of power in the United States, embrace this policy; very often, Democrats have been notably more aggressive and ruthless in pursuit of this end than Republicans (always excepting the current war criminals in charge of the executive branch). I have detailed this bipartisan policy of murder and conquest in numerous essays; see all of my "Dominion Over the World" series (all the essays in that series are linked at the end of that article), and the other articles linked in those pieces. Scan the archives for still more.

The Democrats were never going to end the occupation of Iraq, as I noted in a post just prior to the 2006 election: "An Election Conceived in Nausea." The other predictions in that post have also been borne out by events. Predicting how loathsome the loathsome Democrats will be is not a difficult task -- not if you are minimally honest.

In a new article, Matt Taibbi details the nauseating depths of the Democrats' abominable record over the last year. Taibbi notes the Democratic leaders' lofty calls to inspirational principles -- from Harry Reid ("We have the presidential election," Reid said recently. "Our time is really squeezed."), and from Nancy Pelosi ("We'll have a new president," said Pelosi. "And I do think at that time we'll take a fresh look at it.") Reid and Pelosi offer such resounding calls to first principles as more and more people are slaughtered every day. Couldn't you just die? Lots of people are dying, but not anyone you know (or Reid or Pelosi knows) -- so you don't give a shit.

Taibbi writes:

Working behind the scenes, the Democrats have systematically taken over the anti-war movement, packing the nation's leading group with party consultants more interested in attacking the GOP than ending the war. "Our focus is on the Republicans," one Democratic apparatchik in charge of the anti-war coalition declared. "How can we juice up attacks on them?"

The story of how the Democrats finally betrayed the voters who handed them both houses of Congress a year ago is a depressing preview of what's to come if they win the White House. And if we don't pay attention to this sorry tale now, while there's still time to change our minds about whom to nominate, we might be stuck with this same bunch of spineless creeps for four more years. With no one but ourselves to blame.

Taibbi makes two errors here, one that is obvious and one that is implied. The obvious error is to speak of the Democrats' "betrayal." It is only betrayal if the Democrats had, in fact, been committed to ending the occupation. That in turn would require that they question the basic assumptions of United States foreign policy. But they weren't and they don't, as many of my essays demonstrate. It was betrayal only to those stupid enough to have believed what the Democrats said, as opposed to what their actions -- and the underlying dynamics at work -- showed. I suppose I should add that one need not necessarily have been stupid (and here, I cast my eye around the "progressive" blogosphere): a person might be so consumed with achieving power for the Democrats above all else that he or she is willing to lie endlessly -- so as to curry favor with those in power (or who might be), to wield "influence," and/or to make a sufficient number of mindless readers happy (or keep them suitably intellectually sedated).

Taibbi's implied error is his talk about "whom to nominate." He names Hillary Clinton as one of those who peddles endless "bullshit" about wanting "to do the right thing" -- and he notably fails to mention Obama. Memo to Taibbi: if you're thinking that Obama represents a genuinely different point of view on these questions, you're wrong -- he doesn't. (I'll have more about the particular dangers represented by Mr. Obama, and they are considerable, in the next few days.)

Later in his article, Taibbi offer these sickening details concerning the mechanics of the Democrats' actions:

Rather than use the vast power they had to end the war, Democrats devoted their energy to making sure that "anti-war activism" became synonymous with "electing Democrats." Capitalizing on America's desire to end the war, they hijacked the anti-war movement itself, filling the ranks of peace groups with loyal party hacks. Anti-war organizations essentially became a political tool for the Democrats — one operated from inside the Beltway and devoted primarily to targeting Republicans.

This supposedly grass-roots "anti-war coalition" met regularly on K Street, the very capital of top-down Beltway politics. At the forefront of the groups are Thomas Matzzie and Brad Woodhouse of Americans Against the Escalation in Iraq, the leader of the anti-war lobby. Along with other K Street crusaders, the two have received iconic treatment from The Washington Post and The New York Times, both of which depicted the anti-war warriors as young idealist-progressives in shirtsleeves, riding a mirthful spirit into political combat — changing the world is fun!

But what exactly are these young idealists campaigning for? At its most recent meeting, the group eerily echoed the Reid-Pelosi "squeezed for time" mantra: Retreat from any attempt to end the war and focus on electing Democrats. "There was a lot of agreement that we can draw distinctions between anti-war Democrats and pro-war Republicans," a spokeswoman for Americans Against the Escalation in Iraq announced.

What the Post and the Times failed to note is that much of the anti-war group's leadership hails from a consulting firm called Hildebrand Tewes — whose partners, Steve Hildebrand and Paul Tewes, served as staffers for the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee (DSCC). In addition, these anti-war leaders continue to consult for many of the same U.S. senators whom they need to pressure in order to end the war. This is the kind of conflict of interest that would normally be an embarrassment in the activist community.

Worst of all is the case of Woodhouse, who came to Hildebrand Tewes after years of working as the chief mouthpiece for the DSCC, where he campaigned actively to re-elect Democratic senators who supported the Iraq War in the first place. ...

With guys like this in charge of the anti-war movement, much of what has passed for peace activism in the past year was little more than a thinly veiled scheme to use popular discontent over the war to unseat vulnerable Republicans up for re-election in 2008.

Taibbi goes on:

Even beyond the war, the Democrats have repeatedly gone limp-dick every time the Bush administration so much as raises its voice. Most recently, twelve Democrats crossed the aisle to grant immunity to phone companies who participated in Bush's notorious wiretapping program. Before that, Democrats caved in and confirmed Mike Mukasey as attorney general after he kept his middle finger extended and refused to condemn waterboarding as torture. Democrats fattened by Wall Street also got cold feet about upsetting the country's gazillionaires, refusing to close a tax loophole that rewarded hedge-fund managers with a tax rate less than half that paid by ordinary citizens.

After all this, the liberal-progressive blogosphere continues to propagandize endlessly and raise huge amounts of money for "more and better Democrats" -- on the model of Jim Webb, I suppose, one of those "better" Democrats who offered one of the most pathetically stupid defenses in the history of the universe in support of his vote for last summer's atrocious FISA legislation.

Here's a rule you can take to the bank:

Any individual who rises to the national political level is, of necessity and by definition, committed to the authoritarian-corporatist state. The current system will not allow anyone to be elected from either of the two major parties who is determined to dismantle even one part of that system.

Yes, yes: there are a handful of exceptions. That's so some of you can continue to prattle about the virtues of "participatory democracy." That's so you don't notice that the ruling elites don't give a damn what you think, except for brief periods surrounding elections -- when they'll tell you what you want to hear, even though history, including yesterday's history, proves they don't mean a single damned word of it. And please note that the two or three exceptions are not those individuals championed by these same liberals and progressives: note how the leading progressive bloggers themselves led the marginalization of Dennis Kucinich.

I'll be blunt, even rude: You can call it Republican shit. You can call it Democratic shit. You can call it progressive shit. It's still shit. It's still murder, and torture, and criminal war, and a growing surveillance state. If you vote for the Democratic or the Republican candidate for president -- and if you vote for almost any of the candidates for national office -- you're voting for murder. You're voting for torture. You're voting for criminal war. You're voting for the growing surveillance state.

Is that what you choose to do? Is that what you choose to support? Is it?

At the end of his article, Taibbi writes:

How much of this bullshit are we going to take? How long are we supposed to give the Reids and Pelosis and Hillarys of the world credit for wanting, deep down in their moldy hearts, to do the right thing? Look, fuck your hearts, OK? Just get it done. Because if you don't, sooner or later this con is going to run dry. It may not be in '08, but it'll be soon. Even Americans can't be fooled forever.

Perhaps not forever, but most Americans are perfectly willing to be fooled (hell, they're enthusiastic about it) until the Empire begins to crumble around them -- that is, in ways that directly affect them in their lives. That day may be coming, perhaps sooner than we might prefer to think.

Some of them won't be fooled at that point. But then it will be too late. A lot of you will eat shit until the day you die.

The heat against Iran is still on - and it’s coming from the Democrats

by Philip Giraldi

In spite of repeated Pentagon denials that a military option is imminent, the United States is again putting pressure on Iran that could easily lead to an armed conflict, a conflict that is desired neither by the American nor Iranian people. Nearly everyone agrees that it would be better if Iran were not to develop a nuclear weapon, if, indeed, that is Tehran's intention. Though modern Iran has no history of attacking its neighbors, its geography places it at the center of a pivotal region where sectarian issues loom large and could potentially impact on the energy needs of the global economy. Nuclear bombs are already in the hands of several of Iran's neighbors, and the creation of another nuclear power would increase instability and heighten legitimate concerns that such weapons could somehow wind up in the hands of terrorists. The question becomes how to stop that process if it can be stopped at all.

The White House insists that it is resorting to diplomacy with Iran, and the current negotiations are, in fact, a considerable step forward as there have been no face-to-face talks since 1979. But the admittedly only very limited discussions held in Baghdad have focused solely on the situation in Iraq in spite of the fact that since 2003 Iran has made clear that it wants to negotiate all outstanding disagreements. It is widely believed that Vice President Dick Cheney and his national security adviser David Wurmser have deliberately limited the playing field because they have no desire to engage Iran amicably and are instead fixated on regime change in Tehran as the only acceptable solution to the "Persian problem." Cheney has been ably seconded by fellow hawk Elliot Abrams at the National Security Council, who has been working to undercut Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice's efforts to avoid a war. Wurmser, meanwhile, has been advising the like-minded at the American Enterprise Institute that Cheney does not believe in negotiations and has promised that the Bush Administration will deal with Iran militarily before its term of office ends.

The Cheney-Wurmser-Abrams axis is opposed to Administration figures like Rice, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, and the intelligence agency chiefs, all of whom are reluctant to do a replay of Iraq in Iran. The Iraq Studies Group (ISG) recommended engaging Iran and all other local players including Syria to help stabilize Iraq and the broader Persian Gulf region. It also recommended taking serious steps to resolve the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. As "serious steps" would consist of Washington pressuring Israel, the ISG report has been coolly received by the White House and with intense hostility by certain Congressmen who are closely tied to Israel.

Israel's friends in Congress have countered the relative thaw in relations with Iran through their recent approval of the Iran Counter-Proliferation Act of 2007. The Act disclaims any desire to "target" the Iranian people or to seek war between Washington and Tehran, but it creates conditions that could easily lead to military conflict. It sailed through the House Foreign Affairs Committee on a 37 to 1 vote on June 28th and it is expected that it will be approved by a landslide vote in the House when Congress reconvenes this week. The Act is bipartisan, having as co-sponsors Democrat Tom Lantos from California and Republican Ileana Ros-Lehtinen from Florida. Lantos is a Holocaust survivor who frequently confuses the Israeli national interest with that of the US. He has recently recommended that Israel be allowed to become a member of NATO. Both Lantos and Ros-Lehtinen are regarded as strong and uncritical supporters of Israel's recent series of right wing governments. Only one Congressman, Jeff Flake of Arizona, spoke up against the Act, noting, correctly, that it would be ineffective and would make it less likely to "achieve the type of multilateral sanctions that we would need..."

The Iran Counter-Proliferation Act of 2007, which would go into effect on January 1, 2008, tightens the screws on Iran's economy. It sensibly denies a nuclear cooperation agreement with the US to any country that aids Iran's nuclear program, but then it goes off the rails. It strengthens the already existing Iran Sanctions Act by closing loopholes that have permitted some international energy companies, mostly located in Europe, Russia, and China, to invest in Iran's energy infrastructure. If fully implemented, this would require the US to sanction major companies that operate internationally and to deny them access to the US market. Lantos has stated unambiguously that his intention is to achieve "zero foreign investment in Iran" while Congressman Gary Ackerman of New York was blunt in his advice to foreign companies, "Don't invest in Iran." The ban on sales to Iran would even extend to refined petroleum products and the tankers used to ship them in an effort to strangle the Iranian economy, which could almost certainly be construed as an act of war. As Iran has only limited refinery capacity and exports most of its oil, its gasoline comes from refineries located in the Persian Gulf Emirates and in India. If that gasoline were to be denied, the Iranian economy would almost certainly collapse, with dire consequences for the Iranian people. But the economic problems would not necessarily weaken the Iranian government, which could declare a state of emergency and would almost certainly become more dominated by hardliners than it is currently. Under such circumstances, the country's leadership could easily decide that a nuclear arsenal is more than ever essential to guarantee national independence and would take every step necessary either to develop or acquire new weapons. The sanctions might produce the reverse of the intended outcome and a desperate Iran might also resort to other measures, like stepping up attacks against American soldiers in Iraq.

The Act also calls on the President to name the Iranian Revolutionary Guard as a terrorist group and to block assets of any entity providing support to it. That is in spite of the fact that the Revolutionary Guards constitute an integral part of the Iranian government and have never attacked the United States or US citizens. It would enable the Department of the Treasury to block accounts and transactions relating to the normal operation of the Iranian government and to pressure other countries and banks to do likewise, a very dangerous step that could again escalate into something unintended, forcing Iran to react in ways that might be unpredictable.

On the Senate side, there has also been increasing pressure to go after Iran. Senator Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut stated in an interview at the end of June and again in an article on July 6th that the Iranian involvement in Iraq means that Tehran "has already declared war on the US." It is to be presumed that Lieberman means that it is time for the United States to begin bombing. In the same June interview, Lieberman demonstrated his immense knowledge of foreign policy and defense issues by declaring that in Iraq "we've got the enemy on the run," a truly astonishing assertion that even the factually challenged Bush White House would be reluctant to make.

It might be reassuring to consider the ranting of a number of Congressmen who are joined at the hip to right wing governments in Israel as unimportant, but it would be a mistake to do so. Most of them are Democrats, the party that controls both the House and Senate currently and which is the odds-on favorite to win the Presidency in 2008. All the leading Democratic Presidential candidates have repeatedly voiced their willingness to "have all options on the table" in regard to Iran, which is taken to mean that the military option should be used if necessary. The "all options on the table" line was, in fact, coined by the Israel lobby AIPAC, which has consistently hyped the Iran threat and which believes that Tehran must be disarmed to enhance Israel's security. The American public, if it truly wishes to avoid a ruinous war with Iran, should instead insist that all options be taken off the table and that good faith negotiations begin on all the issues dividing Tehran and Washington.

Philip Giraldi is a recognized authority on international security and counterterrorism issues. He is a regular contributor to www.antiwar.com in a column titled “Smoke and Mirrors” and is a Contributing Editor who writes a column called “Deep Background” on terrorism, intelligence, and security issues for The American Conservative magazine. He has written op-ed pieces for the Hearst Newspaper chain, has appeared on “Good Morning America,” MSNBC, National Public Radio, and local affiliates of ABC television. He has been a keynote speaker at the Petroleum Industry Security Council annual meeting, has spoken twice at the American Conservative Union’s annual CPAC convention in Washington, and has addressed several World Affairs Council affiliates. He has been interviewed by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, the British Broadcasting Corporation, Britain’s Independent Television Network, FOX News, Polish National Television, Croatian National Television, al-Jazeera, al-Arabiya, 60 Minutes, and Court TV. He prepares and edits a nationally syndicated subscription service newsletter on September 11th issues for corporate clients.

Phil is a former CIA counter-terrorism specialist and military intelligence officer who served eighteen years overseas in Turkey, Italy, Germany, and Spain. He was Chief of Base in Barcelona from 1989 to 1992 designated as the Agency’s senior officer for Olympic Games support. Since 1992, Phil has been engaged in security consulting for a number of Fortune 500 corporate clients. He is currently President of San Marco International, a consulting firm that specializes in international security management and risk assessment, and also a partner in Cannistraro Associates, a security consultancy located in McLean Virginia. Phil was awarded an MA and PhD from the University of London in European History and holds a Bachelor of Arts with Honors from the University of Chicago. He speaks Spanish, Italian, German, and Turkish.

An Open Letter to the Democratic Congress by Cindy Sheehan

Why I Am Leaving the Democratic Party

By Cindy Sheehan

Dublin, Ireland

Dear Democratic Congress,

Hello, my name is Cindy Sheehan and my son Casey Sheehan was killed on April 04, 2004 in Sadr City , Baghdad , Iraq . He was killed when the Republicans still were in control of Congress. Naively, I set off on my tireless campaign calling on Congress to rescind George's authority to wage his war of terror while asking him "for what noble cause" did Casey and thousands of other have to die. Now, with Democrats in control of Congress, I have lost my optimistic naiveté and have become cynically pessimistic as I see you all caving into "Mr. 28%"

There is absolutely no sane or defensible reason for you to hand Bloody King George more money to condemn more of our brave, tired, and damaged soldiers and the people of Iraq to more death and carnage. You think giving him more money is politically expedient, but it is a moral abomination and every second the occupation of Iraq endures, you all have more blood on your hands.

Ms. Pelosi, Speaker of the House, said after George signed the new weak as a newborn baby funding authorization bill: "Now, I think the president's policy will begin to unravel." Begin to unravel? How many more of our children will have to be killed and how much more of Iraq will have to be demolished before you all think enough unraveling has occurred? How many more crimes will BushCo be allowed to commit while their poll numbers are crumbling before you all gain the political "courage" to hold them accountable. If Iraq hasn't unraveled in Ms. Pelosi's mind, what will it take? With almost 700,000 Iraqis dead and four million refugees (which the US refuses to admit) how could it get worse? Well, it is getting worse and it can get much worse thanks to your complicity.

Being cynically pessimistic, it seems to me that this new vote to extend the war until the end of September, (and let's face it, on October 1st, you will give him more money after some more theatrics, which you think are fooling the anti-war faction of your party) will feed right into the presidential primary season and you believe that if you just hang on until then, the Democrats will be able to re-take the White House. Didn't you see how "well" that worked for John Kerry in 2004 when he played the politics of careful fence sitting and pandering? The American electorate are getting disgusted with weaklings who blow where the wind takes them while frittering away our precious lifeblood and borrowing money from our new owners, the Chinese.

I knew having a Democratic Congress would make no difference in grassroots action. That's why we went to DC when you all were sworn in to tell you that we wanted the troops back from Iraq and BushCo held accountable while you pushed for ethics reform which is quite a hoot...don't' you think? We all know that it is affordable for you all to play this game of political mayhem because you have no children in harm's way...let me tell you what it is like:

You watch your reluctant soldier march off to a war that neither you nor he agrees with. Once your soldier leaves the country all you can do is worry. You lie awake at night staring at the moon wondering if today will be the day that you get that dreaded knock on your door. You can't concentrate, you can't eat, and your entire life becomes consumed with apprehension while you are waiting for the other shoe to drop.

Then, when your worst fears are realized, you begin a life of constant pain, regret, and longing. Everyday is hard, but then you come up on "special" days...like upcoming Memorial Day. Memorial Day holds double pain for me because, not only are we supposed to honor our fallen troops, but Casey was born on Memorial Day in 1979. It used to be a day of celebration for us and now it is a day of despair. Our needlessly killed soldiers of this war and the past conflict in Vietnam have all left an unnecessary trail of sorrow and deep holes of absence that will never be filled.

So, Democratic Congress, with the current daily death toll of 3.72 troops per day, you have condemned 473 more to these early graves. 473 more lives wasted for your political greed: Thousands of broken hearts because of your cowardice and avarice. How can you even go to sleep at night or look at yourselves in a mirror? How do you put behind you the screaming mothers on both sides of the conflict? How does the agony you have created escape you? It will never escape me...I can't run far enough or hide well enough to get away from it.

By the end of September, we will be about 80 troops short of another bloody milestone: 4000, and MoveOn.org will hold nationwide candlelight vigils and you all will be busy passing legislation that will snuff the lights out of thousands more human beings.

Congratulations Congress, you have bought yourself a few more months of an illegal and immoral bloodbath. And you know you mean to continue it indefinitely so "other presidents" can solve the horrid problem BushCo forced our world into.

It used to be George Bush's war. You could have ended it honorably. Now it is yours and you all will descend into calumnious history with BushCo.

The Camp Casey Peace Institute is calling all citizens who are as disgusted as we are with you all to join us in Philadelphia on July 4th to try and figure a way out of this "two" party system that is bought and paid for by the war machine which has a stranglehold on every aspect of our lives. As for myself, I am leaving the Democratic Party. You have completely failed those who put you in power to change the direction our country is heading. We did not elect you to help sink our ship of state but to guide it to safe harbor.

We do not condone our government's violent meddling in sovereign countries and we condemn the continued murderous occupation of Iraq .

We gave you a chance, you betrayed us.

Sincerely,
Cindy Sheehan
Founder and President of
Gold Star Families for Peace.

Founder and Director of
The Camp Casey Peace Institute

Eternally grieving mother of Casey Sheehan

Dissenting voices and delayed wars

Something very interesting is happening in the USA: two candidates for the next Presidential election (Ron Paul, R, and Mike Gravel, D) are running on an anti-war platfrom and they are speaking up in each debate (so far - soon they will be given the boot). They stand no chance whatsoever under the current political system. Just take a look the Washington Post's truly orwellian editorial complaining that "Too many candidates talking about too much" and which specifically singles out Ron Paul and Mike Gravel as "excess candidates". Presumably the Neocon editors of the Post would prefer a few, shall we say, "unanimous" candidates on the issues of the current wars (Afghanistan, Iraq, Somalia) and the one to come (Iran).

Unlike the Establishment press, the free and independent media is mostly expressing interest or even outright admiration for Paul's and Gravel's courage. Some in the blogosphere are even suggesting that the two only anti-war candidates should drop their current party affiliations and join forces on an anti-war & civil liberties platform.

What is becoming increasingly clear that both Paul and Gravel and not so much trying to win the nomination of their parties as they are trying to use the devates to educate the American electorate on the true reasons behind today's crisis. And in this lies a huge opportunity.

Ever since the Democrats took control of both chambers of the Imperial Senate it has become clear that there is simply nothing to be expected from either faction of the "Republicrat Party". Besides, can anyone still tell these two Parties and their candidate apart?! With Republicans like Guliani and Democrats like Hillary it is clear that the USA is about to enter a very ugly phase of its history as the former will most certainly brutally crack down on internal dissent (Guliani is for all intends and purposes a genuine Fascist) while the latter will do whatever it is AIPAC demands from her. Throw in Obama with his assurances that he does not want to nuke anybody "right now" and McCaine singing "bomb, bomb, bomb - bomb, bomb Iran" and the picture is gloomy indeed: some "choice" given to the American people...

So why has the war with Iran not started yet?

First, it appears that there is a strong reaction of the "old Anglo" oil lobby against the Neocons and their plans for war. Simply put - the bosses of the likes of Baker or Brzezinski have too much to loose financially in such a folly and they have unleashed an strong anti-Neocon campaign involving such personalities as Jimmy Carter, General Odom, Scott Ritter, John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt, Michael Scheuer and many others. Second, there are persistent rumors of very strong opposition to these plans inside the US military brass. So that's two of the three most powerful lobbies in the USA (oil and military-industrial) opposing the war. Which leaves the Neocons alone in their designs of more war. That's the good news.

The bad news is that the Neocons don't care and that they are already firmly control all the Presidential candidates (except Paul and Gravel). They also have amnequally firm grip on the Imperial Senate and the corporate media. Which brings me to the role played by the free & independent media and the blogosphere as the sole and increasingly powerful, outlet for the anti-war movement to express its views: thanks to its very existence no matter which of the Neocons actually gets elected in 2008, the three pillars of power of the Establishment (the two factions of the war Party, the Imperial Senate, and the corporate media) will become even further discredited in the eyes of the American people once it becomes clear that there will be hell to pay for the Neocon's policies (what the CIA calls the "blowback effect") and that the only the free media consistently warned about that.

Alas, the Neocons have nothing more to loose politically and they are now looking at the very real possibility of facing various criminal indictment for war crimes, international aggression, perjury, obstruction of justice, espionage, fraud, civil rights violations, etc. It is thus clear that barring a miracle a war with Iran is still probably inevitable. The only good thing coming from that is that it will be the last war of the American Empire and that, as so many empires before, the USA will eventually become a "normal" nation (and the Neocons will be either in jail or hiding abroad). Sadly, the price to pay for this outcome in blood and money is likely to be staggering.

Some thoughts on current events

Can anyone really tell the two factions of the Republicrat Party apart?! I can’t. Its like the choice between (kosher) Pepsi and (kosher) Coke - no difference except the packaging, and all you have inside is corporate-designed crap harmful to your health.

Libertarians, Greens, Nation of Islam, Militias are, as far as I can tell, pretty much the only ideological alternatives to the Imperial Republicrats and none of these have *any* chance at all to get any kind of power as long as the puppet-masters of the “two factions of the Business Party” as Chomsky calls them have 100% control over the mass media.

What you have here is something very similar to the Soviet Union in which an entire class (called the “Nomeklatura”) ran the country. The USA has its own Nomenklatura which currently holds all the power. Sure, there are fake factions (such as the two packages for the Republicrats) and even real factions (Anglos vs. Zionists) inside this Nomenklatura, but that was also the case in the former Soviet Union or, for that matter in Nazi Germany (at least the Republicans to murder all the Democractic leaders the way Himmler’s SS did it to Roehm’s SA in Germany).I wonder when they will begin goose-stepping down the streets

Why has the war on Iran not started yet?

My best guess is that the Old Anglos are loosing to the New Zionists, but the fact is that the war with Iran did not start yet. I had it pegged for March and we are in late April and that did not happen (yet). I really do not think that the peace movement, however well intentioned, has the political power to make the pro-war forces back down, so what happened? Well, for the time being, I think the Old Anglos are waging a rather intense PR campaign against the Neocons (other word for New Zionists) because their $$$ is at stake: the Old Anglos have nothing to win from a war with Iran, and plenty to loose. The Neocons, on the other hand, don’t give a crap about the US or the financial interests of the Old Anglos, and they believe that they have plenty to win by such a war (mind you - what benefits the Neocons is not automatically something which benefits Israel, American Jews or Conservatives. Neocons *use* Zionism as a means towards their power, they are not true believers in the Abba Eban style).

Another big lobby are the Saudis and I think that they know how much at risk their regime would be in a all-out war with Iran. So Anglos+Saudis makes a rather formidable force. Do the New Zinonists have the power to force the USA into a war SOLELY with their pressure on the Imperial Senate (as Scott - correctly - calls Congress). My guess is that yes, they will still prevail. But I might be wrong.

Lemme share a little private thing here. I used to work for one of the well-known conservative think tanks inside the Beltway (yep - I am a former military analyst and “recovering conservative” turned hard-core peacenick anti-war pacifist). Since I was not an American, one of the top guys one day confided in me and told me this thing about Anglos vs. Jews in conservative think tanks. Take, for example, the Heritage Foundation which began as a kind of “Christian” (in a US meaning of the word) think tank, Reganite of sorts. It turned into something like a wannabe-AIPAC. How did that happen. The guys explained the scheme to me. When the “Neocons” realized with Regan that the Republicans were a huge force they decided to join the movement and coopt it. They began by funding major think tanks and soon they began appointing executives and forcing the old (Anglo) guard out. In government, they pushed out the CIA’s old Anglo guard and put the Agency under defacto DoD control. This is a *huge* operation which took, what? at least 20 years to fully realize and now they risk loosing it all over this Iran thing because in many circiles their overt lobbying for the war is seen as the “big coming out” (expression I heard from another top analyst). My guess is that there is even a segment of the Neocons which wants to stop this thing because it could really compromise their achievements so far.Now look at how the Anglos are fighting back: Scott Ritter, Michael Scheuer, Carter, Mearsheimer, articles in the Christian Science Monitor, etc. What?! All these folks just woke up? Maybe some (Ritter). But old foxes like Scheuer or Carter absolutely not. Then the FBI goes after Scooter Libby, the AIPAC trial is scheduled for May, Wolfowitz is blasted even in the Economist (like he is the first one to use World Bank money for sex, LOL!). No, make no mistake - the Anglos are fighting back and they have plenty of punching power left in them.

So why do I still bet on the Neocons winning? Because as long as they control the corporate media and the Imperial Senate they can “manufacture consent” in the general public. No matter how totally idiotic, a “Persian Gulf of Tonkin” decception will be unanimously greeted by the US corporate media and the Imperial Senate with a standing ovation (think Pelosi here). So I say that they will try to get the Angols on board with some promises. If that don’t work - they will just trigger a crisis and bypass the old Anglo guard altogether.