Tuesday, February 23, 2010

Bring On World War III

Won't have to wait much longer, world.

"War Games Show How Attacking Iran Could Backfire

WASHINGTON — Here's a war game involving Iran, Israel and the U.S. that shows how unintended consequences can spin out of control:

With diplomacy failing and precious intelligence just received about two new secret Iranian nuclear facilities, Israel launches a pre-emptive strike against Tehran's nuclear complex. The strike is successful, wiping out six of Iran's key sites and setting back its suspected quest for a bomb by years.

But what happens next isn't pretty.

The U.S. president and his National Security Council try to keep the crisis from escalating. That sours U.S.-Israeli relations, already stressed by the fact that Israel didn't inform Washington in advance of the strike. The White House tries to open a channel for talks with Iran, but is rejected.

Instead, Iran attacks Israel, both directly and through its proxies in Lebanon and the Gaza Strip. It misinterprets U.S. actions as weakness and mines the Straits of Hormuz, the world's chief oil artery. That sparks a clash and a massive U.S. military reinforcement in the Persian Gulf.

This recent war game conducted at the Saban Center for Middle East Policy, part of the Washington-based Brookings Institution, a center-left think tank, appears to dampen hopes for a simple solution to Iran's real-world nuclear challenge....

By the end of the simulation, eight days after the fictitious Israeli strike, Israel's prime minister, under heavy domestic pressure, is forced to launch a 48-hour air blitz in southern Lebanon to halt rocket attacks from Hezbollah, the militant group sponsored by Iran. Israeli officials know the blitz is unlikely to achieve its objectives, and prepare a larger, costlier operation in Lebanon, including ground forces.

Israel's relations with the United States, its most important ally, are damaged. To avoid damaging them further, Israel bows to intense U.S. pressure and absorbs occasional missile strikes from Iran without retaliating.

Some members of the "Israeli" team nonetheless felt that setting back Iran's nuclear program "was worth it, even given what was a pretty robust response," said one participant....

Jonathan Peled, an Israeli embassy spokesman, declined comment on the war game or its outcome.

"All we can say is that Iran constitutes a threat not only to Israel but to the region, to the US and to the world at large, and therefore should be addressed without delay by the international community, first and foremost through effective sanctions," he said.

The Brookings war game was one of three simulations regarding Iran's nuclear program conducted in December. The other two, at Harvard University and Tel Aviv University, reportedly found that neither sanctions nor threats dissuaded Tehran from its suspected nuclear weapons ambitions....

Iran did not retaliate directly against the United States or U.S. troops in Iraq or Afghanistan. But it struck back at Israel, then attacked Dharan in eastern Saudi Arabia, then began mining the Straits of Hormuz.

"There would be almost no incentive for Iran not to respond" with force, said another participant, a member of the Iranian team. "It was interesting to see how useful it was for Tehran to push the limits."

Without knowing it, Iran's last two actions crossed U.S. "red lines," prompting an American military response.

"No one came out on top — (but) arguably the Iranians," the Iran team member said.


Yeah, and wait until CHINA and RUSSIA get involved!

Bye-bye, USraeli Empire!

Also watch: US will start WW3 by attacking Iran

I'll see you in hell, you insane SOBs.

America’s First Suicide Bomber

Probably not the last, right?

"America’s First Suicide Bomber

By Paul Craig Roberts

Joseph Stack, frustrated American, flew his airplane into an Austin, Texas, office building. He was one of the 79 percent of Americans who have given up on "their" government.

The latest Rasmussen Poll indicates that the vast majority of Americans are convinced that "their" government is totally unresponsive to them, their concerns, and their needs. Rasmussen found that only 21 percent of the American population agrees that the U.S. government has the consent of the governed, and that 21 percent is comprised of the political class itself and liberals. Rasmussen concludes that the gap between the American population and the politicians who rule them "may be as big today as the gap between the colonies and England during the 18th century."

Indications are that Joseph Stack was sane. Like Palestinians faced with Israeli jet fighters, helicopter gunships, tanks, missiles and poison gas, Stack realized that he was powerless. A suicide attack was the only weapon left to him.

Stack targeted the IRS, the federal agency that had gratuitously ruined him. He flew his airplane into an office building occupied by 200 members of the IRS. This deliberate plan and the written explanation he left behind segregate him from deranged people who randomly shoot up a Post Office or university campus.

The government and its propaganda ministry do not want to call Stack a terrorist. "Terrorist" is a term the government reserves for Muslims who do not like what Israel does to Palestinians and the U.S. government does to Muslim countries.

But Stack experienced the same frustrations and emotions as Muslims who can’t take it any longer and strap on a suicide vest.

"Violence," Stack wrote, "not only is the answer, it is the only answer." Stack concluded that nothing short of violence will get the attention of a government that has turned its back on the American people.

Anger is building up. People are beginning to do unusual things. Terry Hoskins bulldozed his house rather than allow a bank to foreclose on it. The local TV station conducted an online survey and found that 79 percent of respondents agreed with Hoskins’ action.

Perhaps the turning point was the federal government’s bailout of the investment banks whose reckless misbehavior diminished Americans’ retirement savings for the second time in eight years. Now a former head of the most culpable bank is campaigning to cut Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid benefits in order to pay for the bailout. President Obama has obliged him by creating a "deficit commission."

The "deficit commission" will be used to gut Social Security, just as the private insurance health plan is paid for by cutting $500 billion out of Medicare.

It could not be more clear that government represents the interest groups that finance the election campaigns.

Conservatives used to say that Washington’s power should be curtailed in behalf of state and local governments that are "closer to the people." But of course state and local governments are also controlled by interest groups.

Consider Florida, for example. In 2004 the storm surge from Hurricane Ivan did considerable damage to the Gulf Coast of the Florida panhandle. At Inlet Beach in Walton County, the surge claimed two beachfront homes and washed away enough of the high ground as to leave other homes vulnerable to the next storm.

People wanted to armor their homes with some form of sea wall. When the county gave the go ahead, two houses on the West end hired engineers who constructed a barrier made of rows of tubes 60 feet long filled with sand, each weighing about 70 tons. The sand-colored tubes were buried under many tons of white sand trucked in, and sea oats were planted. It was a perfect solution, and an expensive one—$250,000.

Just East of the two homes, Ivan washed away a section of beachfront road and left three houses built on pilings sitting on the beach. Last year government with FEMA money rebuilt the section of washed away beachfront road and armored it and two adjacent houses. The government used interlocking iron or steel panels that it drove down into the sand, leaving six to seven feet of the rusty metal above ground. Hundreds of truckloads of sand were brought in to cover the unsightly sea wall.

It didn’t require a storm to wash away the loose sand and leave the ugly rusty metal exposed on the beach. The first high tide did the trick. Residents and vacationers are left with an eyesore on a beach ranked as the third most beautiful in the world.

The ugly rusty barrier built by government is still there. But the intelligent approach taken by the private homeowners has been condemned to death. As I write heavy equipment is on the beach slashing open the tubes and piling up the sand to be carried away. The homes will be left standing on the edge and will be undermined by the next hurricane.

Why did this happen? The official reason given by Florida’s Department of Environmental Policy is that the county could only issue a temporary permit. Only DEP can issue a permanent permit, and as the homeowners don’t have DEP’s permanent permit, out goes the expensive, carefully engineered and unobtrusive sea wall.

This is the way government "works" for ordinary citizens. For the vast majority of people, government exists as a persecution mechanism that takes great pleasure in ruining their lives and pocketbooks. The DEP has inflicted heavy stress on the homeowners, now elderly, and could bring on a heart attack or stroke.

The real explanation for DEP’s merciless treatment of citizens is that the agency is powerless against developers. It cannot stop them from destroying the Everglades, from destroying wetlands, from polluting rivers, or from building in front of the coastal setback line. As the state politicians protect developers from the DEP, the only people against whom the DEP can use its authority are unrepresented citizens. Frustrated itself, the DEP lashes out at powerless citizens.

In the small settlement of Inlet Beach, there are numerous examples of developers getting what they want. Over the years hurricanes have eaten away the beach and the dunes. As this occurs the setback line for construction moves inland. Back when the real estate bubble was being created by Alan Greenspan’s irresponsibly low interest rate policy, small beach front lots were going for one million dollars. In the midst of this frenzy, a well-connected developer bought a beachfront lot for $30,000.

The lot was not recognizable as such. It sits on flat land on the beach. Decades ago it was a lot, but as the Gulf ate away the coast, the lot is now positioned in front of the setback line. The developer got the lot for the low price, because no one had been able to get a building permit for years.

But the developer got a permit. According to the head of the neighborhood association at the time, the developer went to a DEP official, whose jurisdiction was another part of the state and who was a former employee of the developer, and was issued a permit. Because of its exposure, during the real estate boom the house sat unsold for years. The community, which had opposed the project, concluded that the developer just wanted to show that he was more powerful than the law.

Currently, on six acres next to a state park on the East end of Inlet Beach another well connected developer has obtained DEP permission to compromise Walton County’s highest and last remaining sand dunes held in place with native vegetation in order to build 20 houses. To protect the houses, DEP has issued a permit for the construction of a 15-foot high man-made sand wall, a marketing device that will offer little protection.

According to information sent to me, nine of the houses will be seaward of the Coastal Construction Control line. Apparently this was a result of the developer being represented by a former county attorney, who convinced the commissioners to allow the developer to plan on the basis of the 1996 FEMA flood plain maps instead of using the current 2007 maps. Since 1996 there have been a number of hurricanes, such as Dennis and Ivan, and the set back line has moved inward.

When state and local governments allow developers to set aside the rules governing flood-plain development, they create insurance losses that drive up the insurance premiums for everyone in the community. The disturbance of the natural dunes could result in a breach through which storm surge can damage nearby properties. Instead of protecting people, government is allowing a developer to impose costs of his project on others.

Joseph Stack, Terry Hoskins, and 79 percent of the American population came to the realization that government does not represent them. Government represents moneyed interests for whom it bends the rules designed to protect the public, thus creating a legally privileged class.

In contrast, as at the West end of Inlet Beach, ordinary citizens are being driven into the ground.

This is what we call "freedom and democracy."


More on Stack

Was Joe Stack the first white suicide bomber?

Yes, those connections are very strange indeed.

"Summer of Rage

Seems Joe Stack got tired of the overreach of the government. The Austin, Texas IRS/CIA/FBI building just got slammed by Joe after he burned the house down and went all kamikaze on Big Brother. Would it be wrong to call this person a freedom loving patriot? Now we get to watch the the media spin about how horrible of a person to do such a terrible thing to our benevolent handlers. Of course they are going to say this is another nut job that had a long history of pills, porn and puppy murders, guns in his house! yes GUNS and everyone with a gun should be ashamed and if you don't want to be labeled a crazed anti AmrieKan enemy of the state, you must bring all weapons to the smelting plant as those evil weapons psychologically Jedi mind meld everyone into flaming terrorists hell bent on destruction of the greatest country in the world shining beacon of freedom and democracy liberating poor defenseless countries around the globe of the evil and carnage of dictatorial regimes that are all bad, ugly and speak funny and you don't want to be like that do you?

Joe Stack busted his ass all his life to get a fair shake from our loving justice system. If you cant agree Joe has Brass Balls the size of New York, then have another swig of tap water and forgetaboutit.

Seems the Summer of Rage is getting off to an early start. Think this is an isolated incident, well you best think again. A friend of mine just received his last unemployment check from his worn out federal extension and the U I clerk told him 15 million people are going to lose their unemployment this year.

15,000,000. I am in that unfortunate group and let me just say, ugly is the attitude on the street. I am pissed off, the neighbors are pissed off, and no matter what the bought and paid for talking heads say, the crash that is coming is not something that is "unavoidable" as they crashed the system in the last depression ON PURPOSE! 7 million Americans and God only knows how many others world wide starved to death in the orchestrated depression because these asshat money changers cant stand the idea of not having everyone living in mud huts and serving them.

Guess what. We know who they are, and if you want someone to receive your justifiable rage here is the URL. Life on earth could be a hellova lot better if we humans could get over the idea that a great prize is a "NEW CAR." Yes brothers and sisters, we have a brand spanking new Chinese plastic recycled World Trade Center GM (Government Motors) pollution spewing, gas guzzling, hurling death unit free, if you can guess how many dead babies per mile it gets. Wont the neighbors be jealous when they see your shiny new slavery chain wrapped around your neck?

Take a good look people. We are totally raping, maiming, and flat out nest shitting the only host that gives us life. Capitalism gone mad is destroying everything world wide because we still believe the square flashing stupid unit that spews forth lies and deception 24/7 in the living room. And what I really love about the complete sorry state of affairs is people actually pay to be lied to. Blinded individuals world wide trading their life's working hours in exchange for a few hours of complete and total spin doctored bullshit regurgitating mind poison falsely labeled as entertainment. Myself, I would rather watch a black and red ant fight. Now there is entertainment.

How fucking stupid do they think I am to try to convince me that the owner of a company can dress up in employee clothes and along with camera crew, lighting crew, make up crew, directors, assistants, executive producers, stunt doubles, groupies, hookers and the gawddamn wind machine in tow that none of the employees are going to notice, as this is the new "reality" show Boss some genius dreamed up. I am expected to watch this stinking bucket of stewing feces and believe it. Fvkmeblind- talk about insulting. It is enough to make me burn down the house and..

In signing off, how many people are truly happy the IRS building got hit? Already, people are saying how awful and horrible but I am calling bullshit on that right here and now. 99% of us slaves are elated and hope we see an escalating trend and if you disagree you are lying to yourself. Deep down inside is the little screaming voice that says "Yeah baby, one for the people."

RIP Joe Stack


"Is Joe Stack a Wake-Up Call to America?

by John W. Whitehead

"In my lifetime I can say with a great degree of certainty that there has never been a politician cast a vote on any matter with the likes of me or my interests in mind. Nor, for that matter, are they the least bit interested in me or anything I have to say." ~ Joe Stack

On Thursday, Feb. 18, 2010, 53-year-old, financially strapped software engineer Joseph Stack crashed a small plane into an IRS office building in Austin, Texas. He left behind a wife, a stepdaughter and a suicide note he had posted on his software company’s website. By the following day, the various media pundits on the right and left had already dismissed Stack as a fringe lunatic, and anyone who agreed with Stack’s diatribe against an unjust government was labeled a crackpot. However, while you can – and should – disagree with the method of Stack’s madness, Americans shouldn’t be too quick to discount the source of his frustrations....

Stack is representative of a burgeoning class of disaffected Americans who are waking up to the reality that the American governmental system no longer works as it was intended – that is, it no longer works for them. In its place, a government of elites comprised of politicians and unelected bureaucrats has emerged that views the average American as little more than a source of tax funds and labor to keep the massive machinery of government operating. We have shifted from having a government that is "of the people, by the people, for the people" to one that is largely seen as predatory, a "government of wolves."

Unfortunately, most Americans are so caught up in their own hectic day-to-day lives that Joe Stack stands to become just one more passing media sensation without anyone giving any real thought as to why he chose to end his life as he did. Yet if we allow this incident to quickly fade into media oblivion, we will be doing a great disservice to all those like Stack who are suffering under the crushing weight of economic hardship, hopelessness and despair.

So what should we glean from this seeming exercise in futility?

Read the rest HERE

" .... The picture that emerges from all this is not of a violent terrorist hell-bent on destruction to further his paranoid political agenda, as many in the media have attempted to portray, but a man driven to the edge of sanity as a result of his personal disputes with the IRS.

That didn’t stop controlled shill Glenn Beck comparing Stack to Osama Bin Laden and fitting him in to his fairytale delusion about terrorists being within Obama’s inner circle ready to kill the President. Beck even threw the people he claims to represent – Tea Party members – under the bus by saying Stack could be a “radical constitutionalist,” which is how a lot of Tea Party members would describe themselves.

To characterize yesterday’s tragedy as a deadly portend of the “domestic terror” waiting to be unleashed on U.S. cities by disgruntled Americans is not only completely irresponsible, it’s a revelatory insight into how desperate the establishment is – both fake left and right – to neutralize growing peaceful political opposition to the big government agenda across the country.

Read the rest HERE

Update: Joe Stack, The Austin Pilot, Had a Valid Tax Beef About § 1706

Sunday, February 21, 2010

Rocker Lost His Voice?

No, but after basically blogging non-stop for nearly four years he's burnt out and exhausted.

To be continued....

Thursday, February 18, 2010

Jealous Rocker

"Up Around the Bending End

I haven’t seen or heard or read any news in 3 weeks; no idea what’s going on out there....

(Blog editor's note: That's where the jealousy comes in; I hate "news" now -- at least, the AmeriKan MSM brand)

I’ve turned my hand to other things that the blog and radio efforts had pushed to the sidelines and am glad for it.

(Probably pretty good advice for yours truly, too)

In the meantime, the mind speculates about the world beyond the doorstep and it probes at all the information that has passed through it over recent years. What I was and what I knew five years ago are no longer what they were. Some things are far clearer today than they were in former times.

What is irrefutably clear to me at this moment is that the governments of the United States, England and Israel are the greatest looming dangers to the welfare of humanity across this round and still spinning planet....

Here are some of the things I have learned and here are some of the things I can see in front of me….


The President You Got

Is this what you thought you elected, America?

"’08 ruling may snag Obama administration’s Guantanamo plans

The rulings in the Hatim case and the 31 others may be a harbinger of trouble for the Obama administration, which is considering plans to indefinitely detain dozens of Guantanamo Bay prisoners without civilian or military trials....

A Justice Department-led task force has concluded that... about 50 who are considered too dangerous to be freed but cannot face trial because the evidence is too weak to hold up in court.... "

That's change?

"Under Obama, US opts for more killings, not captures, of terrorists

The Obama administration has authorized such targeted killings more frequently than the Bush administration did in its final years...."

Yeah, that is change but in the wrong direction.

Obama Gets Cooking

Also see:
The President America Always Wanted

Looks like you got him back, America.

Or he never left:


Tuesday, February 16, 2010

The President America Always Wanted

And that is exactly what you have got, AmeriKa.

"Today’s Senate bill - supported by Obama - resembles a plan drafted by a moderate Republican....

Like all his policies.


I'll bet you couldn't be happier, huh?

A pro-George W. Bush billboard is slated to overlook Interstate 35 in Wyoming, Minn., until the end of the month.
A pro-George W. Bush billboard is slated to overlook Interstate 35 in Wyoming, Minn., until the end of the month. (Bob Collins/Minnesota Public Radio)

I stand corrected; I guess you could.

Not me.

Wednesday, February 10, 2010

One Idiot Replaced Another

In response to this article.

"Dear President@whitehouse.gov

You really are an idiot.

Under the terms of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, Iran has a right to use nuclear technology for peaceful purposes. This includes power stations and medical isotopes. Enrichment to 20% is consistent with medical usage. Therefore, Iran's actions are legal under the terms of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty which Iran has signed right alongside the United States.

In demanding that Iran surrender their legal rights as specified in the NNPT, the United States is in violation of that treaty. Under Article IV, the United States is obligated to assist Iran in building their power stations and medical facilities. Clearly, if the United States were in compliance with the NNPT, we would know for an absolute certainty what Iran was and was not doing with their nuclear facilities.

I am not calling you an idiot on the assumption that you are not aware of these facts. I am sure that you are. I am calling you an idiot because you seem to assume that We The People are not aware of these facts. I am calling you an idiot because you seem to assume that We The People have forgotten the lies we were told about Iraq's 'nookular' bombs. I am calling you an idiot because you seem to assume that We The People have forgotten that there really were no enemy torpedoes in the Gulf of Tonkin Incident. I am calling you an idiot because you seem to assume that We The People do not understand that FDR not only knew the Japanese were coming to attack Pearl Harbor, but goaded Japan into the attack by following an 8-step plan crafted by ONI Lt. Cmmdr Arthur H. McCollum. I am calling you an idiot because you seem to assume that We The People cannot recall anything that happened prior to the last station break. I am calling you an idiot because you seem to assume that We The People fail to comprehend that 20% enrichment is really a far cry from the 98% enrichment required for a nuclear weapon. I am calling you an idiot because you seem to assume that We The People would actually believe that the trillions of dollars spent on the US nuclear deterrent was a total waste of money that would not deter Iran from using their single bomb on us. I am calling you an idiot because you seem to assume that We The People do not remember that Iran has not attacked another country without provocation in 200 years; a claim that cannot be shared by the US or by Israel.

I am calling you an idiot because you seem to assume that We The People do not understand that Israel, a nuclear power with a not-so-clandestine weapons factory underneath Dimona, has never signed the NNPT despite requests to do so from both the US and UN. I am calling you an idiot because you seem to assume that We The People did not pick up on the very artful way you dodged Helen Thomas' question on the topic of which nations actually possess nuclear weapons in the mideast during your very first news conference as President. I am calling you an idiot because you seem to assume that We The People do not remember that the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 was amended by the Symington Amendment (Section 669 of the FAA) in 1976. It bans U.S. economic, and military assistance, and export credits to countries that deliver or receive, acquire or transfer nuclear enrichment technology when they do not comply with IAEA regulations and inspections. This provision, as amended, is now also contained in Section 101 of the Arms Export Control Act (AECA).

I am calling you an idiot because you seem to assume that We The People do not understand that the Glenn Amendment (Section 670) was later adopted in 1977, and provided the same sanctions against countries that acquire or transfer nuclear reprocessing technology or explode or transfer a nuclear device. This provision, as amended, is now contained in Section 102 of the Arms Export Control Act (AECA).

I am calling you an idiot because you seem to assume that We The People do not understand that you are in violation of the laws of the United States with every penny sent to Israel, and that this is WHY you dodged Helen Thomas' question on this very topic during your very first news conference as President.

And finally I am calling you an idiot because for all the rhetoric we hear about the threat of nuclear weapons, to date one and only one nation has actually been psychotic enough to use a nuclear weapon of mass destruction against the civilians of another country.

And you are standing on it right now.


Feel free to forward and repost at will. -- Wake the Flock Up

Also related:

Israel is getting desperate to sell this new war for Americans to be killed and crippled in.

Here is a recap of what they are trying to make you forget.

1. Last Spring, Rose Gottemoeller, an assistant secretary of state and Washington's chief nuclear arms negotiator, asked Israel to sign the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Israel refused.

2. The United Nations passed a resolution calling on Israel to sign the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and to submit to inspections. Israel refused.

3. The IAEA asked Israel to sign the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and to submit to inspections. Israel refused.

4. Iran's formal notification to the IAEA of the planned construction of the backup fuel-rod facility underscores that Iran is playing by the rules of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty which Iran has signed.

5. Iran allows IAEA inspections of all its facilities.

6. Contrary to face-saving claims, it appears that the US and Israel were both caught off guard by Iran's announcement. The reasoning is simple. Had the US or Israel announced the existence of he new facility before Iran's notified the IAEA, it would have put Iran on the defensive. As it is now, the US and Israel seem to be playing catch up, casting doubt on the veracity of Israel's claims to "know" that Iran is a nuclear threat.

7. The IAEA and all 16 United States Intelligence Agencies are unanimous in agreement that Iran is not building and does not possess nuclear weapons.

8. In 1986, Mordachai Vanunu blew the whistle and provided photographs showing Israel's clandestine nuclear weapons factory underneath the reactor at Dimona.

9. Israel made the same accusations against Iraq that it is making against Iran, leading up to Israel's bombing of the power station at Osirik. Following the invasion of 2003, international experts examined the ruins of the power station at Osirik and found no evidence of a clandestine weapons factory in the rubble.

10. The United Nations has just released the Goldstone Report, a scathing report which accuses Israel of 37 specific war crimes and crimes against humanity in Gaza earlier this year. Israel has denounced the report as "Anti-Semitic (even though Judge Goldstone is himself Jewish), and the United States will block the report from being referred to the War Crimes Tribunal at the Hague, thereby making the US Government an accessory after-the-fact.

We all need to be Joe Wilson right now. We need to stand up and scream, "LIAR!" at every politician and every talking media moron that is pushing this war in Iran. And we need to keep dong it until they get the message that we will not be deceived any more.

Israel wants to send your kids off to die in Iran, and YOU are the only one that can stop them.

Please forward this comment to your social networks" -- Wake the Flock Up

And one more:


Michael Rivero

The above image is a scan of a piece of Trinitite. This is desert sand that was underneath the explosion of the world's first Atomic bomb in New Mexico as part of project TRINITY, hence the name Trinitite. The heat from that blast melted the sand into a green glass, not unlike the Fulgurites that result when lightning hits sandy soil.

Now, imagine an entire nation looking like the above sample, melted into green glass. Buried in the green glass are the charred remains of the people of that nation. It's not an idle fantasy. The US spent $5 trillion dollars (back in the 1950s, when a trillion dollars was REALLY a lot of money!) building a nuclear deterrent capability that can actually do that; melt any nation and it's people into a giant slab of green glass. The USSR knew it, the world knows it, Saddam knew it. The government of Iran knows it.

Even if Iraq had possessed weapons of mass destruction (which we now know they did not), and even if Iraq had the long range ICBMs to reach across the Atlantic with (which we know they did not), Iraq would still not have been a threat to the US because any attack with a weapon of mass destruction would be national suicide.

Those that insist that Iraq's weapons of mass destruction were a threat that justified invasion are in essence claiming that the US Government took $5 trillion of your money (over $17,000 from each of you alive today) in a gigantic swindle, because the $5 trillion nuclear deterrent isn't a deterrent after all, that it doesn't work, that nobody is really afraid of it, because they all know it was just a hoax to soak the American taxpayer for another several thousand dollars. Was it all a hoax, Mr. Obama? Did the American people foot a $5 trillion bill in 1950s dollars for a deterrent system that isn't really a deterrent?

Either the deterrent works or it does not. If it doesn't, then the American taxpayers have been defrauded on a grand scale. But if the nuclear deterrent does work, then Iraq or Iran can have all the weapons of mass destruction they want, they just won't dare use them. Maybe they can put them in a museum or something. But they won't dare use them against the United States because they don't want to end up like that piece of green glass at the top of this article. There is no need to invade over the issue of weapons of mass destruction. There never was.

Of course, the issue has shifted. The UN inspectors have found no evidence of weapons of mass destruction. They found some documents ABOUT weapons of mass destruction, but documents are not a weapon of mass destruction (with the sole exception of the 1040 form). The UN inspectors found a bunch of old empty artillery warheads from 1988, but empty warheads are not a weapon of mass destruction, and tests show that these empties were never weapons. Soil samples have tested negative for chemicals or radioactivity indicating weapons development. Iraq and Iran have allowed the inspectors to pretty much go everywhere they want without hindrance, even into Saddam's home. Imagine the KGB demanding and getting permission to peek into every closet and drawer in the White House and you will get an idea of just how much Iraq and now Iran is cooperating. The CIA gave the UN inspectors a list of sites they were convinced had weapons of mass destruction. Nothing was found.

But Bush still got his invasion, and grabbed the oil wells.

Now the target has shifted to Iran. And once again, we are being warned that Iran, while it does not actually have nuclear weapons, might be close to building one, and this justifies another invasion. The theory is that if Iran has a nuclear power station, they will build bombs with it. Iran hasn't planned to build bombs with it, and invites inspections (and now tourists) to prove that they are not making bombs, but the theory is that Iran will make bombs with their reactor and fool the inspectors, because, well, to be blunt about it, that's what Israel did at Dimona while they clandestinely built the world's 6th largest nuclear arsenal.

Iran says they don't want a bomb. Personally, after Iraq proved to the world what the US does to oil-rich nations that do not have weapons of mass destruction I would rethink that position. But if Iran builds a bomb, so what? Maybe they can put it in a museum, or march it down the streets of Tehran in a parade like the Soviets used to do. But they won't use it against the United States. They won't dare.

Even if Iran has a weapon of mass destruction (which we know they do not), and even if Iran has long range ICBMs to reach across the Atlantic with (which we know they do not), Iran would still not be a threat to the US because any attack with a weapon of mass destruction would be national suicide.

You see, leaders of nations have huge egos. They are driven by that dream that future generations will admire their faces on statues and stamps and money. and that doesn't happen if you let your nation get destroyed.

Simply having a nuclear weapon does not mean the nation that owns it will use it. Many nations possess nuclear weapons. And contrary to all the dire warnings the historical truth is that one and only one country has actually used nuclear weapons against the citizens of another nation and that country is the United States of America. For all the talk about the threat from Iraq and now the threat from Iran, it is the USA which remains the only country to have actually used a nuclear weapon.

If Iran were to have a weapon of mass destruction and use it against the US, the US could just stand back and turn the entire nation into green glass just like that at the top of this article. That's what we all paid that $5 trillion for. And unless the US Government wants to admit that $5 trillion nuclear deterrent is a hoax, then we should use it as it was intended to be used, to deter an attack without having to invade a foreign attacker.

Why Iran's nuclear weapons don't matter (even if they did exist).

The [Ohio class] submarine has the capacity for 24 Trident missile tubes in two rows of 12. The dimensions of the Trident II missile are length 1,360cm x diameter 210cm and the weight is 59,000kg. The three-stage solid fuel rocket motor is built by ATK (Alliant Techsystems) Thiokol Propulsion. The US Navy gives the range as "greater than 7,360km" but this could be up to 12,000km depending on the payload mix. Missile guidance is provided by an inertial navigation system, supported by stellar navigation. Trident II is capable of carrying up to twelve MIRVs (multiple independent re-entry vehicles), each with a yield of 100 kilotons, although the SALT treaty limits this number to eight per missile. The circle of equal probability (the radius of the circle within which half the strikes will impact) is less than 150m. The Sperry Univac Mark 98 missile control system controls the 24 missiles.

The 14 Trident II SSBNs carry together around 50 percent of total U.S. strategic warheads. (The exact number varies in an unpredictable and highly classified manner below a maximum set by various strategic arms limitation treaties.) Although the missiles have no pre-set targets when the submarine goes on patrol, the SSBNs are capable of rapidly targeting their missiles should the need arise, using secure and constant at-sea communications links. The Ohio class are the largest submarines ever built for the U.S. Navy, and are second only to the Russian Typhoon class in mass and size. A single submarine carries the destructive power more than nine times greater than all Allied ordnance dropped in WWII.

Only the whales and dolphins know where these submarines are when they are out on patrol. Not even the president knows their exact location.

When the Soviet Union achieved nuclear parity with the United States, the Cold War had entered a new phase. The cold war became a conflict more dangerous and unmanageable than anything Americans had faced before. In the old cold war Americans had enjoyed superior nuclear force, an unchallenged economy, strong alliances, and a trusted Imperial President to direct his incredible power against the Soviets. In the new cold war, however, Russian forces achieved nuclear equality. Each side could destroy the other many times. This fact was officially accepted in a military doctrine known as Mutual Assured Destruction, a.k.a. MAD. Mutual Assured Destruction began to emerge at the end of the Kennedy administration. MAD reflects the idea that one's population could best be protected by leaving it vulnerable so long as the other side faced comparable vulnerabilities. In short: Whoever shoots first, dies second.

If Iran needs to be invaded, and occupied, to prevent them from ever developing and possibly using a nuclear weapon against the mainland United States, then our parents and grandparents wasted untold trillions in producing nuclear weapons and submarines to defend against just such a threat.

And we want our money back.


Thank you.

Update (6:15 a.m. est, 2/11):

"Internal Server Error

The server encountered an internal error or misconfiguration and was unable to complete your request.

Please contact the server administrator, webmaster@whatreallyhappened.com and inform them of the time the error occurred, and anything you might have done that may have caused the error.

More information about this error may be available in the server error log.

Additionally, a 500 Internal Server Error error was encountered while trying to use an ErrorDocument to handle the request."

Sort of an odd message to come up this morning, 'eh, readers?

He must be on to something over there.

Update (8:55 a.m.):

Seems okay now

Wake the Flock Up

Monday, February 8, 2010

Obama Gets Cooking

Is this what the forgotten FEMA camps are for?

"Shall We Start Building Ovens?

Read entire article US intelligence chief claims right to assassinate Americans overseas

" US Director of National Intelligence Dennis Blair said on Wednesday that government agencies have a policy of assassinating Americans overseas as required by the “war on terror.”
In testimony before the House intelligence committee, Blair said the assassinations would be justified if US citizens were “taking action that threatens Americans.” This is an extremely broad category, giving the US intelligence apparatus general authority to engage in what amount to extra-judicial executions.

...The US follows “a set of defined policy and legal procedures that are very carefully observed,” Blair claimed. He also said that the US intelligence agencies seek “specific permission”—presumably from the White House, though Blair was not explicit—to carry out actions that will involve killing US citizens."

Note: Geez. I'll bet he needs a missile or two before each killling is accomplished. At least the NAZIs had the decency to save their citizens' money when they murdered people and built gas chambers to murder them in large numbers. This is typical American government working without any regard for the taxpayer's dollar.

The argument for imprisoning without trial was previously that our inalienable rights were reserved for American citizens - that's how the U.S. Federal government justified letting uncharged victims rot in jail without trial. Now they don't use that argument anymore - they just kill anybody they want American or not. This means you can forget about liberty and the pursuit of happiness because you don't even have the right to life anymore if these serial killers have their way with you.

So all that has to happen is Obama needs you dead and you are "dealt with." No trial. Just murdered. What is to prevent these same people from rounding up an entire village and slaughtering everyone? If you can kill one - why not 100 or 1000 or 6,000,000? After all - there are a lot of bad people out there that may or may not wish us harm. This brings us to the subject of what to do with the bodies.

Shall we start building ovens?

John Adams:
" ... no good cause ever was or ever will be served by assassination and this is happily, in the present age, the universal sense of mankind."

UPDATE FEB 7, 2010 Intelligence Chief: US Can Kill Americans Abroad By Ellen Nakashima Washington Post Staff Writer
UPDATE FEB 7, 2010 Assassination in Middle Tennessee This idea of eliminating people without trial has crossed a few minds before...
UPDATE FEB 7, 2010 Law professor: Assassinating US citizens raises ‘troubling’ issues
NOTE: In this quote from Raw Story article Turley misses the point:
""The problem is that there's a term for this," Turley went on. "It's called assassination. You're taking out someone, a US citizen, who's had no chance to prove that they're innocent. ... US citizens are entitled to trials.""
***Prove one's innocence? What happened to "innocent until proven guilty?" What happened to a justice system designed to "protect the innocent" where it was "better to let a guilty person go free than imprison an innocent person?"

UPDATE FEB 7, 2010 Read entire article the president of the United States can decide who lives and who doesn't. Not a court. Not a jury. Just the president.
UPDATE FEB 7, 2010 Help me out here - just for the sake of argument and sanity testing... if an American citizen overseas attempted suicide, that person would be "taking action that threatens Americans" (themself) thereby fitting the requirement to be assassinated to protect themself (an American) from themself. Is it me or are we dealing with the insane here?


No, it's not you, Rabbit.

Sunday, February 7, 2010

What Remains

"What remains must be the truth: 9/11 revisited

By Paul J. Balles

3 February 2010

Paul J. Balles argues that, revisiting the question of who benefited from 9/11, "it becomes perfectly clear that Israel alone had reason to plot and execute” it. But he says that Israel couldn't possibly have executed such a plan without help from the US authorities and that a process of elimination "leaves only the Zionist neo-conservative civilian leaders of the Pentagon” as Israel’s accomplices.

Today, with both domestic and international problems, we tend to forget about the unresolved truths of yesterday that got us into the situations we’re involved in now. Important truths about 9/11 remain hidden. Who really benefited from 9/11?

We forget that Israel was/is the major beneficiary of 9/11. How did Israel benefit? Mossad, Israel's intelligence agency, believed that Iraq could have weapons of mass destruction; and Israel wanted Iraq neutralized before it had a chance to use WMDs against Israel.

Since beginning their occupation of Palestine, Israeli hawks have wanted to rid Palestine of the Palestinians. However, as long as Palestinians remained in the occupied territories, an Iraqi missile strike that would kill more Palestinians than Israelis was kept at bay. So long as Iraq possessed a capacity to develop WMDs, it would be impossible for Israel to eliminate the Palestinians. Thus, control of Iraq facilitated Israel's ultimate desire to completely evict the Palestinians.

How did 9/11 fit into the Iraq-Israel scenario? It provided the clarion call for the so-called war against terrorism. Without 9/11, the US had no excuse for invading Afghanistan. The battle against Al-Qaeda and bin Laden was the precursor to the invasion of Iraq; and the trumped up connection between Iraq and Al-Qaeda provided the excuse for invading Iraq.

Considering again the question “who benefited from 9/11?” it becomes perfectly clear that Israel alone had reason to plot and execute the disaster that hit The World Trade Centre, the Pentagon and the four flights involved in that fateful day in 2001.

Israel, however, couldn't possibly have executed such a plan without help from the US authorities. Who would provide the means for accomplishing that genocidal goal?

The process of elimination leaves only the Zioncon (i.e. Zionist neo-cons – a term created by James Petras) civilian leaders of the Pentagon who were secretive enough to keep their plans under wraps. To violate the top-secret code of silence would be cause for trial and a death sentence for treason, if not to an assassination made to look like a suicide.

The Pentagon was the only body that could have kept the North American Aerospace Defence Command (NORAD) from performing its duty to scramble fighter jets to intercept the hijacked planes on 9/11. They could have stopped the hijacked jets from performing their mission. They didn’t.

Leading civilians in the Pentagon figured among US leaders serving Israel. Zioncons Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle and Douglas Feith were more devoted to Israeli interests than to those of America. At best, they acted as "dual loyalists".

What remains is not as improbable as it might have looked at first. What remains are Pentagon Zionists with a motive. Combine that with the history of deception of both Mossad and the American Zioncons and with a proven willingness to sacrifice American lives for their causes.

There's no reason to believe that the Arabs involved in the hijacking, who were not the expert flyers with the skills required to accomplish the flying feats of 9/11, had a clue about where they would end up in planes pre-programmed and guided by remote control. All the hijackers had to do was lose guidance to ground control in the hands of the Pentagon Zioncons.

Since the supposed Arab hijackers couldn't even fly small planes solo, according to their flight instructors, and since remote control devices had proven effective, the only conclusion remaining is: 9/11 was planned and executed by Mossad and the Zioncons to justify military action in the Middle East for the major beneficiary, Israel.


Thursday, February 4, 2010

Did Government Do 9/11?

"9/11: Would Government?


Persons who are curious about what may or may not have happened on Sept. 11, 2001 must separate evidence from narrative. Because the 911 narrative has been strongly established, an unbiased researcher must not begin with any "official" narrative (one that tells you what happened). Start from scratch by putting aside all aspects of the narrative you have seen and heard on TV or read in mainline news sources. This is what THESE PEOPLE have done....

Many of us have been asking questions, perhaps the same ones you have, and seeking answers for several years. I'd like to recommend to you a recent book, The Hidden History of 911, edited by Paul Zarembka. Unless your mind is closed ("I know it must be true 'cause the government tells me so"), before you read the book spend time with bigeye.com's 911 links. If you know little of the real 911, you can easily educate youself by watching videos on THIS PAGE.

When you grasp the WHY of 911 you will have less emotional resistance to discovering who murdered over 3,000 of our citizens. The late Aaron Russo's documentary videos offer a broad theory of the WHY. They need to be seen, although it seems unrealistic that a controlling oligarchy would risk employing technical expertise to execute 911. A more plausible theory, starting from CUI BONO, (Who Benefits? - the Latin starting argument in determining guilt) was propounded at the end of 2003 by Professor Paul J. Balles. Motive and benefit may be shared by both the guilty and the innocent. To accomplish as sophisticated an event as 911 requires means and opportunity, as well as motive (benefit).

That day's tragedy is past. The WHY question (motive) must be understood, not only in America but throughout the world, by men and women who strive for Liberty.

I never cease to be astounded by human gullibility. People are prone to believe whatever furnishes them comfort and uncomplicated answers to life's uncomfortable questions. 911 offers no exception. When it comes to the nature of government, I find some solace in Albert Jay Nock's Our Enemy, the State.

Most people will go on believing whatever they want to believe. That holds as true for the events of 9/11....

The Greeks realized and accepted the power of myths. Ours come from television.


Is Obama's Assassination in the Works?

It would account for all the backtracking on the "change," wouldn't it?

"Barack Obama in the Crosshairs: Is the military threatening to kill Obama over US war policy?

John Hankey is the author of the following compelling analysis that considers if President Obama is under threat to comply with US military orders for supporting war escalation (and its funding). This is part one of two. For part two, click here.

John is the creator of the stunning and historically accurate documentary, "Dark Legacy: George Bush and the assassination of JFK." A 10-minute excerpt from the video is at the end of the article.

This documentary is the historical favorite of my history students and the single-best JFK assassination analysis that I’ve reviewed. “Dark Legacy” walks viewers through the independently verifiable evidence that has two-thirds to three-fourths of Americans conclude the US government story of President Kennedy's assassination is provably false (
these polls include ABC, CBS, FOX, PBS).

John did not start out as an Obama admirer; he wrote that Obama looked hand-picked by the darkest fascist forces within our government and was surrounded by them in his campaign. John currently observes that perhaps Obama has burned them; leaving them behind when he became President.

John had an interview with veteran JFK assassination analyst and author, Jim Fetzer, to discuss this topic. Jim also interviewed me to discuss unlawful wars in Iraq, Iran, and the role of the CIA.

John's article, printed with his permission:

The parallels between the administrations of Barack Obama and John Kennedy are stunning:

1. Both engaged in what might be called "Election Deception" During the 1960 election, Kennedy attacked Nixon for being soft on communism, particularly Cuba. In his book, 6 Crises, Nixon complained, bitterly and accurately, that this was an unscrupulous deception on Kennedy's part. Kennedy had been briefed that Nixon and the CIA were planning a full scale invasion of Cuba. So, even though he knew it wasn’t true, Kennedy attacked Nixon from the right, claiming that he, Kennedy, was more of a hawk on Cuba than Nixon. As soon as he got in, Kennedy told the CIA to forget their invasion plans; the CIA went ahead anyway at the Bay of Pigs; and Kennedy fired the top three men at CIA for disobeying his orders.*1 The military shared Nixon's perception that Kennedy was a liar and a traitor.

During the 2004 election, Obama surrounded himself with hawks like Zbigniew Brzezinski, and attacked Bush from the right, saying that he had neglected "the right war," the war in Afghanistan, and that he, Obama, would transfer troops and treasure to the effort in Afghanistan. However, once he got in, Obama brought none of the Brzezinski people with him. None of them. Not Richard Clark. Not Anthony Lake (both of whom were very active in Obama's campaign, and are very deep-cover operatives for the darkest side of the Pentagon). And, as you will see, Obama fought bitterly with the military over their desire for more troops.

2. Both Kennedy and Obama experienced a dramatic change of attitude toward the military early in their presidencies. Even if Obama did not perpetrate a deception to win the election, after he was sworn in got in, his thinking and attitude toward the military began to change dramatically, sharpen and harden against them. This directly parallels what happened to Kennedy.

I don't regard Bob Woodward as a fundamentally reliable source, but to be an effective liar he has to tell important truths sometimes. And I believe there is good reason to credit the story he tells below, inadvertently revealing the development of Obama's thinking on the war in Afghanistan. It describes a briefing given by Obama's National Security Advisor, Jim Jones, to the military commanders in Afghanistan:

During the briefing, [Marine Brigadier General] Nicholson had told Jones that he was "a little light," more than hinting that he could use more forces, probably thousands more. "We don't have enough force to go everywhere," Nicholson said.

But Jones recalled how Obama had initially decided to deploy additional forces this year. "At a table much like this," Jones said, referring to the polished wood table in the White House Situation Room, "the president's principals met and agreed to recommend 17,000 more troops for Afghanistan." The principals -- Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton; Gates; Mullen; and the director of national intelligence, Dennis C. Blair -- made this recommendation in February during the first full month of the Obama administration. The president approved the deployments, which included Nicholson's Marines.
Soon after that, Jones said, the principals told the president, "oops," we need an additional 4,000 to help train the Afghan army.
"They then said, 'If you do all that, we think we can turn this around,' " Jones said, reminding the Marines here that the president had quickly approved and publicly announced the additional 4,000.
Now suppose you're the president, Jones told them, and the requests come into the White House for yet more force. How do you think Obama might look at this? Jones asked, casting his eyes around the colonels. How do you think he might feel?
Jones let the question hang in the air-conditioned, fluorescent-lighted room. Nicholson and the colonels said nothing.
Well, Jones went on, after all those additional troops, 17,000 plus 4,000 more, if there were new requests for force now, the president would quite likely have "a Whiskey Tango Foxtrot moment." Everyone in the room caught the phonetic reference to W-T-F -- which in the military and elsewhere means "What The F(expletive) ?"
-- Bob Woodward; The Washington Post; Jul 1, 2009; A.1;
My take on the above is that Obama came in somewhat open minded on Afghanistan. In his first month in office, he asked the military what they needed; they told him, and he gave them 17,000 troops without a blink. When they turned around and asked for another 4,ooo just a few months later, Obama was disconcerted. If these guys knew what they were doing, they should have been right the first time about how many troops they needed. But without a complaint, he gave them another 4 thousand men. When the generals started to press for more, Obama had his w-t-f moment, and sent Jones to straighten them out. Jones was telling the generals that requesting more troops would be showing Obama that they are clueless. Obama has tried to show his awareness that there are thousands of lives in the balance.
Kennedy had his Whiskey Tango Foxtrot moment at the Bay of Pigs, and again during the Cuban Missile Crisis*2. He came to see his military advisors and commanders as blind-to-the-point-of-insane ideologues. And the quote above I think shows that Obama's developing vision of the military has closely paralleled the development of Kennedy's vision of these professional killers.
3. Kennedy faced, and Obama faces a military full of ideologues
Curtis LeMay is the most infamous of the insanely rabid military advisors Kennedy had. LeMay, against specific orders, at the height of the Cuban missile crisis, sent a U2 spy plane flying into Russian airspace, apparently hoping that the Russians would think this was an attack and push the red button. LeMay was confident that in the full-scale nuclear exchange that would follow, the US would suffer 30 to 50 million casualties, tops, but the Russians would be wiped out. Hurray! We'd win! LeMay and his peers were livid that Kennedy was refusing to send troops to Vietnam.
For the past eight years, Bush has forced into retirement those military leaders with an objective approach to fighting "terrorism"; and he has promoted Muslim-hating Christian ideologues who seek a new-age Christian Crusade against the Muslim heretics. *22
An objective military observer must question the idea of equating "insurgents" with "terrorists": There has never been even a suggestion that the Taliban were involved in attacks on the US. The Taliban government of Afghanistan offered to hand over Osama if the US could provide evidence of his guilt. But the US invaded instead of providing evidence. In this context, the "insurgents" are, essentially and merely, patriots who oppose the domination of their country by foreign troops. This is a common view within the Obama administration:
Supporters of (Vice-President Joe) Biden's view (that no more troops should be sent) argue that adding more troops would actually make the problem worse, not better, because the Taliban draw support from the fiercely nationalist Pashtun ethnic group in Afghanistan and Pakistan, who will mobilize to resist a long-term occupation. "The real fact is, the more people we put in, the more opposition there will be," says Selig Harrison, a longtime observer of Afghanistan at the Center for International Policy. (Rolling Stone *3)
One need not agree with this view to recognize that it is reasoned and legitimate. But this viewpoint is not represented in the military that Obama inherited from Bush. Senior officers with this point of view were forced into retirement under Bush. And Obama is faced with commanders such as Lt. Gen. David Barno, a "counter-insurgency" advocate who served as commander of U.S. forces in Afghanistan: "We're going to be involved in this type of activity in a number of countries for the next 15 to 20 years." Barno does not just want to wipe out the Taliban. He wants to expand the conflict to other countries and carry it on for generations. What does Barno's plan, to kill Afghan patriots, have to do with eliminating "terrorism"?
And a more terrifying question: These trained killers from the military currently have the blood of hundreds of thousands of Muslims on their hands. They have watched at close range as 1000's of young American soldiers have been slaughtered. How do you supposed they feel about a Black president, born to a Muslim father, trained in Muslim schools, telling them they can't have any more troops for their holy war against Muslims? "Rabid" seems a likely answer.
I am not the first to see the parallels between Kennedy’s and Obama’s conflicts with the military.
The first article I saw on this topic was by Berkeley Professor Peter Dale Scott. *3 Robert Parry has written importantly on the topic (see *12).
Lawrence Wilkerson, a former top aide to Secretary of State Colin Powell, observed in the Rolling Stone article*3, "It's going to take John Kennedy-type courage to turn to his Curtis LeMay and say, 'No, we're not going to bomb Cuba’. It took a lot of courage on Kennedy's part to defy the Pentagon, defy the military — and do the right thing." I must assume that Wilkerson is not familiar with the details of how John Kennedy's conflict with the military ended. See section 8 below for some of those pertinent details. There can not be a reasonable doubt that the military killed JFK.
4. Kennedy sought out Military advisors not committed to or dominated by the Pentagon. Obama has done likewise. The "Jim Jones" from the long quote (in section 2 above), is a familiar figure; that is, he reminds me of the kind of man that Kennedy brought in to advise him. He is a former Marine general. He has impeccable "toughness" credentials. But he is not a Muslim-hating ideologue, out to wage a modern crusade against Islam, to win back the holy land, I mean the holy oil, for Jesus. So he was forced into retirement by Bush. But Obama picked him up out of retirement and made him National Security Advisor. Kennedy had such people in his administration. Roger Hillsman was a WWII hero, who Kennedy made his undersecretary for South East Asian affairs. Hillsman looked at Vietnam, and saw what Kennedy saw; and he saw what many observers of Afghanistan see today:
1) an utterly corrupt, inept, cowardly, self-interested puppet regime with no constituency among the local people;
2) a dedicated, heroic, entrenched opposition with roots 1000 years deep among the locals; and
3) an ideology-driven military willing to make ridiculous promises of success, "if only we can get just one more troop increase"; with a nearly unlimited thirst for "insurgent" blood; and with no understanding of the limits of their power.
5. The military overtly challenged Kennedy’s right as commander-in-chief to set policy. Their treatment of Obama has been similarly outrageous.
Kennedy rejected the military’s recommendation for an invasion of Cuba at the Bay of Pigs; and the military, led by the CIA, went ahead with it anyway. JFK rejected the military’s suggestion that the US should overthrow Diem, the president of South Vietnam; the military not only organized Diem’s overthrow, they assassinated him. And of course, for three years Kennedy steadfastly refused their pressure to commit combat troops to Vietnam. Obama's military has similarly challenged his right to set military policy.
After Obama sent Jim Jones to Afghanistan to let his generals know that they had gotten all the troops they were going to get (as described in section 2 above) Stanley McChrystal began a campaign for more troops that was insubordinate to the point of being illegal. The endnote below (*3) contains the full story as outlined in Rolling Stone. McChrystal responded to Jones' visit and message by writing a demand for 40,000 troops, which he immediately, and illegally, leaked it to the press. The Republican leadership demanded that McChrystal be brought before the Senate to have a national stage for his defiance of Obama's attempts to set policy. McChrystal went on 60 Minutes to complain that Obama was not listening to him; and then flew into London to publicly call Obama "shortsighted". Obama flew to Europe and ordered McChrystal to meet with him on his plane. Two days later, Jim Jones rebuked McChrystal for failing to “follow the chain of command."
But on December 1st, Obama caved in to McChrystal and committed to send an additional 30,000 troops; even though the American public, the Democratic leadership in the Congress, and his closest advisors were overwhelmingly dead set against it. What happened? Obama tried, in this speech, to maintain a shred of dignity and authority by saying that the primary role of these troops would be to win the hearts and minds of the Afghan people; and he promised that they would begin to head home in 18 months. Eight days later, he was roundly contradicted on every score, simultaneously, by a quartet of men we ought to regard as his underlings:
Hamid Karzai, the US installed, officially illegitimate "president" of Afghanistan, who owes his position, security, and daily bread to the US, overtly contradicted Obama's statements about the limits of the US commitment, telling a press conference that "Afghanistan's security forces will need U.S. support for another 15 to 20 years"*5
On the same podium, on the same day, Robert M. Gates, US Secretary of Defense (and Karzai's apparent puppet master) echoed this same affront to Obama, saying "it will be some time before Afghanistan is able to sustain its security forces entirely on its own ... whether that's 15 or 20 years".*5 (It should be noted in red letters that Gates was appointed by Bush, and carried over by Obama.)
On the same day, the LA Times reports McChrystal told the Senate, "that the U.S. needed to signal a long-term commitment in Afghanistan".*5
Such calls for a long term US commitment not only contradict the stated policy of the President, but they are overt provocations to legitimate Afghan nationalists. They not only undermine official US policy, but they serve the recruiting efforts of the "insurgents;" thereby putting the lives of American soldiers at greater risk; and not only constitute insubordination, but speeches by the military constitute an illegal and anti-democratic attempt by unelected military officials to dictate political policy, a virtual military coup of the President’s powers and duties.
6. Both Obama and JFK were faced with faced with overt threats of assassination. On November 22, 1963, Dallas was filled with wanted posters calling for Kennedy to be given the death penalty for treason. The NY Times carried an op-ed on September 29, 2009 talking about the “very dangerous” climate now in America, “the same kind of climate here that existed in Israel on the eve of the Rabin assassination.” Four days later, on October 3rd, the Wall Street Journal pointed to three overt physical threats to Obama: a poll on Facebook asking whether the president should be assassinated, a column on a conservative Web site suggesting a military coup is in the works and Rep. Trent Franks (R., Ariz.) calling Mr. Obama "an enemy of humanity." *7
JFK felt, and Obama feels, threatened by the military
JFK encouraged and assisted Hollywood in the making of "Seven Days in May," a fictional account of a military coup in the US. Kennedy wanted this story to be told. He thought the American people needed to be alerted to the threat to democracy posed by the military. No one knows what went on in his head, but it is reasonable to conclude that he felt this was a real and important threat. Robert Parry has written that Obama had a “Seven Days In May moment”, meaning that he felt the threat of a military coup, when he began trying to withdraw troops from Iraq. (This is another critically important news article. see *12)
The Rolling Stone article says that in October, "the Pentagon and top military brass were trying to make the President an offer he couldn't refuse." Now - "an offer he can't refuse" is a reference to the movie, The Godfather. In the movie, the man who receives the "offer he can't refuse" wakes up and finds that the head of his prized horse has been cut off and put in the bed next to him while he was asleep; in order to send the message: "We are brutal. We are killers. We got into your bedroom. If we had wanted to kill you, we would have. Next time we will. If you want to live, don't let there be an next time." The author of the Rolling Stone article does not have superhuman powers of perception. But he has written a detailed article on the relations between Obama and his military. And he has included this suggestion of overt threats of death made to Obama by the military. And the article goes on, "They (the generals) wanted the president to escalate the war — go all in by committing 40,000 more troops and another trillion dollars to a Vietnam-like quagmire — or face a full-scale mutiny by his generals." And what is "a full-scale mutiny"? It means a coup. That is what it means, clearly, plainly, and simply.
The insightful author of this insightful article, Robert Dreyfus, clearly feels that the military wants Obama to feel threatened.
7. Kennedy was plagued, and Obama is plagued, with a Secret Service that is grossly incompetent. If you need proof beyond Kennedy's murder, see the endnote*8 The failures of the Secret Service to protect Obama are worse. At the very least, it can be said in favor of Kennedy’s Secret Service that they did not allow the shooters onto the White House grounds. The incident of the so-called "Party Crashers," has to give Obama pause. The Salahis, the uninvited guests, the husband and wife team who walked into White House reception for the Indian Prime Minister, easily penetrated the most high-security affair to take place at the White House in recent memory. The Indian Prime Minister is regarded as a prime target for Muslim extremists, and everyone present could be considered at great risk from a security lapse. Whatever else can be said of the Salahis, they presented a starkly clear message to Obama: "you are not protected. Your Secret Service is criminally negligent, if not just criminal.”
8. Is the Military threatening to kill Obama? The evidence of the involvement of the military in the assassination of JFK is, I think, beyond dispute*9. Certainly, this evidence has given every president since Kennedy nightmares about the risks involved in taking on the military Kennedy, like Obama, was under fierce pressure to send troops to Vietnam.*10 And as you will see, the military has taken steps to make Obama feel that his life is in grave danger at their hands.
Vice president Biden, and Obama’s chief of staff Rahm Emanuel, have both been outspoken in their opposition to sending troops to Afghanistan. They are both Obama spokesmen. It may be assumed that at all times they speak for the president. And yet they spent the 10 months before the President's Dec. 1 speech, undercutting the President's final decision to send troops. *11 Does that make any sense? Two weeks before the President’s speech, Obama’s ambassador to Afghanistan wrote Obama a memo in which he warned against sending troops to support a regime so corrupt that it enjoyed no popular support. This ambassador, Karl Eikenberry, is a retired Army general and former commander of U.S. and allied forces in Afghanistan. He is one of the not-insane commanders that Bush pushed into retirement; and Obama brought back him back in. Eikenberry’s memo against sending troops was immediately leaked to the press, and showed up on the front pages of the LA Times and NY Times. There was no outcry from the White House about the leak, suggesting that Obama approved it. Does that make any sense? It appears that the President was undercutting his own position, 2 weeks before taking it? Pelosi and the other Democratic leaders have taken similar positions as Eikenberry. They might be accused of pandering to the American people, who are broadly opposed to sending more troops; but it would be unusual for congressional Democratic leaders to undercut their president in this way. The Bob Woodward article, presented in section 2 above, reveals a President with no plans to send troops, taking steps to confront those military leaders with desires for more troops, and telling them to forget it. Whiskey Tango Foxtrot?!! What happened? Why did Obama suddenly change the position that his spokesmen had been taking for nearly a year; the position that he was promoting, through his ambassador, just two weeks before; that other leading Democrats had been promoting; and that he had stated so forcefully to his commanders in the field? Why did he suddenly decide to send 30,000 troops to kill and be killed in a cause he knows to be hopeless?
This is NOT a small deal. No? It can’t have been a whimsical decision on his part. It must have been based on something. We should be able, then, to look at the events in the news and identify some major occurrence that would cause such a shift. No? Let's see. The central feature behind Biden’s and Emmanuel’s position was that the Afghan puppet regime was too corrupt to win popular support. *13 Just recently, the regime proved too corrupt to even stage an election, even after the UN ruled the last election fraudulent and illegitimate. Could this miserable failure, to stage an election, have changed Obama's mind? No. In fact, reports from Afghanistan are that the corruption and incompetence of the puppet regime have only gotten worse. *14
When you come up with an answer, for any of these questions, I would be very grateful if you would let me know. Because I don’t like my answer. But here it is:
A military coup, of sorts, has taken place. This coup, this wresting by force of power from the hands of the President was accomplished in two separate events.
The first event involves the so-called "Party Crashers." The Salahis managed, not only to enter, but they proceeded to first shake hands with the two most outspoken opponents of sending more troops: Joe Biden, and Rahm Emanuel. And the Salahis then they shook hands with Obama himself. They had gained entrance through the intercession of the Pentagon*21. Whether or not they told the President, "Send troops or die", they unquestionably told him, through their actions, "The Secret Service can’t, or won’t, protect you. Your life is over when the Pentagon says it's over." This is not speculation; or interpretation. It is clear; unequivocal; basic. No?
But wait! There's more! The Rolling Stone article is so much better than the author intended! I know that he did not mean a "coup" when he wrote that the generals were threatening a "full scale revolt". I don't think he meant a death threat when he wrote "an offer he couldn't refuse". And I don't think he grasped the import of this remark:
Even worse, the administration has to take into account the possibility of a terrorist attack, which would allow the GOP to put the blame on the White House. "All it would take is one terrorist attack, vaguely linked to Afghanistan, for the military and his opponents to pounce all over him," says Pillar.
Robert Dreyfuss, the Rolling Stone writer, is saying that Obama caved because of the threat of another "terrorist" attack. Now. The suggestion that US military was complicit in the crimes of 9/11 is similar to saying that the Secret Service was complicit in the crashing of the Obama’s White House party: it’s indisputable. The Salahis could not have entered if the White House had the Secret Service not let them in. Indisputably. And none of the planes could have hit any of the buildings on 9/11 if the US air defenses had not gone completely to sleep. The Pentagon attack is particularly egregious. The official story is that 50 minutes after the 1st plane hit the World Trade Center, US air defenses, on flaming red alert, designed to defend against supersonic missiles and jet fighters, not only failed to stop a slow moving humongous 757, they failed to get off a shot! Not a single shot in defense of the most highly defended building on the planet. The following week, Richard Meyers, who was in charge of US air defenses on 9/11, instead of being court-marshaled and shot, as he clearly ought to have been, was promoted, to the highest position in the military: Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.*15


"So the military, under the Bush administration, was indisputably complicit in the events of 9/11, if only by the most jaw-dropping incompetence; incompetence that was warmly rewarded by the Republican White House. So when the Republican leadership says Obama's attempts to reduce troops and spending in Iraq and Afghanistan threaten to unleash a new terrorist attack, this is a genuine threat from genuine blood-covered terrorists.

The Fort Hood shooting is this “terrorist” threat made real. There is much in the story of Malik Hasan, the Fort Hood shooter, to suggest that he was a Manchurian Candidate, that he was “programmed,” through hypnosis, to do what he did. Though such a thing can never, by it's very nature be proved. (If you have ever seen a demonstration by a professional hypnotist, you already know that anyone will do anything under hypnosis and that they will have no recollection afterward) *16. However, there are a number of things about the case of Malik Hasan that are especially persuasive that he was under military control: *17
1) Hasan had at least 13 email contacts with a radical Muslim imam. The Imam told Al JaZeera that the first of these emails, sent 11 months before the shooting, sought the Imam’s approval for Hasan’s shooting his fellow soldiers. *17b Michael McCaul, the top Republican on the House Homeland Security Committee's intelligence subcommittee, said that he has confirmed that Hasan wired money to Pakistan. *18 There has been much discussion in the “news” about the fact that the FBI took no steps to apprehend or otherwise stop Hasan. But the contents of his emails have not been released. That is highly suspicious. Can we conjecture that if the contents were innocuous, that they would have been released? Sure we can. The Imam found his house under attack within 24 hours of his publicizing the contents of those emails. But this discussion is a distraction from the flashing red light: the FBI did not even open a file on Hasan. That is not preposterous. It is very clear in its meaning. There is only one conceivable explanation, and an obvious one. If the FBI failed to take steps as basic as opening a file, it is because they were ordered not to do so; by another agency of the federal government. Again, that is hardly speculative. It should be basic common knowledge: if a drug dealer gets picked up by some police agency in possession of a bag full of drugs; and walks out the door, without being arrested, with his bag of drugs, and without a file being opened, it’s because he’s undercover. Apparently some agency of the federal government ordered Hasan to send these emails. That is speculative, but no other explanation will suffice.*19 And certainly, the FBI was ordered not to open a file. Of this there cannot be any doubt.
2) Similarly, the FBI's excuse for not opening a file, was that they discovered that Hasan was doing research on the attitudes of Muslims serving in the US military. How they made this determination, without opening a file, is a mystery to me. But let that alone for the moment. For whom was Hasan doing this research? Duh. No? But the attitude of the media to such obvious questions is “don’t ask, don’t tell.”
3) Lee Harvey Oswald had been set up by the CIA to appear to be an agent of Fidel Castro. But the FBI investigated all this evidence and determined that it was a fraud. *20 So for Hasan to have been set-up in a similar fashion would be par for the course. Fletcher Prouty (see endnote 11) was tipped off that Kennedy's murder was a military plot by the fact that Oswald's entire bio appeared in the papers in Australia, where Prouty was when he learned of the crime, before Oswald was even charged. The NY Times and Fox news were spreading the contents of the FBI's non-files / non-investigation, showing Hasan to be an Arab terrorist, while they were still reporting that he was dead, before they knew that he was still alive. That is, someone on the inside was distributing this insider knowledge about a guy who supposedly was of no interest. It seems clear as day to me that it was a set-up.
4) Now, this is my favorite part. In the 1944 detective movie, "Double Indemnity”, Edward G. Robinson, the detective, is alerted that something foul is going on because the insured dead man had an insurance policy with disability as well as death benefits; but when he broke his leg, he didn't try to use the disability benefits in his policy. Why didn't he use it? He must not have known he had an insurance policy. His wife purchased the policy behind his back, and then killed him. OK. Now answer this:
If Obama actually wanted to send troops to Afghanistan; if he actually wanted to move the American people to see the necessity of "fighting terrorism there before it becomes terrorism here;" why did he not wave the bloody shirt from the Fort Hood shooting? Why did he not claim Hasan to be a terrorist? Why did he not use him as an example of the continued threat? Obviously, then, Obama was not part of any plot to kill soldiers at Fort Hood to justify a continued war on "terror".
And now, you do the math. Add 1 + 1. Add “Party Crashers” to “programmed shooter” and what do you get? You get Nancy Pelosi as president.
But things have changed since 1963, haven’t they? The military has matured. It is not so rabid, blood thirsty, and wild, as it used to be. They wouldn’t overtly threaten to kill the President in this way, would they? The threats to which Obama caved were political threats, not physical ones. No? No. 1) Obama is a master politician. He’s not afraid of a political fight. He is more capable of winning support for his position than any of his opponents. And besides, the American people are against sending troops, so this is an easy victory. I don’t see how political threats could force him to send young men and women to their deaths, for a cause he and everyone around him knows is hopeless. Counter insurgency in support of a corrupt regime is killing for the sake of killing. 2) The military was, at the very least, complicit in the 9-11 murders of 3,000 Americans. 3) They were apparently involved in the murder of 13 soldiers at Ft. Hood. 4) So it doesn’t seem times have changed for the better. Eisenhower said that the greatest threat to our national security came from what he called “the military industrial complex” in this country; a ruling elite with enormous political power. These people had the deepest support for Hitler during WWII. And they orchestrated a performance by the media, the Secret Service, the FBI, the mafia, and the military that murdered JFK; and they have kept the truth suppressed ever since, the ridiculousness of their cove-story not withstanding. They just passed a 630 billion dollar defense budget, in a world where the primary threat is a few hundred men with hand-held weapons. What reason is there to think that they would hesitate to kill Obama? Do you suppose they like having a Black man as President?
So. Perhaps you are convinced that Obama was persuaded, by threats against his life, to send troops. If so, there is a more terrible question lurking out there. Were they threatening? Or were they practicing? Or both?
When I was first confronted with these ideas, my impulse was to see Obama as a coward, as lacking the courage that Lawrence Wilkerson suggests Obama needs to stand up to the generals (see the end of segment 3 above). But a "full scale revolt" of the generals does not merely imply the death of Obama. A military seizure of the government would entail far more deaths than his, certainly many thousands. President Johnson, in choosing not to pursue Kennedy's killers (no-doubt well known to him), faced a similar choice: the threat of a full scale revolt – that is, a military coup; civil war, death and prison camps for many thousands, if not millions. But Johnson and Obama are not the only ones confronted with difficult choices. The information presented here suggests that your democratic government has already been seized. It is not in the hands of your democratically elected President. And what are YOU going to do about it, Patriot? Are you going to be a sheep and a traitor, a collaborator? Or an insurgent?
In our political system, it is virtually a given that all politicians are corrupt. The politician wants to get elected; so he takes money from thieves; the best do small things to help the people; but they all do what they think they have to to keep the money flowing in. But people are people. They occasionally get carried away by an idea, or by the moment, and they get inspired to think that real virtue is possible, even for them. And for such people, at such times, there are other forms of coercion. Blackmail, for example. Further, all politicians know, and the media too, that to admit certain truths means, at least, political death. And on occasion, there is the real murder of an individual who thinks he can, and does, serve the interests of the people. John Kennedy was such a one. And such a murder is a great lesson to all the living about the facts of life. My point is that “coercion with the threat of death” is a real tool used by the ruling elite. Typically its use is extremely low key, I’m sure. But on occasion its use may be sufficiently high profile to be identified. And I think we can see this clearly with Obama. I believe that the evidence shows that the military has overtly threatened, at the very least, to kill Obama. I believe they are also, in preparation for the day that he stands up to them, practicing to kill him. I would ask you please to disseminate this as widely as possible, as the most practical way to oppose their ability to do this. I apologize for its length.
I’m full of misgivings about this article. It seems plausible that Obama is a Kerry-like operative, and this “threat” provides Obama a pretext to explain to people in his immediate base the reason for his actions. When I see his continuation of Bush policies at every level and in every area (I’m sure you have your own list) it disheartens me to the point of despair. But a close study of John Kennedy’s history is useful; and demonstrates that it is plausible that, like Kennedy, Obama is choosing his battles and trying to accomplish what he feels he can without throwing away the midterm elections. It is certainly the case that if this were 1963, the people who are criticizing Obama and calling him a sellout, would be criticizing Kennedy, and calling him a sellout. It is not unimportant that 40 million people who were without xxxare going to have medical insurance.


The Mossad Role in the JFK Assassination Conspiracy

Will Mossad Assassinate Obama?