Saturday, April 04, 2009

AFPAK Proxy wars and dress rehearsal for horrors to come

AFPAK Proxy wars and dress rehearsal for horrors to come

Monday’s brazen assault on a police academy in Lahore, Pakistan’s second largest city and cultural capital, is a grim reminder that the “killing season” has begun in earnest across Central- and South Asia.

At least 13 police recruits were killed and another 100 wounded, according to Dawn.

The Lahore assault followed the horrific Jamrud mosque suicide bombing March 27 in the Khyber Agency that killed upwards of 80 people during Friday prayers.

The raid by as yet unknown gunmen is a stark demonstration to Lahore residents that last month’s attack on the Sri Lankan national cricket team, also carried out by heavily armed and well-trained commandos, was not a one-off affair but the opening round in a destabilization operation by any number of suspects.

Pakistani Taliban, the Afghan-Arab database of disposable Western intelligence assets also known as al-Qaeda, as well as militants “trained-up fierce” by Pakistan’s Inter Services Intelligence agency (ISI) and America’s CIA have all been named as the responsible parties. Fleshing out the rogues’ gallery one finds: Baitullah Mehsud’s Tehrik-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP), Lashkar-e-Toiba (LET), Lashkar-e-Jhangvi (LEJ), or, when all else fails, a “foreign hand,” e.g. India’s Research and Analysis Wing (RAW).

Given the modus operandi of the attack, one cannot preclude Lashkar-e-Jhangvi. LEJ is a virulently anti-Shia sectarian outfit that evolved from the neo-Wahabbi Sipah-e-Sahaba during the 1990s. With strong connections to Pakistan’s military intelligence agency, the group served as a training ground for notables such as the operational whiz-kid behind the first World Trade Center bombing in 1993, Ramzi Yousef, and the reputed “mastermind” of the 9/11 attacks, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed.

Like LET, the LEJ has aligned itself–and fought alongside–the Afghan Taliban and, according to some analysts, was involved in the 2002 kidnapping and murder of Wall Street Journal investigative reporter Daniel Pearl; a murder orchestrated by ISI asset and 9/11 bagman, former London School of Economics student Omar Saeed Sheikh.

Historically, LET and LEJ have been ISI proxies and have targeted leftist and secular opponents of the shadowy intelligence agency as well as serving as a cats’ paw for plausibly deniable attacks against Pakistan’s geopolitical rival India.

On Tuesday however, Tehrik-e-Taliban Pakistan chieftain Mehsud claimed it was the TTP that carried out the assault, according to The New York Times.

Mehsud told the BBC, that the raid was “in retaliation for the continued drone strikes by the US in collaboration with Pakistan on our people”. During a phone call, the TTP’s head honcho told Reuters, “We wholeheartedly take responsibility for this attack and will carry out more such attacks in future.”

But Mehsud went further and claimed that TTP-aligned militants will mount a terror operation in Washington, perhaps targeting the White House. The Wall Street Journal reported Mehsud told Pakistani journalists from–where else–an “undisclosed location (!) that “soon we will launch an attack in Washington that will amaze everyone in the world.”

As if on cue, CENTCOM commander General David Petraeus of Iraq “surge” fame told the Senate Armed Services Committee Wednesday, that the “government was doing a ‘deep dive’ investigation” into Mehsud’s claims, according to The New York Times. The “newspaper of record” failed however to inform readers whether the “threat level” had been raised in response!

Earlier this month, the U.S. State Department issued a $5 million bounty for Mehsud, a frequent target of CIA Predator and Reaper drone strikes that have killed scores of innocent civilians in Pakistan’s “lawless” borderlands.

The New York Times reported April 2, that missiles fired from a CIA drone struck an alleged “militant training camp,” killing at least 10 people. The raid, according to the Times targeted Hakimullah Mehsud, one of Baitullah’s top lieutenants.

According to Times, Hakimullah’s forces “have been held responsible by Pakistani officials for attacking NATO supply depots in Peshawar used to resupply international forces in Afghanistan. His influence is such that he has imposed Sharia Islamic law in the Orakzai region, residents said.”

However, according to Dawn, “at least 14 people, including 12 militants were killed and 13 injured.” The Karachi-based newspaper reported that “two women and several children were also among the victims of the strikes.”

To further muddy the waters, the Associated Press reported March 31 that Omar Farooq, the spokesman for the little-known jihadi outfit, Fedayeen al-Islami, also claimed responsibility for Monday’s attack.

Claiming the assault was a reprisal raid for U.S. drone strikes and Pakistani Army intervention in the tribal areas, Farooq also demanded the release of former Red Mosque chief cleric Maulana Abdul Aziz.

While Pakistani officials have blamed the TTP for a series of attacks, including the December 2007 assassination of former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto, it is just as likely the police academy raid had been carried out by Punjabi-based militants such as LET or LEJ.

The overwhelming majority of Mehsud’s forces are Pashtun-speaking residents of the Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA) and the North-West Frontier Province (NWFP). While Shahid Iqbal, the deputy inspector general for operations for the Lahore Police Department claimed the attackers were “Afghans,” many recruits described the attackers as Punjabis speaking a local dialect.

According to The New York Times, the militants, some dressed in police uniforms scaled the walls, fired automatic weapons and hurled grenades while shouting “‘Oh, Red Mosque attackers, we have come,’ a reference to the 2007 takeover by Pakistani authorities of a militant mosque in Islamabad, Pakistan’s capital.” Meanwhile, “according to militant contacts” Asia Times Online reports,

A group of militants once associated with the Harkat-e-Jihad-i-Islami and the Lashkar-e-Taiba–groups with strong roots to the struggle over divided Kashmir–a few days ago traveled to Lahore from a militant camp in the North Waziristan town of Razmak, a year-round hill station situated at the crossroads of North Waziristan and South Waziristan on the Afghanistan border. …

In light of statements made by some cadets, intelligence agencies maintain that some of the militants came from Pakistani Punjab and spoke three languages–Urdu, Punjabi and Seraiki. (Seraiki is spoken in southern Punjab.) (Syed Saleem Shahzad, “Pakistan braces for more attacks,” Asia Times Online, April 1, 2009)

The unmistakable message to the Zardari administration and the United States, according to the online publication is that Monday’s attack, “mark ominous muscle-flexing by Pakistan’s ‘original’ jihadis, mostly Punjabis trained by the military in the 1990s as the first line of defense for the country, especially in Kashmir.”

As I reported March 29, the corporate media’s belated “discovery” of linkages amongst ISI officers, the Taliban and al-Qaeda in the form of “money, military supplies and strategic planning guidance to Taliban commanders,” one cannot rule out the possibility that some ISI officers, still committed to Pakistan’s policy of seeking “strategic depth” against India may have been complicit in Monday’s attack.

However, it is U.S. imperialism which for decades nurtured, armed and financed such retrograde outfits to advance its own geopolitical agenda–military bases and resource extraction–that is fueling the far-right insurgency, and the justifiable rage felt by Pakistanis over the continued slaughter.

Cheekily, Senator Carl Levin (D-MI), the chairman of the powerful Senate Armed Services Committee, perhaps channeling the spirit of the British Raj, said that Pakistan “must prove” it is willing to take on the insurgency “before the U.S. delivers financial aid or weapons to the government there,” the Associated Press reported March 31.

Such comments by leading imperialist spokespersons are nothing new and are fully within the framework of American neocolonial arrogance. Calling for “benchmarks” and “metrics” by which Washington power brokers will measure “progress,” what are these if not so many flaming hoops through which sovereign nations must jump through like so many trained poodles to curry favor with the Global Godfather.

As if Pakistani workers and farmers, crushed beneath the iron heel of venal, ruling class elites fêted by Pentagon bureaucrats or IMF/World Bank thieves who tout Islamabad’s “responsible” policies that line the pockets of international debt merchants beholden to shady American and European banks have but one role, that of mute spectators!

As if to drive home the point, Daily Times reported that “Pakistan has suffered economic losses amounting to $6 billion during 2007-08 while supporting the global war on terror.”

Dr. Hafiz Pasha, heading a panel of Planning Commission economists, told the Pakistan Institute of Development Economists’ annual meeting,

“This loss to the economy, according to the government of Pakistan, is over $8 billion,” said Pasha, adding that the US should double the funds being given to Pakistan for its support to the war on terror in view of the massive losses. He said the prevailing economic situation was “not very positive”, as tax collection had fallen, imports were very high, real effecting exchange rate was functioning at the level of last year and the ministries’ expenses had increased by Rs 100 billion. (Sajid Chaudhry, “‘Pakistan suffered $6bn terror war losses in 2007-08′,” Daily Times, April 2, 2009)

Stating that the IMF’s role in Pakistan “focused on stability rather than growth,” I might add for corporate grifters and comprador elites, Pasha went on to comment that such program’s are “not good for Pakistan in the long run”. “Pakistan paid a heavy price for stability at the cost of growth during the previous regime’s tenure … and [Pakistan] should not repeat the same mistake.”

Committed to so-called “structural adjustment” policies that sacrifice the economic well-being of the Pakistani people so that huge debts incurred by previous military regimes are repaid to international banks, the IMF continues to urge the sell-off of state assets at fire-sale prices even as Western imperialist nations pump trillions of dollars into their failing economies to stave-off the capitalist melt-down.

Let it be said, once again: the entire drive by the United States to “secure” the “Afpak theatre” has very little to do with “fighting them there, so we don’t have to fight them here,” and everything to do with that most American of motives: greed and plunder.

As analyst Pepe Escobar points out in Asia Times, the “U.S. Empire of Bases” is “still in overdrive and in New Great Game mode–which implies very close surveillance over Russia and China via bases such as Bagram, and the drive to block Russia from establishing a commercial route to the Middle East via Pakistan.” Escobar goes on to comment:

Last but not least, the energy wars. And that involves that occult, almost supernatural entity, the $7.6 billion Turkmenistan-Afghanistan-Pakistan-India (TAPI) pipeline, which would carry gas from eastern Turkmenistan through Afghanistan east of Herat and down Taliban-controlled Nimruz and Helmand provinces, down Balochistan in Pakistan and then to the Pakistani port of Gwadar in the Arabian Sea. No investor in his right mind will invest in a pipeline in a war zone, thus Afghanistan must be “stabilized” at all costs. (Pepe Escobar, “The secrets of Obama’s surge,” Asia Times Online, April 2, 2009)

A dozen dead police recruits? Fifty or a hundred or thousands more people transmogrified into corpses by CIA drones or suicide bombers? “So is AfPak the Pentagon’s AIG,” Escobar wonders. “We gotta bail them out, can’t let them fail?”

“Whatever it is, it’s not about ‘terrorists’. Not really. Follow the money. Follow the energy. Follow the map.” Indeed, but whatever we do, pay no attention to that man behind the curtain!

Friday, April 03, 2009

"Long War" cited as a source for the exaltation of militarism....

"Long War" cited as a source for the exaltation of militarism....

The preface openly states the lens through which this garbage should be read...

This document explores how the “long war” might unfold in the
coming years. It looks out to about the year 2020 and reports on the
major trends, uncertainties, participants, and ways the long war might unfold through the use of eight specific trajectories.

This work will interest those involved in military training, force
structure, policy, and how the confluence of governance, terrorism, and ideology might affect the U.S. military forces.

This research was sponsored by the U.S. Army Training and
Doctrine Command, Army Capability Integration Center, and was
conducted within RAND Arroyo Center’s Force Development and
Technology Program. RAND Arroyo Center, part of the RAND Cor-
poration, is a federally funded ressored by the United States Army."

The summary is also rife with doozies...

The United States is currently engaged in what has been characterized as the “long war.” The long war has been described by some as an epic struggle against adversaries bent on forming a unified Islamic world to supplant Western dominance, while others characterize it more narrowly as an extension of the war on terror. But while policymakers, military leaders, and scholars have offered numerous definitions of the long war, no consensus has been reached about this term or its implications for the United States. To understand the effects that this long war will have on the U.S. Army and on U.S. forces in general, it is necessary to understand more precisely what the long war is and how it might unfold. To address this need, this study explores the concept of the long war and identifies potential ways in which it might unfold as well
as the implications for the Army and the U.S. military more generally.

Framework for Understanding the Long War

As seen in Figure S.1, one way to think about the potential threats the United States faces in the long war is to consider the confluence of three problems raised by the war: those related to the ideologies espoused by key adversaries in the conflict, those related to the use of terrorism, and those related to governance (i.e., its absence or presence, its quality, and the predisposition of specific governing bodies to the United States and its interests). The goal of this report is not to determine which of these areas is the key problem. Instead, we take the stance that to ensure that this long war follows a favorable course, the United States will need to
make a concerted effort across all three domains.

Core of Corrution : In the Shadows of the Siamese twins, CIA2/MOSSAD/MI6

Core of Corruption: In The Shadows - Official Trailer 1st of Five Films

3 04 2009

Council on Foreign Relations Program for Global Governance

3 04 2009

The Rise of the Technocracy

3 04 2009

more about “The Rise of the Technocracy“,

more about “The Rise of the Technocracy“,
more about “The Rise of the Technocracy“,

CFR Unveils Global Governance Agenda

3 04 2009

The Council on Foreign Relations, often described as the “real state department”, has launched an initiative to promote and implement a system of effective world governance.

The program, titled “The International Institutions and Global Governance Program,” utilizes the resources of the “…David Rockefeller Studies Program to assess existing regional and global governance mechanisms…” The initial funding for the program came with a $6 million grant from the Robina Foundation, which claims that the grant is “…one of the largest operating grants ever received in Council history.”

The IIGG program, launched on May 1st, 2008, is the latest manifestation of an agenda that has existed since and before the founding of the Council on Foreign Relations. Former CFR member, Rear Admiral Chester Ward, stated regarding the group,

“The most powerful clique in these elitist groups have one objective in common - they want to bring about the surrender of the sovereignty and the national independence of the United States. A second clique of international members in the CFR comprises the Wall Street international bankers and their key agents. Primarily, they want the world banking monopoly from whatever power ends up in the control of global government.”

The International Institutions and Global Governance Program identifies several “global issues” that require a system of world governance. Environmental issues, terrorism, the global economy and energy are all mentioned. The project then states that a system of “universal membership” could be pursued, or alternatively a regional organization, such as the European Union model.

“In each of these spheres, the program will consider whether the most promising framework for governance is a formal organization with universal membership (e.g., the United Nations); a regional or sub-regional organization; a narrower, informal coalition of like-minded countries; or some combination of all three.”

The program calls for the “Re-conceptualizing” of national sovereignty, citing the European Union’s “pooling” of sovereignty as a model. The CFR project recognizes that historically, the United States has been resistant to the ideals of global governance. The project states, “Among the most important factors determining the future of global governance will be the attitude of the United States…”

The IIGG program continues, “…few countries have been as sensitive as the United States to restrictions on their freedom of action or as jealous in guarding their sovereign prerogatives.” The program then states that the separation of powers as stated in the Constitution, along with the U.S. Congress, stand in the way of the United States assuming “new international obligations.”

As stated,

“…the country’s longstanding tradition of liberal “exceptionalism” inspires U.S. vigilance in protecting the domestic sovereignty and institutions from the perceived incursions of international bodies. Finally, the separation of powers enshrined in the U.S. Constitution, which gives Congress a critical voice in the ratification of treaties and endorsement of global institutions, complicates U.S. assumptions of new international obligations.”

The actions of the Military Industrial Complex under the Bush Administration have served globalist interests well. “Global structures” are now presented as the mechanism to prevent such atrocities. America’s demonization is central to building a system of world governance. Patrick M. Stewart, who is currently the director of the CFR IIGG program, is anticipating the Obama administration “…to seek to turn the page on what many perceived to be ‘cowboy unilateralism’ of the Bush years, by embracing multilateral cooperation, re-kindling U.S. alliances and partnerships, and engaging in sustained diplomacy within the UN framework,” as reported by Xinhua. The IIGG project itself stated in May of 2008 that, “Regardless of whether the administration that takes office in January 2009 is Democratic or Republican, the thrust of U.S. foreign policy is likely to be multilateral to a significant degree.”

Globalist forces are hard at work in the economic and political realms in an attempt to shape the future of the world, furthering the dominance of the global elite. Calls for a global currency in response to the economic crisis are regularly occurring, drawing the tacit support of Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, speaking to the CFR.

Henry Kissinger, a CFR member, anticipates that President Obama will, “…give new impetus to American foreign policy partly because the reception of him is so extraordinary around the world. I think his task will be to develop an overall strategy for America in this period when, really, a new world order can be created. It’s a great opportunity, it isn’t just a crisis.”

The Council on Foreign Relations global governance program will undoubtedly be pursued under the Obama administration, which is filled with CFR members. President of the CFR, Richard Haass, is serving as a top adviser to the Obama administration. As the IIGG program admits, regardless of who sits in the White House, the globalist agenda moves forward full speed ahead.

Read the full IIGG project report here

The Siamese twins, CIA/MOSSAD, PNAC retooling and BIBI Netanyahu again...

POWER SHIFT -- Incoming Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu (L), President Shimon Peres and outgoing Prime Minister Ehud Olmert (R) attend a change of power ceremony at Peres' residence in Jerusalem on April 1. (....)
Israel's Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said shortly after the formation of his new 30-seat cabinet - the largest ever created in Israel - that he promises to remain "partners in peace with the Palestinians." The onus is now on Bibi to prove himself right.

Netanyahu's words are more than just sound bytes. He is talking about the future of the Palestinian people.

Bibi, as his friends like to call him, is in for a rough ride. His bloated new government, a hodgepodge of ultra-rightists and disingenuous leftists, is bound to splinter once it faces its first serious test, be it dealing with the crippled Israeli economy or what's left of the Mideast "peace process."

Throughout the election campaign the hawkish Israeli leader has adamantly refused to acknowledge that a final Palestinian-Israeli settlement would see the establishment of a Palestinian state alongside Israel, a point that is generally accepted worldwide although there are nowadays a growing number of Palestinians, Israelis and others who might prefer a one-state solution for the two people.

Netanyahu would only talk about an "economic plan" that supposedly would help the Palestinians who have endured a cruel Israeli occupation in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip since 1967. Even the Israeli pullout from the Gaza Strip in September 2005 has failed to improve life in the crowded coastal region because of the Israeli blockade on land, sea and air. The Hamas "coup d'etat" in the Gaza Strip which overthrew Mahmoud Abbas' Palestinian Authority did not help, either.

However, in recent days Bibi has seemingly changed his tune, vaguely promising "a viable peace with all of Israel's Arab neighbors." Here, he chose, for example, not to acknowledge the Arab Peace Initiative which has been offered seven years ago by all the Arab governments and supported by many Muslim states elsewhere. (At the just-concluded Arab summit conference in Qatar, the Arab leaders have indicated that their initiative will not remain much longer on the table.)

Netanyahu is due in Washington in May to meet with President Barack Obama. The Israeli prime minister will face a very different White House than his predecessor did when meeting with Obama's predecessor.

Obama will have just returned from his European tour where EU and Turkish leaders will most certainly share their growing concerns over the lack of progress in the Middle East and their reservations over Israel's new foreign minister, Avigdor Lieberman. The leader of the ultra-nationalist Israel Beiteinu party wants to administer an unprecedented oath of loyalty for all citizens, particularly the Palestinian Arabs inside Israel.

A 17-page report prepared by a bipartisan group of prominent Americans who have dealt with the Middle East, and recently submitted to Obama, has highlighted the seriousness of the situation in its eye-catching title: "A last Chance for a Two-State Israel-Palestine Agreement."

A copy of the report, which has yet to be disseminated widely, has been delivered to Obama by one of the signatories, Paul Volcker, who has been lately named senior economic adviser to the president.

Among the other 10 signatories are former National Security Adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski, former Senator Chuck Hagel, former Congressman Lee Hamilton, National Security Adviser Brent Scowcroft, and former World Bank President James D. Wolfensohn. All serve as senior advisors of the U.S./Middle East Project, whose president is Henry Siegman, the sponsor of the report.

They suggested that Obama needs "to flesh out the outlines of a fair, viable and sustainable agreement, based on principles that both Israel and the Palestinians have previously accepted" by endorsing U.N. resolutions 242 and 338, the Oslo Accords, the Roadmap and the 2007 Annapolis understandings.

They noted that any "new U.S. effort to reach an Israeli-Palestinian agreement may anger certain domestic constituencies," an obvious reference to the Israeli lobby. We do not , however, believe it is beyond the capability of an American president to explain to the American people why this long-running dispute must at long last be ended and why it will take much diplomatic heavy lifting and public expenditure to make it work."

Otherwise, it added, "in the end the stakes are too high to pursue a hands-off or arm's-length approach."

To maximize the prospects for success, the report suggested four steps: Present a clear U.S. vision to end the Israeli-Palestinian conflict which would include two states based on the June 4, 1967 borders "with minor, reciprocal, and agreed upon modifications;" a solution to the refugee problem that does not entail a general right of return but addresses "the Palestinian refugees" sense of injustice and provides them with meaningful financial compensation as well as resettlement assistance"; and Jerusalem as home to both capitals.

They also underlined the need for "a more pragmatic approach toward Hamas and a Palestinian unity government." They conceded that "direct U.S. engagement with Hamas may not now be practical, but shutting out the movement and isolating Gaza has only made it stronger and Fatah weaker."

Consequently, the United States should "cease discouraging Palestinian national reconciliation and make clear that a [Palestinian] government ... that commits to abiding by the results of a national referendum on a future peace agreement would not be boycotted or sanctioned" - a position that Hamas has long favored.

Whether Obama will go along with these suggestions is too early to tell, but Netanyahu needs to realize quickly that he cannot continue to ignore the facts on the ground.

Bennett murder link to bombing of Chinese embassy in Belgrade is a red herring

Bennett murder link to bombing of Chinese embassy in Belgrade is a red herring

When NBC-4 in Washington, DC was fed a story from an "intelligence source" that CIA officer William Bennett's brutal bludgeoning murder on March 22 may have been linked to his work for the CIA that resulted in the U.S. bombing of the Chinese embassy in Belgrade, the station was being misled with a red herring. Our Chinese sources report that the U.S. bombing of the Chinese embassy on May 7, 1999, was no mistake and it was targeted as a result of a decision by then-director of the National Security Agency (NSA) General Michael Hayden to target the facility because its communications center was sending burst transmissions to Yugoslav army units in Kosovo from the Yugoslav military high command in Belgrade.

The use of the Chinese embassy's communications system by Yugoslavia was reported at the time by the United Kingdom's Observer and Denmark's Politiken newspapers.

The Chinese discovered that Hayden's decision to bomb their embassy was done without the prior approval of either President Bill Clinton or his National Security Adviser Sandy Berger.

Moreover, Hayden, an Air Force general, had another reason to strike the embassy. The embassy was also transmitting television signals that were being used as part of a passive detection system used to track U.S. Air Force stealth aircraft over Yugoslavia. On March 27, 1999, the Yugoslav army, with the assistance of the Chinese long wavelength detection system, was able to spot a stealth F-117 and shoot it down.

The Pentagon gave China an ultimatum to return the F-117's cloaking system that was recovered by Yugoslavian military units from the wreckage and turned it over to the Chinese. The Chinese Foreign Ministry, like the Clinton White House, was reportedly kept out of the loop on the serious military confrontation between the Pentagon and the Chinese People's Liberation Army and intelligence services.

There was a leak to the media by a CIA officer or officers out of the NATO base in Vicenza, Italy concerning the targeting of the Chinese embassy and it just so happens that Bennett was stationed at the base during the Yugoslav campaign. The leak stated that Hayden and his NSA conducted the military operation against the Chinese embassy in Belgrade using B2s from Whiteman Air Force Base in Missouri and a Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA)/British MI-6 spotter team in Belgrade that used lasers to guide the B-2 precision-guided bombs on to their target: the military communications office in the Chinese embassy compound. This operation was reportedly done without the knowledge of either the White House or the State Department.

According to Japanese intelligence sources, after the bombs hit their target, the KLA/MI-6 team was seen by witnesses combing through the rubble with powerful flashlights and a video camera. It was only after the team departed the embassy grounds that a fire broke out.

CIA and congressional intelligence oversight committee members insisted the attack on the Chinese embassy was a mistake and that story continues to this day as U.S. intelligence doctrine.

China today sees the entire Belgrade fiasco as the outcome of then-President Jiang Zemin's bravado and the Chinese have learned since that it is best to keep a low profile in such conflicts. President Hu Jintao, who met with President Barack Obama at the G20 summit in London, would rather forget the 1999 Belgrade embassy flap. For an "intelligence source" to contend that Bennett's murder was in some way linked to his work in Vicenza during the Kosovo war is a clear attempt at disinformation.

While there is likely an intelligence service involved with the brutal dispatch of Bennett and the attack on his wife, it is not Chinese. The heart of the radar system used by Yugoslavia against American stealth aircraft was a Czech system paid for by Beijing but procured from the Czech Republic by the Israeli Mossad. The intelligence road to Bennett's murder does not lead to China but to Israel, according to our sources in Beijing and Hong Kong.

The Chinese sources are corroborated by sources this editor spoke to in Tel Aviv in 1995. An Israeli government source told the editor that Israel had shared, in violation of an agreement between Israel and the United States, sensitive U.S. military technology with Yugoslavia in its war against Croatia. When the editor contacted a top-level Croatian security service official in Zagreb, he responded that Croatia was aware that the Israelis were providing Belgrade with U.S. weapons and technology banned by Washington from export to third parties. The technology transfer involved permitted Yugoslavia to accurately target with ground-to-ground missiles Croatian military and government facilities in Zagreb and its suburbs.

If Bennett possessed more detailed knowledge of Israeli transfer of sensitive U.S. military and intelligence technology to third parties, it would go a long way into explaining the "hit" on him while on his morning walk with his wife on an early Sunday morning.

من قتل سليمان . بشار وماهر ام اصف شوكت ؟؟

من قتل سليمان . بشار وماهر ام اصف شوكت ؟؟

ليست المرة الاولى التي تحصل فيها مثل هذه الجرائم بل كانت البداية في عهد بشار الاسد بقتل محمود الزعبي وغازي كنعان وتصفية عماد مغنية واليوم اغتيال العميد محمد سليمان.
محمد سليمان هذا الشخص الغامض والذي قيل ان بشار الاسد علم اثناء زيارته الى فرنسا باحتمال استدعاء هذا الشخص بقضية اغتيال الشهيد رفيق الحريري.
وبشار الاسد الذي توقع النصر في زيارته الى باريس وجد نفسه محاصراً في التحقيق بعملية الاغتيال التي استهدفت الشهيد الحريري .واتضح حينها للاسد ان المجتمع الدولي لم ولن يتهاون في مسألة المحكمة الدولية ولعله ايقن تماما ان العبث في امن لبنان ومهما طال لن يكون بديلا عن المحكمة
بشار الاسد وبعد عودته بدمشق اخبر اصف شوكت وماهر الاسد عن احتمال البدء في العميد محمد سليمان وظهر جلياً انزعاج النظام السوري من قضية المحكمة الدولية.
هذا التخبط الذي عاناه بشار الاسد بعد زيارته الى فرنسا انصدم بقنبلة ومفاجئة كبيرة وهي ازمة الرئيس السوداني عمر البشير وشعور بشار ان هذه الازمة هي رسالة له ولنظامه بان المحاسبة لم تعد فقط سياسية ولم تعد فقط من الشعب بل يمكن ان تمتد لتكون محاسبة دولية قانونية.
وتفيد مصادر الحركة السورية القومية الاجتماعية ان اصف شوكت وبعد اغتيال عماد مغنية قد وقع في قفص الاتهام والعميد محمد سليمان كان اول المطالبين بمحاسبة اصف شوكت على هذا العمل او المساهمة في الاغتيال على الاقل.ولم يكن ماهر الاسد ضد هذا النزاع بين الرجليين وخصوصا ان خلافاته مع اصف شوكت مستمرة.
وبالعودة الى تسلسل الاخبار والاحداث نجد ان اصف شوكت قد وقع في مأزق حقيقي امام بشار الاسد وشعر ان التضحية به قد تحدث وخصوصا ان بشرى الاسد بدأت تحضر للاستقلال في حياتها خارج سورية كما ذكرت وكالات الانباء في اثناء تنقلها بين الامارات وفرنسا.
ويبدو ان الخبر الذي نقله بشار الاسد عن احتمال استدعاء العميد محمد سليمان قد كان مفيداً جداً لاصف شوكت والذي بدأ بالترويج لفكرة التخلص منه وقطع الحلقة بين المحكمة الدولية والقاتل الحقيقي للشهيد رفيق الحريري.
فسر اغتيال عماد مغنية والذي اغلقت ملفه المخابرات السورية بيد اصف شوكت ولكن اسرار عماد غنية واتصالاته وعلاقاته بيد العميد محمد سليمان وتصفية سليمان تأتي في مصلحة اصف شوكت بالدرجة الاولى للانتهاء من اكثر من ازمة عالقة
وهذه الجريمة تضعنا امام عدة احتمالات :
اولا:اما ان يكون بشار الاسد قد اتفق مع اصف شوكت بعد ان اقنعه اصف شوكت بقتل سليمان اثناء غيابه في ايران والانتهاء من شخصية قد تورط بشار الاسد في المحكمة الدولية.
ثانياً: او ان اصف شوكت قد اتخذ قرار الاغتيال بنفسه خوفا من تفشي حقائق حول اغتيال عماد مغنية,والتخلص من سليمان والذي ينافس اصف شوكت في السيطرة على قرارات الحكم والتعيين
ثالثاً: او ان بشار الاسد وماهر الاسد قد اتفقا على قتل العميد محمد سليمان لغاية التخلص منه كمتورط مباشر في اغتيال الحريري.وبنفس الوقت فستكون اصابع الاتهام موجهة لاصف شوكت من قبل حزب الله وضباط القصر الجمهوري والمخابرات.
وباعتقادنا ان سر هذه الجريمة في يد حزب الله فهو الذي باشر بالتحقيق منفردا في قضية اغتيال عماد مغنية .وهو الذي يعرف تماماً اين وصلت تحقيقاته وما هو موقع العميد محمد سليمان من حادثة اغتيال عماد مغنية
انتظروا الايام القادمة فهي ستحمل الكثير من المفاجئات اما في منزل بشار الاسد او في مفرزة اصف شوكت
انه التاريخ يعيد نفسه

Zionism is the disease; up to now, there is no cure, only Resistance....

Zionism is the disease; up to now, there is no cure, only Resistance....

As long as Israel controls the United States government - and Jewish
CIA pigs control all telephones in USA ..... - trust no one...


The Mossad within the CIA I and 2.....

No wonder CIA1 intelligence "failures" are always bad for America but a
windfall for Israel. Why don't we just hire Mexicans to guard our
southern border, Arabs for airport security, and Chinese to inspect
imported food ??



Defilers of reality --CIA disinformation
Bane on the human race --world-wide kidnapping/torture/murder
Masters of Immorality --LSD trips for the unsuspecting
The friend without a face --the state within a state


They say they are just our ally --not my ally
They say that we are just good friends --not my friend
So why are the Spooks and Mossad --inbred crossbreeding
Connected like Siamese twins? --conjoined kike cops

The CIA is a Mossad front. The Mossad is a CIA front.
So who killed Kennedy? They both did: tag-team terror orgs.

More Evidence Mossad/CIA Killed JFK Over Israeli Nukes

The Missing Link In The JFK Assassination Conspiracy

Assyrians were the first nation in history to accept Christianity

In a tragic irony, the Assyrians were the first nation in history to accept Christianity and known as the people who brought the faith throughout much of the world, now on the verge of extinction in their own homeland....

A recent string of killings in Iraq is raising fear among Iraqi Christians after four Assyrian Christians were killed in areas ranging from Kirkuk in Northern Iraq to the capital, Baghdad.

Sabah Aziz Suliman, 60 was killed in his home in Kirkuk on April 1, at approximately 6Am.

April first is the Assyrian New Year and one of the most festive days in the yearly calendar. Assyrians gather from around the world to celebrate the festival with dancing, music and time together with their families.

On April 2, at 6AM, 64 year old Nimrud Khuder Moshi was killed in his home and shortly after that at around 8AM, Glawiz Nissan 61 and Hanaa Isaaq, 58 were killed in their home in the Dora neighborhood of Baghdad, a historic Christian community.

According to the Iraqi Government during the time of Saddam Hussein, the Assyrian population of the country was estimated at about 2.5 million, or roughly 10 percent of the population.

Their representation in the Iraqi Parliament consists of only two members, although representatives for the community say they should have at least 25.

The group Iraqi Government officials consistently refer to as "the best Citizens, the original people of Iraq" have been consistently killed and marginalized in a country that has taken a dramatic turn towards fundamentalism. Many feel they have been forced to alter their dress and lifestyle in a way that is completely against the culture and history of cosmopolitan Iraq. These changes have affected the Assyrian Christians the most and exposed many within the community to regular danger.

Estimates are that up to half of the population has left the country, many to neighboring Jordan, Syria, Lebanon and other areas waiting to see if they can return.

Killings like today in the predominately-Assyrian Christian area of Dora are a major obstacle to their return.

William Warda, Chairman of the Hammurabi Human Rights Organization said, he was "very concerned at this dramatic rise I violence immediately following the recent elections. This will greatly affect those displaced outside the countries we are counting on to return and cause many more to leave the country, just when things were calming. "

On a separate note Warda said, "While this is not directly connected to the killings, the major problem the Assyrians are facing is the fact that the Iraqi Constitution which includes the words "Islam is the official religion of the State" causes there to be a near total lack of religious freedom.

"Most people outside Iraq are not aware of the simple fact that it is against the law and the punishment can be death for the most basic human freedom – the freedom to change ones religion. We are particularly disappointed at the International Community for not supporting this important human right, particularly in a nation they have so heavily invested in, in both blood and treasure."

In a tragic irony, the Assyrians were the first nation in history to accept Christianity and known as the people who brought the faith throughout much of the world, now on the verge of extinction in their own homeland....

Thursday, April 02, 2009

Dennis Ross sidelined at State over his foreign agent status with Israel

."weapons of mass deception".

April , 2009 -- Dennis Ross sidelined at State over his foreign agent status with Israel's MOSSAD creeps

Former pro-Israel Washington Institute for Near East Policy (WINEP) director Dennis Ross, named by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton as her special envoy for Iran, has been sidelined at the State Department by Clinton's special envoy for Pakistan and Afghanistan Richard Holbrooke, according to informed sources at the State Department.

In fact, Ross was purposely kept out of the loop on the recent landmark meeting between Holbrooke and deputy Iranian Foreign Minister Mehdi Akhundzadeh in The Hague at a conference on Afghanistan. We are told that Holbrooke effectively snatched the Iran portfolio from Ross and that while Ross has an office on the seventh floor of the State Department, he has little responsibility over America's new opening to Iran.

Ross served as director of Policy Planning for the State Department under President George H. W. Bush and special Middle East envoy under President Bill Clinton. Ross earned the enmity of Palestinian peace negotiators as a result of his unabashedly pro-Israeli views. Ross hosted Vice President Dick Cheney at the October 2007 WINEP "Weinberg Founders Conference" where Cheney delivered a blistering attack on Iran. There have been recent reports that Cheney ensured that a "stay behind" network of neo-conservatives loyal to Cheney remained in key positions in the Obama administration. Given Ross' previous role as a key player in the Project for the New American Century (PNAC), he appears to fit the bill as one of the stay behind players, albeit now without portfolio.

Ross' problems within the Obama administration began when it was discovered that he failed to register as a foreign agent for the government of Israel in his capacity as the chairman of the Jewish People Policy Planning Institute (JPPPI) in Jerusalem. Unlike the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) and WINEP, the JPPPI is run by the Jewish Agency, which is an organ of the Israeli government.

In January of this year, the Institute for Research: Middle Eastern Policy (IRmep) issued a press release on Ross and the JPPPI and its predecessor Israeli government-funded operations in the United States. IRmep stated: "In the 1960s the Senate Foreign Relations Committee uncovered a network of stealth Jewish Agency 'conduits' financing grassroots Israel lobby start up groups through the American Zionist Council (AZC). During 1963 hearings the Senate revealed the equivalent of $35 million went toward U.S. lobbying, including $38,000 to American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) founder Isaiah Kenen between 1960-1961."

In November 1962, Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy required the AZC to register as a foreign agent pursuant to the 1938 Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA). The AZC shut down and transferred its lobbying activities to AIPAC.

Ross never registered as a foreign agent under FARA after becoming chairman of the Jewish Agency-funded JPPPI in 2002. Ross' failure to declare himself as an agent of the Israeli government contributed, in part, to Clinton's decision to remove his Iran portfolio.

Another pro-Israel loyalist, former U.S. ambassador to Israel and Egypt Dan Kurtzer, was expected to be named by Secretary of State Clinton as Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs. However, that did not pan out and Kurtzer was named as the commissioner of the new Israel Baseball League. The Assistant Secretary position is being filled by Jeffrey CIA NeoZionist Feltman in an acting capacity. Feltman/CIA, a former U.S. ambassador to Lebanon, is also a pro-Israel loyalist, and a ranking committee member of the infamous assassins of the White House Murder INC, in the Levant...and an ex- consul general in Jerusalem for preparation for the atrocious murder of Mr. Elie Hobeika on January 24th the odious assassins of the White House Murder INC.

Tribes with Flags and the White House Murder INC, from Lebanon to Afghanistan to Namibia....

Tribes with Flags and the White House Murder INC, from Lebanon to Afghanistan to Namibia....working diligently for utter fragmentation of the Greater middle East, ASIA and Africa....and beyond for decades.

"weapons of mass deception".

From JFK's assassination in 1963 to 2009, the planning looks, feels and smells eerily similar in dozens of assassination cases, in the US, in the Levant, in KSA... and in the AFPAK areas.

The Israeli Army — which, despite Israel’s veneer of democracy, actually runs that country — has for some decades now pursued certain policies of direct relevance to Muslim countries in its vicinity. Amongst these countries are Iraq, Iran and Pakistan. First and foremost amongst these Israeli policies is the determination of that army to remain the pre-eminent military power in the region. And in order to retain its military hegemony, the Israeli Army must necessarily prevent any Muslim country in the region from obtaining effective nuclear weapons. And if, like Pakistan, such a country already has nuclear weapons, then the Israelis believe it is essential to disable that country to the point where it ceases to operate as a nation militarily. Once we have understood the centrality of this policy to the Israeli Army, then much of what has happened, and is happening, in the region falls into place.

For example, Iraq was developing a nuclear bomb. Israel destroyed the facility where Iraq’s bomb was reputedly being developed. But Iraq still remained a militarily powerful nation that might be a threat to Israel, and it was too powerful for Israel to defeat alone, so Bush and Cheney obliged the Israelis by invading Iraq on false pretexts. The result was the decimation of the Iraqi Army, the division of the country into three areas so it ceased to operate militarily as a nation, and the control of Iraqi oil by companies amenable to US interests. Job done.

The persistent threats to Iran issuing from the White House under Bush were designed to generate a political climate at home that would allow the US to bomb Iran’s nuclear facilities, so as to disable its supposed nuclear weapons program. If Iran had a bomb, it would be of little danger to anyone, because, were Iran to use such a bomb against Israel, as Hillary Clinton said, America would “obliterate” Iran. On the other hand, were Iran to use a nuclear weapon defensively against an Israeli attack, then America would have to respond with more care. So the only result of Iran possessing a nuclear weapon would be to curtail Israel’s power to bully countries in the region.

It follows that any American attack on a supposed nuclear weapons program in Iran could only be designed to maintain Israel’s military pre-eminence in the region. An American attack on Iran’s nuclear program could only have been on behalf of Israel. A clear case of Israel controlling US foreign policy on its own behalf. If Iran is building a bomb, the main reason would be to defend itself against Israel. So the best way to put an end to the supposed Iranian nuclear weapons program would be (i) to disarm the nuclear threat from Israel, and (ii) for NATO militarily to guarantee Iran against attack from its neighbors, especially from Israel. Why has the West not pursued this effective policy that would also reduce the number of nuclear weapons in the world? If India were disarmed and Pakistan were guaranteed military protection against Indian attack, why would Pakistan need nuclear weapons? When perfectly rational policies are ignored in favor of dangerously ineffective ones, something fishy is usually up. The Kashmir dispute also falls into this category.

Why are NATO forces in Afghanistan killing Afghans? Surely not for the good of the Afghans. As for democracy, the overwhelming wish of the people is for NATO forces to leave immediately. This is the principal reason for the Afghan national revolt that people in the West call Islamic militancy. The NATO forces are there for two reasons: One, for the oil and gas reserves around the Caspian Sea, which, at the very least, the NATO countries would like to deny to Russia and China; and, two, to destabilize and weaken Pakistan on behalf of Israel. That India would also like Pakistan to be weakened is just an added bonus ensuring India’s participation in the skullduggery, partly by means of a close covert alliance with Israel.

In order to maintain its military dominance in the region, Israel has for years set about destabilizing any Muslim country that poses a threat to its dominance. Pakistan is the only Muslim country with nuclear weapons and Israel is within range. So Pakistan must be weakened to the point at which it ceases to operate militarily as a nation. Pakistan is supposed to be the West’s foremost ally in the fight against Islamic militancy, so Israel cannot attack Pakistan directly, and, if Israel did, she would certainly be defeated. So what to do? Well, two strategies come to mind: One, use America to attack Pakistan for you; and two, train and send into the border regions of Pakistan gangs of thugs willing to commit atrocities that will then be blamed on “barbaric Muslim militants”, suggesting that Pakistan has lost control of its territory to dangerous extremists and so may lose control of its nuclear weapons. Is there any evidence that these policies are being pursued by Israel in Pakistan? Yes, though regrettably my sources must remain anonymous. Perhaps the best-informed person in Afghanistan has said that he knows for sure that the Israelis are training teams in Badakhshan and are sending them into Pakistan’s border regions to commit atrocities. Two British friends who have covered Afghan wars since 1980, tell me the same thing. Rumors of Israeli-trained provocateurs amongst the tribesmen in the Khyber Agency and in Swat are rife. Then there is, of course, the completely public evidence of the daily US infringements of Pakistani sovereign airspace by drones. These drone attacks always kill many more innocents than so-called insurgents. The traditional authority of the tribal elders is weakened because they cannot protect their people, thus further destabilizing the region and allowing the infiltrators easier access. In addition, they weaken the authority of the Pakistan government and of the army, both of which are made to look as if they condone the attacks, which surely is one of the main purposes of the attacks. Perhaps Asif Ali Zardari’s government and the army do condone the attacks, but if so, they do so against the interests of a group of people — the Pashtuns — who already feel alienated from central government. Thus Pakistani unity is further eroded, much to the satisfaction of the Israelis.

The assassination of Benazir BUTTHO was no coincidence at all, it was the work of the infamous White House Murder INC's manipulations committees...

That the destabilization of Pakistan has been on the minds of US officials for some time is suggested quite strongly by an article in the Guardian of Aug. 27, 2008. The article entitled “Take this war into Pakistan” was written by the Afghan ambassador to Norway, Jawed Ludin. I assume that Ludin was speaking as Afghan ambassador to Norway and so had the approval for what he said from his government. I am assuming also that since the Afghan government is simply the instrument of the US, the US authorities knew in advance of the contents of the article. Maybe they were testing the water. In this article Ludin says: “Without having to invade Pakistani territory, (a) coalition (of US, Afghan and Pakistani military forces) should establish a viable presence by opening military bases on Pakistani soil. A supreme commander, with deputies from Afghanistan and Pakistan, should be appointed to devise and implement an effective counterterrorism strategy on both sides of the Durand Line… The coalition should also ensure the security of Pakistan’s dangerous nuclear arsenal.”

Earlier in the article the author says, “the US must recognize the utter futility of working with the Pakistani military” which he suggests is untrustworthy and unfit to protect Pakistan’s interests. This implication is rather odd given that later he says that the “coalition of the willing”, that must set up bases in Pakistan to run an efficient counterterrorism offensive, should include the Pakistan military (I take it in only a junior capacity). So here we have a proposed force led by a “supreme commander” of unnamed nationality that will lead Afghan and Pakistani soldiers (the Pakistani leadership having been sidelined) on Pakistani soil (which somehow they have entered without invasion) to take control of Pakistan’s nuclear weapons and to beat all the terrorists, by means undescribed.

Frankly, so bizarre a scheme is too stupid even for Indian and American intelligence officials stationed far from the action. But, if not, then its drift is obvious: The Pakistani military command should be fragmented, disabled, sidelined and the country’s nuclear “arsenal” should come under responsible control (like that of the Afghans, I suppose). Pakistan should be deprived of central military national command.

Events in Waziristan, in the Khyber Agency and in Swat Valley all suggest that the central authorities of Pakistan have indeed relinquished control of these border areas. Baluchistan is also in a state of turmoil that makes it impossible for the central authority of the Pakistan government and army to govern there. Much of this is the result of 60 years of gross incompetence and nepotism in the central government and in the army, but it has created an environment easily exploited by Pakistan’s enemies. The Baloch tribes on the Iran side of the border are also being financed by outside agencies, so their insurgency will weaken the central control of the Iranian government.

In short, Israel’s foreign policy in the region, has, with the aid of the US, become a very successful one. The only thing I fail to understand is why the people of these countries let it happen. Especially the militants: They are supposed to be true Muslims, yet they really seem to relish doing their enemies’ dirty work. I suppose when you are very poor, money can buy just about anything. And when you are ignorant, you are easily fooled....

People in Lebanon know that Iran would make a better long term alley

‘People in Lebanon know that Iran would make a better long term alley.’

‘We anticipate that the shape of the US assistance programs in Lebanon will be evaluated in the context of Lebanon’s parliamentary election results and the policies formed by the new Cabinet.’ — Jeffrey CIA assassin Feltman, Acting Assistant Secretary for Near East Affairs and former Ambassador to Lebanon, briefing the House Congressional Subcommittee on the Middle East and South Asia, 03/24/09.

USA is Sinking fast...: Serious Performance and Credibility Issues...stemming from the odious practices of the White House Murder INC, since January 24th 2002.....

Henry Kissinger, among others in the US foreign policy establishment, is reportedly aghast at how quickly and thoroughly the Bush administration botched US Middle East policy and handed much of the Near East and South Asia to Iran. Not just Iraq, Afghanistan, (plus the Af-Pak region) some of the countries bordering the Arab Gulf (increasingly referred to as the Persian Gulf) but the low hanging fruit of Palestine, ripe for picking.

As Iran rapidly expands its influence to South America, Asia and Africa, many observers in Lebanon think that their country may be next. Frankly, it is beginning to look that way.

US Lebanon Policy Pronouncements

Even before 1958, when US Embassy officials delivered suitcases filled with election buying cash to its favorite Lebanese politician, the incumbent, unpopular, corrupt, and anti-Muslim President Camile Chamoun, the Lebanese have looked favorably on America. Today, known Americans in Lebanon rarely skip a day without receiving thumbs up, a ‘welcome to Lebanon’, or a puckering of the lips and a “mwwas” which translates locally more or less as “kisses to you.”

Yet it may be a case of unrequited love. Regardless of what President Obama personally wants, and though there are reportedly overdue new US Middle East initiatives being worked on at the National Security Council and the State Department, there is strong Israel lobby enforced reticence in Washington to do anything for Lebanon that Israel may object to. And the Lebanese know it.

American policy statements towards Lebanon are frequently incomprehensible or contradictory to many Lebanese, among the most politically sophisticated around. With the approaching June 7 elections, now barely two months away, the intensifying barrage of Press Releases and pontifications from US government employees including the US State Department and Congressional Hearings witnesses, have was left many in Lebanon with raised eyebrows and shaking their heads. It is said that the average Lebanese is so astute that they can read Politicians thoughts as if they were printed with size 24 fonts on the politico’s forehead. Many of the current musings of American spokespersons are being put into the same category.

Jeffrey CIA assassin Feltman on the Hill

Over the years, Congressional Hearings have strayed markedly from their original purpose of informing the country’s Congressional delegates about weighty policy matters in order to keep the American Ship of State on an even keel. The past three decades has seen vast quantities of information organized across the US Capitol Grounds at the Madison, Jefferson and Adams Congressional Libraries by the venerated Congressional Research Service. CRS research is available instantly to any member of Congress or their staffs and some of it, generally high quality Issue Briefs, may soon be available worldwide on the Internet. Added to the CRS resource, the arrival of the Internet, plus burgeoning Congressional staffs, the original purpose and even need for Congressional “Hearings” has drastically changed. Yet there are more and more of them and they have become increasingly politicized and are now mainly useful as tools to promote Member images in their Districts, and less and less for learning. As a former “Hearing Specialist II” on the Hill for the House Judiciary Committee, this observer can report that little is normally learned from Congressional hearings anymore. In most cases, staffers prepare carefully the Members speeches, questions to witnesses, and answers the witness will very likely give, to each and every question from their bosses or even their bosses’ political adversaries and rivals on the panel.

Concerning many important but deemed ‘sensitive’ issues that Congress knows little about but certainly should investigate, Members often cannot get hearings-even classified hearings- because Congress continues to outsource many of its Constitutional prerogatives to an increasingly dominating Executive Branch.

This arrangement can be ideal for Single Issue lobbies that make excellent use of Congressional Hearings to publicly advance their projects. None more so than AIPAC, coordinating as it does the 120 plus pro Israel organizations that it quickly cobbles when the need arises to put together a fast hearing, forum, briefing, or Congressional Staff gathering, designed to keep the public in awe of important Israel related “key information or insights” revealed at a weighty “United States Congressional Hearing”. So much the better for Israel if the Committee Chairman is committed to its policies, as is the case with Congressman Gary Ackerman and the Chairs of the other 10 key House and Senate Committees, Foreign Affairs, Armed Services, Appropriations, Intelligence, and Terrorism that deal with Lebanon and the Middle East.

It is against this backdrop that Jeffrey Feltman was summoned last week to join Ackerman in signaling Lebanon to return pro Israel election results on June 7 or pay the price.

This commentary is not in any way meant to be some sort of ad hominum broadside aimed at Jeffrey Feltman or his rather more attractive and charming successor at the US Embassy in Beirut, Michele Sisson, or even the really heavyweight arch Zionist, Islamophobe and Arab baser, Gary Ackerman, Chairman of the House Subcommittee on the Middle East and South Asia. Yet it must be admitted that this duos current speeches on US Lebanon Policy are often unfathomable when considered alongside President Obama’s expressed Middle East objectives and what Lebanon sorely needs.

Jeffrey CIA assassin Feltman Warns Lebanon

Neither Jeffrey CIA assassin Feltman nor Ackerman minced words.

In his opening statement, Feltman, strongly discouraged any attempts by foreign powers to influence Lebanon’s elections, noting that “decisions on the shape and composition of the next government can and should be made by the Lebanese themselves, for Lebanon, free from outside interference, political intimidation and violence.”

His very next statement nullified what he had just said and he emphasized that the polls, with US help, “would provide an opportunity to continue the process of reinforcing Lebanon’s independence.” Feltman then labeled the US backed March 14 group the “pro-independence” bloc, while highlighting March 8’s association with Hezbollah, Syria and Iran as the most serious danger to Lebanon and the Region. He added that the US would support any dialogue between Lebanon and Israel.

Feltman then launched his zinger which shocked some people internationally but not many in Lebanon: “We anticipate that the shape of the United States’ assistance programs in Lebanon will be evaluated in the context of Lebanon’s parliamentary election results and the policies formed by the new cabinet.”

The House Subcommittee chairman who introduced Feltman, Representative Gary Ackerman (D-NY), provided a similar analysis in his prefatory remarks, listing US interests in Lebanon as “sovereignty, independence and territorial integrity.”

“The US cannot and should not interfere in the election, but neither should we be impassive,” he added (read: ‘watch what we will do not what we say’): “There is much we can do and should do on the outside to demonstrate that Lebanon’s future is not dependant on either militias or mullahs.”

Whether or not Ackerman distinguishes Lebanon from Afghanistan or knows Lebanon does not have “Mullahs” with the cameras running and AIPAC very likely writing or at least vetting and editing his remarks, ‘Mullahs with all its pejorative connotations in Ackerman’s Brooklyn District was surely the politically correct term for him to use regardless of what the Lebanese, a country with no Mulluhs, thought about it.

Ackerman also voiced support for the some military aid to Lebanon, noting the “pressing mission is battling terrorists activated and armed by foreign powers.” (read: it might be necessary to use them against Hezbollah).

Rarely missing a chance to expound on issues of interest to Israel, U.S. Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL) submitted her questions and comments in writing and rather hysterically opined: “what happens in Lebanon in June can affect the US in July. Iran is stepping up efforts to assist extremist groups, like Hezbollah, operating in the Western Hemisphere. It is no surprise that our military and defense officials are now confirming that direct connections exist between Hezbollah and narcotraffickers”.

Interestingly, Ros-Lehtinen holds the record in Congress for authoring or co-sponsoring the most resolutions adopted by the House which claim a direct threat by Iran’s presence in the region poses to U.S. security. She and Ackerman are essentially tied for the record of post-9/11 anti-Palestinian, anti-Arab and anti-Muslim House resolutions.

On hearing reports of Feltman’s comments, some Lebanese strongly objected. Maysam, a pro March 14 student at the American University of Beirut explained:

“How dare he (Feltman) try to bribe us! Each new Israeli aggression against Lebanon, every Israeli border crossing into Lebanon, harassment of shepherds along the blue line, mock aid raid, invasion of Lebanese airspace, theft of our fertile soil and our Wazzani river waters, each captured Israeli spy and threat to destroy Lebanon again or of more population transfers from Israel, every single new cluster bomb casualty and refusal to hand over land mine maps means more and more support for Hezbollah and their allies. If the Americans really cared about Lebanon or if they were smart they would put a stop to these Israeli crimes. But Washington is clueless. Lebanon does not need US Zionist projects anymore. As much as I care, let the Americans stop interfering in my country, pack up and go back and rebuild New Orleans! I am furious!”

As noted by Maysam, the US refusal to force Israel to provide cluster bomb and landmine maps returns almost weekly to the Lebanese and global public’s mind.

“I Am Not Able to Play Anymore”

On Sunday March 28, 2009 at the Marjayoun Public Hospital, 10-year-old Mohammad Jamal Abdel-Aal’s left leg and right hand got amputated after a US cluster bomb, left over from the summer 2006 war with Israel, exploded while he was playing in one of the fields near his home in the southern town of Hilta. Describing the few minutes that preceded the explosion, Abdel-Aal explained that he had gone out to a field near his house, “to take advantage of the spring time weather. I was walking between the yellow daisies when I heard an explosion and felt my body was being ripped apart,” he said, adding that he started feeling pain in his leg and was bleeding everywhere.”Then everything turned black.”

According to the Director of the Marjayoun Hospital, physician Mouenes Kalakesh, the lad is deeply depressed because his wounds “are going to affect his life forever.”

In a room next to Abdel-Aaal’s, 16-year-old Riad al-Ahmad is also recovering from a US landmine explosion that cost him a leg while herding his sheep in one of the fields of the southern village of Wazzani.

Given US opposition to the recent Cluster Bomb Convention, many politically active Lebanese believe the US bears responsibility for the continuing slaughter of unsuspecting civilians, and should at the very least organize a global political and media campaign and organize and international conference to support demining efforts. The recent 1.5 million dollars the US gave the Mine Action Group (MAG), one of the few demining teams still working in South Lebanon is seen as a drop in the bucket given the close to 15 million dollar combined US aid given to Israel each and every day of the year.

Jeffrey CIA assassin Feltman to Hezbollah

Regarding Hezbollah, Feltman said the US would not follow the United Kingdom’s example by opening contacts with the group’s political wing. He called the group a domestic and regional “threat,” adding “our position on Hezbollah remains as it was when the group was first designated a Foreign Terrorist Organization in 1997.”

Yet, he offered Hezbollah an opportunity for much better relations with the US declaring that if Hezbollah would “Renounce terrorism—both in Lebanon and abroad—and submit to the rule of law and the authority of the Lebanese state, we would reconsider this status,” he said in reference to Britain’s decision to start contacts with the Hezbollah.

Presumably Feltman is aware that Hezbollah’s position has long been known regarding its theatre of operations against Israel. They were repeated this week when Hezbollah vowed that it would deter any possible Israeli aggression but would not carry out any military operation outside the country. MP Mohammad Raad told a funeral gathering in Sujod that: “We will not carry out any operation outside our Lebanese territories, but we will not accept after today that the Israeli enemy stages any assault against our land,” adding that “they will pay the price for any possible attack on Lebanon, and will receive the proper response.”

As for the Western attempts to open dialogue with Hezbollah, Raad said “Hezbollah welcomes this gesture,” but “it is a mistake if we assume the United States will abandon Israel for the sake of the Arabs…The United States’ project is with Israel, and the US foreign policy will not change.”

Earlier Feltman had stated that there was no difference between Hezbollah military and political wing and wondered how the UK could possibly speak only with Hezbollah’s Political wing since its leadership must be one for the whole Party. When asked about this point one Hezbollah member, who teachers at a high school in Haret Hreik advised:

“I think I can help American officials understand the difference. The military wing of Hezbollah, by which I mean, military resistance to Israel, is just about 5% of what makes up Hezbollah. But that is all that westerners mainly know about from their biased media. The political, social, economic, educational and medical wing of Hezbollah makes up the nearly 95%. Explained impolitely, the military wing is the wing that kicked Israel’s ass out of Lebanon and will keep it out until the political wing can help the Lebanese army do the job and, inshallah (God willing) achieve Middle East peace by returning the true owners to Palestine.”

Browbeating, threats, puffed promises, lack of respect, consistently advancing an Israeli agenda has tuned off many Lebanese from American overtures.

Increasingly people in Lebanon are sure that Iran would make a better long term alley.