Showing posts with label CIA/MOSSAD. Show all posts
Showing posts with label CIA/MOSSAD. Show all posts

Friday, May 15, 2009

CIA/MOSSAD , their surrogates and subservient foot soldiers in "powerful".... interest groups.


CIA/MOSSAD , their surrogates and subservient foot soldiers in "powerful".... interest groups.

What do you suppose it is like to be elected president of the United States knowing full well that your power is restricted to the service of the Siamese twins, CIA/MOSSAD and their surrogates and subservient foot soldiers in "powerful".... interest groups?

A president who does a good job for the ruling interest groups is paid off with remunerative corporate directorships, outrageous speaking fees, and a lucrative book contract. If he is young when he assumes office, like Bill Clinton and Obama, it means a long life of luxurious leisure. Fighting the special interests doesn’t pay and doesn’t succeed.

On April 30, the primacy of special over public interests was demonstrated yet again. The Democrats’ bill to prevent 1.7 million mortgage foreclosures and, thus, preserve $300 billion in home equity by permitting homeowners to renegotiate their mortgages, was defeated in the Senate, despite the 58-vote majority of the Democrats. The banksters were able to defeat the bill 51 to 45.

These are the same financial gangsters whose unbridled greed and utter irresponsibility have wiped out half of Americans’ retirement savings, sent the economy into a deep hole, and threatened the US dollar’s reserve currency role. It is difficult to imagine an interest group with a more damaged reputation. Yet, a majority of “the people’s representatives” voted as the discredited banksters instructed.

Hundreds of billions of public dollars have gone to bail out the banksters, but when some Democrats tried to get the Senate to do a mite for homeowners, the US Senate stuck with the banks. The Senate’s motto is: “Hundreds of billions for the banksters, not a dime for homeowners.”

If Obama was naive about well-intentioned change before the vote, he no longer has this political handicap.

Democratic Majority Whip Dick Durbin acknowledged the voters’ defeat by the discredited banksters. The banks, Durbin said, “frankly own the place.”

It is not difficult to understand why. Among those who defeated the homeowners bill are senators Jon Tester (Mont), Max Baucus (Mont), Blanche Lincoln (Ark), Ben Nelson (Neb), Many Landrieu (La), Tim Johnson (SD), and Arlan Specter (Pa). According to reports, the banksters have poured a half million dollars into Tester’s campaign funds. Baucus has received $3.5 million; Lincoln $1.3 million; Nelson $1.4 million; Landrieu $2 million; Johnson $2.5 million; Specter $4.5 million.

The same Congress that can’t find a dime for homeowners or health care appropriates hundreds of billions of dollars for the military/security complex. The week after the Senate foreclosed on American homeowners, the Obama “change” administration asked Congress for an additional $61 billion dollars for the neoconservatives’ war in Iraq and $65 billion more for the neoconservatives’ war in Afghanistan. Congress greeted this request with a rousing “Yes we can!”

The additional $126 billion comes on top of the $533.7 billion “defense” budget for this year. The $660 billion -- probably a low-ball number -- is 10 times the military spending of China, the second most powerful country in the world.

How is it possible that “the world’s only superpower” is threatened by the likes of Iraq and Afghanistan? How can the US be a superpower if it is threatened by countries that have no military capability other than a guerilla capability to resist invaders?

These “wars” are a hoax designed to enrich the US armaments industry and to infuse the “security forces” with police powers over American citizenry.

Not a dime to prevent millions of Americans from losing their homes, but hundreds of billions of dollars to murder Muslim women and children and to create millions of refugees, many of whom will either sign up with insurgents or end up as the next wave of immigrants into America.

This is the way the American government works. And it thinks it is a “city on the hill, a light unto the world.”

Americans elected Obama because he said he would end the gratuitous criminal wars of the Bush brownshirts, wars that have destroyed America’s reputation and financial solvency and serve no public interest. But once in office, Obama found that he was ruled by the military/security complex. War is not being ended, merely transferred from the unpopular war in Iraq to the more popular war in Afghanistan. Meanwhile, Obama, in violation of Pakistan’s sovereignty, continues to attack “targets” in Pakistan. In place of a war in Iraq, the military/security complex now has two wars going in much more difficult circumstances.

Viewing the promotion gravy train that results from decades of warfare, the US officer corps has responded to the “challenge to American security” from the Taliban. “We have to kill them over there before they come over here.” No member of the US government or its numerous well-paid agents has ever explained how the Taliban, which is focused on Afghanistan, could ever get to America. Yet this hyped fear is sufficient for the public to support the continuing enrichment of the military/security complex, while American homes are foreclosed by the banksters who have destroyed the retirement prospects of the US population.

According to Pentagon budget documents, by next year the cost of the war against Afghanistan will exceed the cost of the war against Iraq. According to a Nobel prize-winning economist and a budget expert at Harvard University, the war against Iraq has cost the American taxpayers $3 trillion, that is, $3,000 billion in out-of-pocket and already incurred future costs, such as caring for veterans.

If the Pentagon is correct, then by next year the US government will have squandered $6 trillion dollars on two wars, the only purpose of which is to enrich the munitions manufacturers and the “security” bureaucracy.

The human and social costs are dramatic as well and not only for the Iraqi, Afghan, and Pakistani populations ravaged by American bombs. Dahr Jamail reports that US Army psychiatrists have concluded that by their third deployment, 30 percent of American troops are mental wrecks. Among the costs that reverberate across generations of Americans are elevated rates of suicide, unemployment, divorce, child and spousal abuse, drug and alcohol addiction, homelessness and incarceration.

In the Afghan “desert of death,” the Obama administration is constructing a giant military base. Why? What does the internal politics of Afghanistan have to do with the US?

What is this enormous waste of resources that America does not have accomplishing besides enriching the American munitions industry?

China and to some extent India are the rising powers in the world. Russia, the largest country on earth, is armed with a nuclear arsenal as terrifying as the American one. The US dollar’s role as reserve currency, the most important source of American power, is undermined by the budget deficits that result from the munitions corporations’ wars and the bankster bailouts.

Why is the US making itself impotent fighting wars that have nothing whatsoever to do with its security, wars that are, in fact, threatening its security?

The answer is that the military/security lobby, the financial gangsters, AIPAC , the Siamese twins, CIA/MOSSAD , their surrogates and subservient foot soldiers in "powerful".... interest groups? rule the utterly corrupt beyond redemption US government, no matter who wins any elections in USA, since they are both subservient to the power behind the power ...... The American people be damned....

Friday, April 03, 2009

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.