Another Neocon bites the dust

It's over. Wolfowitz has been given the boot. Is that the World Bank's wonderful honesty and good governance at work? Of course not.

I mean - you gotta be kiddin' - right? A international civil servant gives a promotion to his mistress, is that really something so unique? What nonesense, it is done on a daily basis at the United Nations, European Parliament, International Labor Office, World Health Organization, etc. and, of course, this happens daily at the World Bank. And its not like this is a big secret either, any person working there know about this. So this is exactly like the Khodorkovsky trial in Putin's Russia for tax evasion - it has little to do with some alledged crime (however real) and everything to do with a vendetta for other reasons. Neither Khodorkovsky nor Wolfowitz did anything all their outraged collegues had not been doing for years. Khodorkovsky got jailed for his refusal to share hius loot with Putin and Wolfowitz' case is yet another example of the US "Anglos & Oil" lobby going after a well-known Neocon (with the kind assistance of some friends in Europe and, in particular, the UK).

The White House perfectly understood that perfectly and did it utmost to stand by Wolfowitz, but to no avail: the old Neocon will be the next victim of the Anglos & Oil lobby's war against the Neocons and it appears that Neocons are taking quite a beating: Scooter Libby, John Bolton, Steve Rosen, Keith Weissman, Larry Franklin and good ole Rumsfeld of course, Neocon heads are rolling in the dust. Now that Greg Palast is trying to get Carl Rove and possibly even Imprial Majesty Dick Cheney finally exposed for their role in the "US attorney firing scandal" the Neocons are in real danger of loosing their grip on power.

My guess is that they will strke back, rather sooner than later. And that is really, really scary. Why?

What happened when Bush the Lesser was fraudulently "elected" and was seen as a lame idiot by most of the public opinion? 9-11. What happened when Putin's popularity began to sink in Russia? The "Chechen" bombings in Moscow. What happened when Tony Blair's rating began dropping in free-fall? The 7/7 bombings in the UK. Of course, these are just coincidences, but for some reason each time one of the Imperial rulers run into trouble, some terrorist bails them out. This time, this might just be some "Persian Gulf of Tonkin" incident like, say, some missile hitting Israel coming from the "general direction" of Iran, or something equally ludicrous.

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.

The value of the lone dissenter

Originally, this was posted on Scott Horton's blog

For all its intrinsic merits - and God know they are numerous - it is unclear how big an audience Scott's show reaches and, even more importantly, how much of an impact it has on anyone. Surely in a country which re-elected, scratch this, which elected Bush the Lesser in the midst of two lost wars any voice for reason and decency is lost in the ocean of stupidity? Not so. Here is why:

Social psychologists have done a lot of work on the issue of conformity. In particular, the experiments of Sherif, Asch and Milgram have looked deeply in the the mechanisms which make people agree to seemingly obviously mistaken and outright evil concepts and actions. One of them (Asch) centered on the effect of the group on an individual's judgment. Basically, he showed that most people tend to agree with other's obviously wrong judgments usually to the point of kidding themselves in to sincerely believing whatever the group says. That's the bad news. The good news is that it only takes ONE dissenter to dramatically decrease this phenomenon. In fact, if ONE sole dissenter's common sense makes him openly challenge the unanimity of the rest of the group members the number of people who choose to conform against their best judgment falls by 75%!

Unanimity is what the Imperial rulers need from their population. This is one of the mains reasons why most authoritarian and all totalitarian regimes spend a truly phenomenal amount of resources trying to silence even a very small minority. For example, in the Soviet Union the so-called 'dissidents' had very little popular support, if any. But the KGB had an entire Main Directorate (the 5th if I remember correctly) only to deal with them. Often this is explained away as "paranoia", and sometimes it is so. But it is also a reflection of an acute understanding by those in powers that only a unanimity (even only a seeming one, an external one - that's all that's needed) can secure the passive compliance of a population.

So this is why Scott's work is truly invaluable: it allows anyone listening to his shows who would otherwise nod his/her head and shut up to think "yeah, that makes sense, and its the others who are full of shit!" and break the psychological barrier of the need to conform.

Even Scott's "rant shows" are hugely valuable because he shows that somebody can get on the air not just somewhere, but in Texas of all places, and speak freely without fear or self-censorship.

I strongly encourage everybody to *totally* cut any contacts with the corporate media. Don't watch TV, don't read the paper, don't listen to the (non-pirate) radio. Not ever, not once. Get all your information ONLY from independent and free media (God knows with the Internet you can get enough of top quality info and analysis - see links poster on the lower left of this page) and re-direct ALL the money you would be spending on corporate propaganda to truly free and independent media. And then - spread the word, tell all your friends, download sample shows and burn them unto CDs and give them out. That will be *your* way of puncturing the ugly bubble of unanimity.

A huge 'thank you!' to you Scott - you are the real patriot ;-)

The sad story the of AIPAC trial

The entire story of the “AIPAC trial” is yet another example of the fact that the “land of the free & home of the brave” and the “world’s only superpower” has become the subservient banana republic of a small country in the Middle-East. What is so amazing to me is that all the flag-waving “patriots” who thump their chests forcefully declare that they are so “proud to be an American” (stress on the ‘e’) just don’t want to notice how little reason there is for this pride.
The sad reality is that USA is now in many ways a third-world country: wealth distribution, health care, literacy rates, torture, capital punishment, police brutality, racism, crumbling infrastructure, incarceration rate, barbaric labor laws, etc. In fact, the USA as a society has much more in common with, say, Paraguay or Tunisia than we Germany or Japan.
Admittedly, this is a generalization and some part of the US (northern California, Vermont) are in many, but not all, aspects pretty much as civilized as most European countries. But the bulk of the country, including its capital, is just a mess.
Of course, the USA has a huge military, a huge intelligence community, a huge homeland security, more cops per capita than any other developed country, a large nuclear arsenal, etc. All this huge infrastructure is supposed to provide “security” and protection for mischievous alien powers, right? Well, the AIPAC trial (if there ever is one) or the “Israeli art students” affair clearly show that all these spent billions are totally wasted: the roaring giant is afraid of the small dwarf, the elephant is terrified of the mouse.
All the stuff which would be valid reasons to be proud of the USA (the Bill of Rights, the Constitution, the First Amendment freedoms, fantastic music, great science, the kindness of the people, the beauty of nature - whatever) are all being deconstructed by the thugs in power and very few Americans seem to realize this.
As doctors like to say “the prognosis is poor”. The USA, as a society, is crumbling, falling apart and clearly unable to even stand up for its most basic national interests. The AIPAC trial is just another symptom of this sad reality.

Libertarian bumper stickers

Bumper stiker politics are truly an US speciality, at least judging by the quantity of cars on the road with bumper stickers, most of which reflect an appaling lack of originality or even thought of any kind: "support our troops" (how? why?), "united we stand" (for what?), "proud to be an American" (why? ever been abroad? have any idea at all about the rest of the world?), or the inevitable "911 terrorist hunting permit". There are, however, some really nice exceptions, at least on the internet (I have yet to see them on an actual car). Some rather original ones can be found on the Scott Horton section of the website Liberty Stickers.

USSR 1974 - USA 2007: back to the future

“What can we do?”. This is an old question indeed. When a nation becomes enslaved by a government of thugs and terrorists one of the main goals of the rulers is to make their subjects believe that there is nothing they can do about it. Failing that, they want to push all the opposition into some activity which would justify the use of violence against them. So what are the options for those who oppose the rule of the current Empire?

Alexander Solzhenitsyn wrote an essay in 1974 which, I believe, still fully applies to today’s USA. Soon thereafter he was expelled from the USSR. From his exile he declared that he would live to see the Soviet rule collapse and would return to his country before his death. For these words he was ridiculed - at the time the Soviet Empire, protected as it was - not unlike Dubya’s Empire - by a huge military and secret police, looked invincible. Twenty years later, Solzhenitsyn returned to Russia were he still lives today.

—–

Live Not By Lies

Alexander Solzhenitsyn

As printed in The Washington Post, p. A26
Monday, February 18, 1974

Following is the full text of Alexander Solzhenitsyn’s essay “Live Not By Lies.” It is perhaps the last thing he wrote on his native soil [before the collapse of the Soviet Union] and circulated among Moscow’s intellectuals [at that time]. The essay is dated Feb. 12, the day that secret police broke into his apartment and arrested him. The next day he was exiled to West Germany.

At one time we dared not even to whisper. Now we write and read samizdat, and sometimes when we gather in the smoking room at the Science Institute we complain frankly to one another: What kind of tricks are they playing on us, and where are they dragging us? gratuitous boasting of cosmic achievements while there is poverty and destruction at home. Propping up remote, uncivilized regimes. Fanning up civil war. And we recklessly fostered Mao Tse-tung at our expense– and it will be we who are sent to war against him, and will have to go. Is there any way out? And they put on trial anybody they want and they put sane people in asylums–always they, and we are powerless.Things have almost reached rock bottom. A universal spiritual death has already touched us all, and physical death will soon flare up and consume us both and our children–but as before we still smile in a cowardly way and mumble without tounges tied. But what can we do to stop it? We haven’t the strength?

We have been so hopelessly dehumanized that for today’s modest ration of food we are willing to abandon all our principles, our souls, and all the efforts of our predecessors and all opportunities for our descendants–but just don’t disturb our fragile existence. We lack staunchness, pride and enthusiasm. We don’t even fear universal nuclear death, and we don’t fear a third world war. We have already taken refuge in the crevices. We just fear acts of civil courage.

We fear only to lag behind the herd and to take a step alone-and suddenly find ourselves without white bread, without heating gas and without a Moscow registration.

We have been indoctrinated in political courses, and in just the same way was fostered the idea to live comfortably, and all will be well for the rest of our lives. You can’t escape your environment and social conditions. Everyday life defines consciousness. What does it have to do with us? We can’t do anything about it?

But we can–everything. But we lie to ourselves for assurance. And it is not they who are to blame for everything-we ourselves, only we. One can object: But actually toy can think anything you like. Gags have been stuffed into our mouths. Nobody wants to listen to us and nobody asks us. How can we force them to listen? It is impossible to change their minds.

It would be natural to vote them out of office-but there are not elections in our country. In the West people know about strikes and protest demonstrations-but we are too oppressed, and it is a horrible prospect for us: How can one suddenly renounce a job and take to the streets? Yet the other fatal paths probed during the past century by our bitter Russian history are, nevertheless, not for us, and truly we don’t need them.

Now that the axes have done their work, when everything which was sown has sprouted anew, we can see that the young and presumptuous people who thought they would make out country just and happy through terror, bloody rebellion and civil war were themselves misled. No thanks, fathers of education! Now we know that infamous methods breed infamous results. Let our hands be clean!

The circle–is it closed? And is there really no way out? And is there only one thing left for us to do, to wait without taking action? Maybe something will happen by itself? It will never happen as long as we daily acknowledge, extol, and strengthen–and do not sever ourselves from–the most perceptible of its aspects: Lies.

When violence intrudes into peaceful life, its face glows with self-confidence, as if it were carrying a banner and shouting: “I am violence. Run away, make way for me–I will crush you.” But violence quickly grows old. And it has lost confidence in itself, and in order to maintain a respectable face it summons falsehood as its ally–since violence lays its ponderous paw not every day and not on every shoulder. It demands from us only obedience to lies and daily participation in lies–all loyalty lies in that.

And the simplest and most accessible key to our self-neglected liberation lies right here: Personal non-participation in lies. Though lies conceal everything, though lies embrace everything, but not with any help from me.

This opens a breach in the imaginary encirclement caused by our inaction. It is the easiest thing to do for us, but the most devastating for the lies. Because when people renounce lies it simply cuts short their existence. Like an infection, they can exist only in a living organism.

We do not exhort ourselves. We have not sufficiently matured to march into the squares and shout the truth our loud or to express aloud what we think. It’s not necessary.

It’s dangerous. But let us refuse to say that which we do not think.

This is our path, the easiest and most accessible one, which takes into account out inherent cowardice, already well rooted. And it is much easier–it’s dangerous even to say this–than the sort of civil disobedience which Gandhi advocated.

Our path is to talk away fro the gangrenous boundary. If we did not paste together the dead bones and scales of ideology, if we did not sew together the rotting rags, we would be astonished how quickly the lies would be rendered helpless and subside.

That which should be naked would then really appear naked before the whole world.

So in our timidity, let each of us make a choice: Whether consciously, to remain a servant of falsehood–of course, it is not out of inclination, but to feed one’s family, that one raises his children in the spirit of lies–or to shrug off the lies and become an honest man worthy of respect both by one’s children and contemporaries.

And from that day onward he:

• Will not henceforth write, sign, or print in any way a single phrase which in his opinion distorts the truth.
• Will utter such a phrase neither in private conversation not in the presence of many people, neither on his own behalf not at the prompting of someone else, either in the role of agitator, teacher, educator, not in a theatrical role.
• Will not depict, foster or broadcast a single idea which he can only see is false or a distortion of the truth whether it be in painting, sculpture, photography, technical science, or music.
• Will not cite out of context, either orally or written, a single quotation so as to please someone, to feather his own nest, to achieve success in his work, if he does not share completely the idea which is quoted, or if it does not accurately reflect the matter at issue.
• Will not allow himself to be compelled to attend demonstrations or meetings if they are contrary to his desire or will, will neither take into hand not raise into the air a poster or slogan which he does not completely accept.
• Will not raise his hand to vote for a proposal with which he does not sincerely sympathize, will vote neither openly nor secretly for a person whom he considers unworthy or of doubtful abilities.
• Will not allow himself to be dragged to a meeting where there can be expected a forced or distorted discussion of a question.
• Will immediately talk out of a meeting, session, lecture, performance or film showing if he hears a speaker tell lies, or purvey ideological nonsense or shameless propaganda.
• Will not subscribe to or buy a newspaper or magazine in which information is distorted and primary facts are concealed.

Of course we have not listed all of the possible and necessary deviations from falsehood. But a person who purifies himself will easily distinguish other instances with his purified outlook.

No, it will not be the same for everybody at first. Some, at first, will lose their jobs. For young people who want to live with truth, this will, in the beginning, complicate their young lives very much, because the required recitations are stuffed with lies, and it is necessary to make a choice.

But there are no loopholes for anybody who wants to be honest. On any given day any one of us will be confronted with at least one of the above-mentioned choices even in the most secure of the technical sciences. Either truth or falsehood: Toward spiritual independence or toward spiritual servitude.

And he who is not sufficiently courageous even to defend his soul- don’t let him be proud of his “progressive” views,a dn don’t let him boast that he is an academician or a people’s artist, a merited figure, or a general–let him say to himself: I am in the herd, and a coward. It’s all the same to me as long as I’m fed and warm.

Even this path, which is the most modest of all paths of resistance, will not be easy for us. But it is much easier than self-immolation or a hunger strike: The flames will not envelope your body, your eyeballs, will not burst from the heat, and brown bread and clean water will always be available to your family.

A great people of Europe, the Czhechoslovaks, whom we betrayed and deceived: Haven’t they shown us how a vulnerable breast can stand up even against tanks if there is a worthy heart within it?

You say it will not be easy? But it will be easiest of all possible resources. It will not be an easy choice for a body, but it is only one for a soul. Not, it is not an easy path. But there are already people, even dozens of them, who over the years have maintained all these points and live by the truth.

So you will not be the first to take this path, but will join those who have already taken it. This path will be easier and shorter for all of us if we take it by mutual efforts and in close rank. If there are thousands of us, they will not be able to do anything with us. If there are tens of thousands of us, then we would not even recognize our country.

If we are too frightened, then we should stop complaining that someone is suffocating us. We ourselves are doing it. let us then bow down even more, let us wail, and out brothers the biologists will help to bring nearer the day when they are able to read our thoughts are worthless and hopeless.

And if we get cold feet, even taking this step, then we are worthless and hopeless, and the scorn of Pushkin should be directed to us:

“Why should cattle have the gifts of freedom?

“Their heritage from generation to generation is the belled yoke and the lash.”

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.

Daddy - what's a 'neocon'?! Ethnic mafia wars is the USA

[Amy Goodman interviews Andrew Cockburn on DemocracyNow! (http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=07/03/07/1436239)]

Here is a most revealing exchange which occurred at the end of the interview:

-------
AMY GOODMAN: In 2006, you write that George W. Bush said to his father, "What's a neocon?"

ANDREW COCKBURN: That's right. One of the rare moments of sort of communication between the two. Bush said to -- they were out at Kennebunkport, and Bush Jr. says, “Can I ask you a question? What's a neocon?” And the father says, “Do you want names or a description?” The President says, “I’ll take a description.” He says, “I’ll give it to you in one word: Israel,” which is interesting on all sorts of levels, including the confirmation that our president doesn't really read the newspapers.

AMY GOODMAN: Explain what you mean when you say that. And how do you know that this conversation took place at their vacation home?

ANDREW COCKBURN: Well, I can't really say who told me, but it's someone who was -- I have absolute confidence in both in their -- that they’re telling the truth and also in their position to be aware of this conversation.
-------

I find this exchange most interesting. From my own observations of the power elites in Washington DC (I was very close to them in the 1986-1991 years) I became aware of an highly significant albeit very covert struggle taking place: the old Anglos were being pushed out by Zionist Jews. Here is what I was told, under strict secrecy, by one of the 'old Anglos' in 1990:

"When Ronald Reagan was elected Jews realized that the Democratic Party would not see power for one hell of a long time. So what they did is switch allegiance to the Republican Party. In various think tanks they began by contributing large amounts of money and, pretty soon, they were in the position to impose their own executive directors and research fellows. This is what happened at the Heritage Foundation and this is what is happening here (sorry - I cannot name this institution, VS)"

At that time I did not make too much of this, and I soon left the USA only to return only a decade later. Now I am observing how the Anglos are fighting back using the upcoming attack against Iran as their chance to discredit the 'neocons'. Hence the Mearsheimer, Walt, Scheuer (and pretty much most of the old CIA guard), Carter, Bzrezinski,Buchanan, Kwiatkowski, Scott Ritter, & Co, overtly attacking the 'neocons' and Israel (does anyone believe that all these guys suddenly and miraculously aquiered an anti-imperial conscience?!)

The neocons are not blind to the real nature of the attack. Here is what Jonah Goldberg says about that here:

"The term [neocon] does more damage than good because it allows people to hide their real intent. People who want to denounce the influence of Jews get to use the word 'neocon' when they really mean 'Jewish conservatives' without being held accountable."

My best guess is that is what happened with baby-Bush's election. Papa-Bush was firmly in the 'old Anglo' camp (Baker & Co.) and he tended to despite the pro-Israeli 'neocons' calling them the "crazies in the basement". He had to compose with them because of their power and money, but his real loyalties were always with the Anglo oil lobby. The climax of this takeover came with the presidential election in which Baby-Bush decided to run and the Zionist Jews clerverly pushed the candidacy of Dubya which, on the face of it, appeared to be an Anglo and being Papa's boy the Anglos backed him. But being the semi-litterate failure that he is Baby-Bush became a perfect pawn in the hands of the Zionist lobby and the neocons. After 911 however, the neocons took him under total control and the lame attempt of the Anglo camp (Baker & Hamilton) to get him "back on track" failed. The neocons easily overcame this challange.

So who are these guys? According to the Christian Science monitor, these are the main neocon players:

*Irving Kristol
Widely referred to as the "godfather" of neoconservatism, Mr. Kristol was part of the "New York Intellectuals," a group of critics mainly of Eastern European Jewish descent. In the late 1930s, he studied at City College of New York where he became a Trotskyist. From 1947 to 1952, he was the managing editor of Commentary magazine, later called the "neocon bible.." By the late 1960s, Kristol had shifted from left to right on the political spectrum, due partly to what he considered excesses and anti-Americanism among liberals. Kristol built the intellectual framework of neoconservatism, founding and editing journals such as The Public Interest and The National Interest. Kristol is a fellow at the American Enterprise Institute and author of numerous books, including "Neoconservatism: The Autobiography of an Idea." He is the father of Weekly Standard editor and oft-quoted neoconservative William Kristol.

*Norman Podhoretz
Considered one of neoconservatism's founding fathers, Mr. Podhoretz studies, writes, and speaks on social, cultural, and international matters. From 1990 to 1995, he worked as editor-in-chief of Commentary magazine, a neoconservative journal published by the American Jewish Committee. Podhoretz advocated liberal political views earlier in life, but broke ranks in the early 1970s. He became part of the Coalition for a Democratic Majority founded in 1973 by Senator Henry "Scoop" Jackson and other intervention-oriented Democrats. Podhoretz has written nine books, including "Breaking Ranks" (1979), in which he argues that Israel's survival is crucial to US military strategy. He is married to like-minded social critic Midge Decter. They helped establish the Committee on the Present Danger in the late 1970s and the Committee for the Free World in the early 1980s. Podhoretz' son, John, is a New York Post columnist.

*Paul Wolfowitz
After serving as deputy secretary of defense for three years, Mr. Wolfowitz, a key architect of the Iraq war, was chosen in March 2005 by President Bush to be president of the World Bank. From 1989 to 1993, Wolfowitz served as under secretary of defense for policy in charge of a 700-person team that had major responsibilies for the reshaping of military strategy and policy at the end of the cold war. In this capacity Wolfowitz co-wrote with Lewis "Scooter" Libby the 1992 draft Defense Planning Guidance, which called for US military dominance over Eurasia and preemptive strikes against countries suspected of developing weapons of mass destruction. After being leaked to the media, the draft proved so shocking that it had to be substantially rewritten. After 9/11, many of the principles in that draft became key points in the 2002 National Security Strategy of the United States, an annual report. During the 1991 Gulf War, Wolfowitz advocated extending the war's aim to include toppling Saddam Hussein's regime.

*Richard Perle
Famously nicknamed the "Prince of Darkness" for his hardline stance on national security issues, Mr. Perle is one of the most high-profile neoconservatives. He resigned in March 2003 as chairman of the Pentagon's Defense Policy Board after being criticized for conflicts of interest. From 1981 to 1987 he was assistant secretary of defense for international security policy. Perle is a chief architect of the "creative destruction" agenda to reshape the Middle East, starting with the invasion of Iraq. He outlined parts of this agenda in a key 1996 report for Israel's right-wing Likud Party called "A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm." Perle helped establish two think tanks: The Center for Security Policy and The Jewish Institute for National Security. He is also a fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, an adviser for the counter-terrorist think tank Foundation for the Defense of Democracies, and a director of the Jerusalem Post.

*Douglas Feith
The defense department announced in January 2005 that Mr. Feith will resign this summer as undersecretary of defense for policy, the Pentagon's No. 3 civilian position, which he has held since being appointed by President Bush in July 2001. Feith also served in the Reagan administration as deputy assistant secretary of defense for negotiations policy. Prior to that, he served as special counsel to Richard Perle. Before his service at the Pentagon, Feith worked as a Middle East specialist for the National Security Council in 1981-82. Feith is well-known for his support of Israel's right-wing Likud Party. In 1997, Feith was honored along with his father Dalck Feith, who was active in a Zionist youth movement in his native Poland, for their "service to Israel and the Jewish people" by pro-Likud Zionist Organization of America at its 100th anniversary banquet. In 1992, he was vice president of the advisory board of the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs. Mr. Feith is a former chairman and currently a director of the Center for Security Policy.

*Lewis "Scooter" Libby
Mr. Libby is currently chief of staff and national security advisor for Vice President Dick Cheney. He's served in a wide variety of posts. In the first Bush administration, Mr. Libby served in the Department of Principal Deputy Under Secretary (Strategy and Resources), and, later, as Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Policy. Libby was a founding member of the Project for the New American Century. He joined Paul Wolfowitz, William Kristol, Robert Kagan, and others in writing its 2000 report entitled, "Rebuilding America's Defenses - Strategy, Forces, and Resources for a New Century." Libby co-authored the once-shocking draft of the 'Defense Planning Guidance' with Mr. Wolfowitz for then-Defense Secretary Dick Cheney in 1992. Libby serves on the advisory board of the Center for Russian and Eurasian Studies of the RAND Corporation.

*John Bolton
In February 2005, Mr. Bolton was nominated US ambassador to the UN by President Bush. If confirmed, he would move to this position from the Department of State where he was Under Secretary for Arms Control, the top US non-proliferation official. Prior to this appointment, Bolton was senior vice president of the neoconservative think tank American Enterprise Institute. He also held a variety of positions in both the George H. W. Bush and Ronald Reagan administrations. Bolton has often made claims not fully supported by the intelligence community. In a controversial May 2002 speech entitled, "Beyond the Axis of Evil," Bolton fingered Libya, Syria, and Cuba as "other rogue states intent on acquiring weapons of mass destruction." In July 2003, the CIA and other agencies reportedly objected strongly to claims Bolton made in a draft assessment about the progress Syria has made in its weapons programs.

*Elliott Abrams
In February of 2005 Elliott Abrams was appointed deputy assistant to the president and deputy national security adviser for global democracy strategy. From December 2002 to February 2005, Mr. Abrams served as special assistant to the president and senior director for Near East and North African affairs. Abrams began his political career by taking a job with the Democratic Senator Henry M. "Scoop" Jackson. He held a variety of State Department posts in the Reagan administration. He was a senior fellow at the Hudson Institute from 1990 to the 1996 before becoming president of the Ethics and Public Policy Center, which "affirms the political relevance of the great Western ethical imperatives." Abrams also served as chairman of the US Commission on International Religious Freedom. In 1991, Abrams pleaded guilty to withholding information from Congress about the Iran-Contra affair. President George H. W. Bush pardoned him in 1992. In 1980, he married Rachel Decter, daughter of neocon veterans Norman Podhoretz and Midge Decter.

*Robert Kagan
Mr. Kagan writes extensively on US strategy and diplomacy. Kagan and fellow neoconservative William Kristol co-founded the Project for a New American Century (PNAC) in 1997. Kagan signed the famous 1998 PNAC letter sent to President Clinton urging regime change in Iraq. After working as principal speechwriter to Secretary of State George P. Shultz from 1984-1985, he was hired by Elliott Abrams to work as deputy for policy in the State Department's Bureau of Inter-American Affairs. He is a senior associate at the Carnegie endowment for International Peace (CEIP). He is also an international affairs columnist for The Washington Post, and contributing editor at The New Republic and The Weekly Standard. He wrote the bestseller "Of Paradise and Power: America and Europe in the New World Order." Kagan's wife, Victoria Nuland, was chosen by Vice President Dick Cheney as his deputy national security adviser.

*Michael Ledeen
Seen by many as one of the most radical neoconservatives, Mr. Ledeen is said to frequently advise George W. Bush's top adviser Karl Rove on foreign policy matters. He is one of the strongest voices calling for regime change in Iran. In 2001, Ledeen co-founded the Coalition for Democracy in Iran. He served as Secretary of State Alexander Haig's adviser during the Reagan administration. Ledeen is resident scholar in the Freedom Chair at the American Enterprise Institute, where he works closely with Richard Perle. he is also a member of the Jewish Institute of National Security Affairs' advisory board and one of its founding organizers. He was Rome correspondent for the New Republic magazine from 1975-1977, and founding editor of the Washington Quarterly. Ledeen also wrote "The War Against the Terror Masters," which advocates regime change in Iraq, Syria, and Saudi Arabia.

*William Kristol
Son of "godfather" of neoconservatism Irving Kristol, Bill Kristol is currently chairman of the Project for a New American Century, which he co-founded with leading neoconservative writer Robert Kagan. He is also editor of the influential Weekly Standard. Like other neoconservatives Frank Gaffney Jr. and Elliott Abrams, Kristol worked for hawkish Democratic Sen. Henry "Scoop" Jackson. But by 1976, he became a Republican. he served as chief of staff to Education Secretary William Bennett during the Reagan administration and chief of staff to former Vice President Dan Quayle during the George H. W. Bush presidency. Kristol continuously called for Saddam Hussein's ouster since the 1991 Gulf War. With the like-minded Lawrence Kaplan, Kristol co-wrote "The War Over Iraq: Saddam's Tyranny and America's Mission." He is on the board of advisers of the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies, established as a counterterrorist think tank after 9/11.

*Frank Gaffney Jr.
Mr. Gaffney is the founder, president, and CEO of the influential Washington think tank Center for Security Policy, whose mission is "to promote world peace through American strength." In 1987, President Reagan nominated Gaffney to be assistant secretary of defense for international security policy. he earlier served as the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Nuclear Forces and Arms Control Policy under then-Assistant Secretary Richard Perle. In the late 1970s, Gaffney served as a defense and foreign policy adviser to Sen. Henry "Scoop" Jackson. He is columnist for the Washington Times and a contributor to Defense News and Investor's Business Daily. He is a contributing editor to National Review Online, WolrdNetDaily.com and JewishWorldReview.com. Gaffney is also one of 25 mostly neoconservative co-signers of the Project for a New American Century's Statement of Principles.[/i]

[BTW - one important name is missing from this list: Eliott Cohen]

The mere fact that the CSM would make and publish such list with a all-not-too-subtle references at Israel & Jewish institution is telling of how desperate and determined the old Anglo guard is.

This list of neocons includes several non-Jews such as Bolton or, for that matter, Cheney himself who, while missing on this list, is certainly a major neocon player. This goes to show that equating Jews=neocons is as wrong as equating any Anglo person with what I call here the 'old Anglo' camp. While ethnicity does play an important role here (principally by making any attack on neocons subject to accusations of anti-Semitism and by making any criticism of Israel and the unconditional support of it by the USA as total 'crimethink') it is not the key element. They key thing is two mafia cliques fighting for power and these cliques are composed of people from the same ethnicity just as the Italian or Irish mafias were. Necons do not speak for Jews any more than Joseph Stalin spoke for Georgians or Putin for ethnic Russians. However, there can be little doubt that Stalin did try hard to promote supporters from non-Russian (and non-Jewish I would add) stock while today Putin is promoting Russians over the Eltsin era people (who were often Jews),

It is in fact a very sad but real danger that people disgusted with the neocons will blame 'Jews' for what is happening in the USA today. This is why it is essential to separate these two concepts and keep reminding people of the many Americans Jews who are at the forefront of the struggle against the neocons today (Chomsky, Fingelstein, Neumann, Goodman, etc.) and who have to put up with constant accusations of being 'self-hating Jews'.

Dubya was clearly chosen by the neocons not in spite of, but *because* he is so utterly clueless about pretty much any issue, including the behind-the-scenes power politics in the USA. Speaking of which,

The CIA and the FBI seem to have been bastions of the old Anglo guard, which is why there was this truly huge purge at the CIA over the past years. This is also one of the main sources of leaks to the press about the planned war against Iran. As for the FBI the upcoming trial of the AIPAC officials for espionage goes to show that the FBI still is trying to hurt the Zionist power. Ditto for the Scooter Libby trial which is a non-so-subtle attempt to get at Cheney and his office.

As for the Pentagon, my best guess is that the top brass there is totally neocon coopted, but that the middle-top layer is fighting back, again with leaks about Iran and all the stuff about the (now defunct) Office of Special Plans.

How to deal with Iran is the issue which brought these two camps in an overt confrontation. Simply put, the Anglos have *nothing* to gain form a war with Iran (and everything to loose) while the neocons clearly realize that Dubya's presidency is the last chance to get the USA to fight one more war on Israel's behalf (and deliver a final blow to the old Anglo guard in the process).

So who will prevail?

My guess is that the Anglos are 'out' and have lost power for one heck on a long while. Even if the Republicans loose the Presidency in 2008, the conference in Herzilia and the recent speeches of all the main Democratic Presidential candidates at the AIPAC meeting clearly show that the Democractic Party is even more pro-necon that the Republican one.

Only a 'third party' (really a *true* second one) which would eject *both* the Anglo-Oil and the Neocon-Israeli lobbies from power would be an alternative and this, I sadly have to say, is not something I see happening anytime soon.

The USA is really,really in very bad shape and its foreseeable future look very bleak

(written sometimes in March 2007)

How they might do it

Here below is a rather typical article warning of the risks of a war with Iran:

http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/200601009_bushs_nuclear_apocalypse/

However, I guess is that the Pengaton is looking at a rather different option: a two-phase war.

The first phase would begin by 2-3 days of combined cruise missile and air strikes. The aim would be to degrade as much as can be Iranian C3I capabilities and, even more importantly, to isolate the Iranian coastal areas from the main command centers and resupply routes. Then, as soon as Iranian air defence capabilities are sufficiently degraded I would see very intense bombardments and strikes all along the Iranian coast and the straight of Hormuz combined with a strong effort to destroy all Iranian Kilo-class advanced diesel attack submarines. I personally expect "boots on the ground" *before* this phase is completed: Marines forces with Navy and Air Force Forward Air Controllers would land on key positions along the coast and surround pockets of resistance. Once beacheads are secured, US Army troops would land heavy equipment and establish forward bases. The end goal of this first phase would be to control (but not necessarily occupy) most (but not necessarily all) of the Iranian coast with the hope to remove the Persian-Arabian Sea lines of communications from a threat of Iranian attack or blockade. This goal would need to be reached within 4-6 weeks to achieve the desired effect.

Once enough counter-battery capabilities are concentrated along the coast (and to a depth of about 10-20km depending on terrain) and once Iranian active/passive detection capabilities are sufficiently degraded, the USA could announce that the sea lanes are safe, open and protected from any further strikes.

The second phase would include strikes at the "national infrastructure" (read: terrorising the civilian population into submission and, hopefully, into revolt against their leaders) and proactive support for various anti-government forces (Kurds, etc.) and an air/land/sea blockade against the remaining part of Iran. This second phase could be sustained for a very long time.

This was would be a US/Israeli war in which I do not expect the Brits to participate directly. Most of NATO will be busy preparing (or actually executing) an extraction under fire of UNIFIL forces from Lebanon. Obviously - all this would be done without any UNSC resolution authorizing this. Lastly, this scenario would *not* requiere the use of nuclear weapons by either the US or Israel.

The official justification for the actions will be "preventing Iran form aquiering a nuclear weapon" while the real goal of the war will be to economically ruin and politicall weaken Iran.

Does this sound plausible? How about the nuclear option?

There are two options here:

a) the US attacks Iran.

b) Israel nukes Iran.

The second one has some very real advantages. First, it does not involve an over support from the USA (covertly, such a strike would not be possible without proactive US support). Second, since Israel is already the most hated nation on earth - even more than the USA - it will not create much more problems, except possibly in the USA but these can easily be taken care of by mantric repetitions of the word "Holocaust". Besides, even if the public opinion in the USA will be appalled by an Israeli nuclear strike - who cares? All they have to chose from is the Republican Zionists or the Democratic Zionists (I like to think of it as the choice between kosher Pepsi and kosher Cola). Second, such a strike would not involve the already hopelessly over-extended US military, not a bad thing at a time when Dubya is calling for MORE forces to be sent to Iraq. Thirdly, such as strike would - presumably - scare the wits of the "AYE-rabs" and other "ragheads" and convince them that while the Israeli got their "elite" butts kicked by a very small Hezbollah force in the war this summer, the Israelis are still the big bully of the neighborhood. Not to mention that this would also feel good for the "patriotic" crowd in Israel. So this option does appear to have some real advantages. However, it fails to achieve the real main goal: to "bomb Iran into the pre-industrialized era".

I sincerely believe that the boggyman of the "nuclear armed Ayatollah" is not at all the reason why Washington and Tel Aviv are after Iran. First, there is a really nasty and terrorist supporing government out there already armed with nukes: Pakistan. For anyone knowing anything about ISI, there is the real threat of nuclear terrorism. Iran's government, for all its rhetoric, has consistently behaved in a super-reponsable way, even when provoked (as it has been many times by the USA and by the Talibans). No, the REAL goal here is to punish the Iranian population for its support of "the mullahs" (as the expression goes in the USA) via the ballot box. This is exactly the same logic which brought the Israelis to cover all of Lebanon with bombs, missiles and mines, the same one which made them kill over 500 people in Gaza, the same logic which made the US bomb all over Serbia and Montenegro and the same logic which explains the bizarre embargo of Cuba. The message here is: you support the bad guys, you pay for it.

An Israeli nuclear strike on Iran would most definitely not achieve this kind of result. At best, it might provoke Iran into some kind of retaliation, but I personally doubt this very much. The Iranian response will be a mix of very covert reprisals (a la PanAm 103 over Lockerbie - Iran was behind that one) and economic and political hell to pay (think the oil barril at over 100 bucks and Shia insurrection in Iraq). They just ain't going to behave like Saddam Hussein would have and uselessly launch missiles at Israel.

This strike would have to be a one-time, limited strike on one, maybe two, facilities. It would not hurt the Iranians in any significant way. A nuclear strike campagain is just not feasible for political and, even more so, technical reasons.

So my guess is that the first option - an American bombing campaign with a possible limited coastal invasion is still the preferred option in Washington and Tel Aviv. The only question is whether the US military will go along such a lunacy. I personally do not doubt that the vast majority of the US military command is opposed to that kind of crap. However, the civilian leadership might just force them to do this anyway. This is where this thing will be decided (and not in the pathetic Congress).

But if common sense prevails in the USA, yes, Israel might go ahead and just do it.

It is also important to keep in mind that both Dubya and Olmert have really nothing to loose. Both have proven their idiotic incompetence beyond anyone's doubt. Unless they can deliver some kind of feel-good "victory" to their supporters they are going to loose power. Bush has the option of a new 911, but Olmert does not (the Israeli society is FAR more pluralistic, more inquisitive and more restless to allow their politicians to use this kind of tactics). Besides, after the stomping Olmert got in Lebanon - who needs a 911 in Israel?

So my personal bet is as follows: I think the USA will attack Iran, if they don't - Israel will. Either way, we should all begin planning for an oil barrel at over 100$ and more "homeland security" to silence the opposition.

(written sometimes in February 2007)

Where the Empire meets to plan the next war

Take a guess: where would the Empire's puppeteers meet to finalize and coordinate their plans to attack Iran?

Washington? New York? London? NATO HQ in Brussels? Davos?

Nope.

In Herzilia. Never heard of that place?

The Israeli city of Herzliya is named after Theodor Herzl, the father of modern Zionism, and it has hosted a meeting of the Empire's Who's Who over the past several days at the yearly conference of the Herzilia Institute for Policy and Stragegy. For a while, Herzilia truly became the see of the Empire's inner core of heavy hitters.

(Non-Israeli) speakers included:

Jose Maria Aznar Former Prime Minister of Spain, Matthew Bronfman, Chair of the Budget and Finance Commission, World Jewish Congress, and member of the World Jewish Congress Steering Committee, Amb. Nicholas Burns US Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs, Prof. Alan Dershowitz Felix Frankfurter Professor of Law at Harvard Law School, Senator John Edwards Head of the One America Committee and candidate for the 2008 Democratic presidential nomination, Gordon England US Deputy Secretary of Defense, Dr. Marvin C. Feuer Director of Policy and Government Affairs, AIPAC, Newt Gingrich Former U.S. Speaker of the House of Representatives, Rudolph Giuliani, Former Mayor of New York City and candidate for the 2008 Republican presidential nomination, General the Lord Charles Guthrie of Craigiebank GCB LVO OBE. Former Chief of the Defense Staff and Chief of the General Staff of the British Army, Amb. Dr. Richard Haass President of the Council on Foreign Relations, Stephen E. Herbits Secretary-General of the World Jewish Congress, Amb. Dr. Robert Hunter President of the Atlantic Treaty Association and Former U.S. Permanent Representative to NATO. Senior Advisor at the RAND Corporation in Washington (also serves as Chairman of the Council for a Community of Democracies, Senior International Consultant to Lockheed Martin Overseas Corporation), Amb. Dr. Richard H. Jones United States Ambassador to Israel (also served as the Secretary of State's Senior Advisor and Coordinator for Iraq Policy), Col. (res.) Dr. Eran Lerman Director, Israel and Middle East Office, American Jewish Committee (also served in the IDF Intelligence Directorate for over 25 years), Christian Leffler Deputy Chief of Staff of the European Commissioner for External Relations and Director for Middle East and Southern Mediterranean, European Commission, The Hon. Peter Mackay Canadian Minister of Foreign Affairs, Senator John McCain U.S. Senator (R) from Arizona and andidate for the 2008 Democratic presidential nomination, Dr. Edward L. Morse Chief Energy Economist, Lehman Brothers, Dr. Rolf Mützenich Member of the German Federal Parliament (SPD) and member of the Committee on Foreign Policy of the Bundestag (and Board Member of the “Germany-Iran Society”), Torkel L. Patterson President of Raytheon International, Inc., Richard Perle Resident Fellow at the American Enterprise Institute (previously served as Chairman of the Defense Policy Board and Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Policy), Amb. Thomas R. Pickering Former U.S. Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs (previously served as Senior Vice President of Boeing), Jack Rosen Chairman of the American Jewish Congress (and member of the Executive Committee of AIPAC and of the Council on Foreign Relations), Stanley O. Roth Vice President for Asia, International Relations of the Boeing Company (member of the Council on Foreign Relations), James Woolsey Former Director of the Central Intelligence Agency, and many others.

Pretty much the entire Israeli "Defence" etablishment (why does nobody call it "Agression establishment?) was present too.

Not bad for a "conference"?!

Of course, the main topic at the conference was the ucoming war with Iran. Richard Perle, the "Prince of Darkness", delivered the keynote and conclusion: "If the Israeli government comes to the conclusion that it has no choice but to take action, the reaction of the U.S. will be the belief in the vitality that this action must succeed, even if the U.S. needs to act with Israel in the current American administration".

Noticed anything funny in his words? It's the "world only superpower" which will have the "belief" (?) in the action of a local country and, if needed, act with it. Not the other way around. Makes one wonder which of the two is the world only superpower, does it not?

Anyway - if anyone has ANY doubts left that the Empire will totally ignore the will of the American people as expressed in the last election and strike at Iran, this conference should settle the issue.

Also - there are other indicators and warnings. Besides the two aircraft carrier battle groups at Iran's shores, AWACs planes and military equipment is being shipped to Turkey, and air bridge of C-17 heavy transport aircraft are delivering weapons to Siniora's government in Lebanon, and forces are being deployed to Iraq to defend the dug-in US forces from Shia retaliation.

What about the Democratic majority in Congress? Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the House, settled any doubts about they would act when she declared at the 2006 AIPAC conference:

"The greatest threat to Israel's right to exist, with the prospect of devastating violence, now comes from Iran. For too long, leaders of both political parties in the United States have not done nearly enough to confront the Russians and the Chinese, who have supplied Iran as it has plowed ahead with its nuclear and missile technology. Proliferation represents a clear threat to Israel and to America. It must be confronted by an international coalition against proliferation, with a commitment and a coalition every bit as strong as our commitment to the war against terror."

BTW - Hillary Clinton, the party's leading contender for the presidential nomination, out-neocons many Republicans when it comes to Iran:

"Let's be clear about the threat we face now: A nuclear Iran is a danger to Israel, to its neighbors and beyond. The regime's pro-terrorist, anti-American and anti-Israel rhetoric only underscores the urgency of the threat it poses. U.S. policy must be clear and unequivocal. We cannot and should not – must not – permit Iran to build or acquire nuclear weapons. In order to prevent that from occurring, we must have more support vigorously and publicly expressed by China and Russia, and we must move as quickly as feasible for sanctions in the United Nations. And we cannot take any option off the table in sending a clear message to the current leadership of Iran – that they will not be permitted to acquire nuclear weapons."

So much for the will of the American people. As Justin Raimondo exclaimed in his recent article about the upcoming war on antiwar.com - isn't democracy wonderful?!

So count with yet another imperial war of agression, a baril of crude at over 100$ and oil shortages, rocketing inflation, job losses, a stagnant real estate market and stock exchange, and a national debt and government deficit which would make even Reagan proud. And plenty of dead Americans (nevermind the Iranians, right?).

But don't worry: there will still be a huge supply of Chinese-made US flags to wave!

(written sometimes in February 2007)