Author: miscellany101

The Media approach to Israel


I ran across comments at one of my favorite blog sites, Xymphora, talking about the media’s treatment of Israel. We all know that generally the media has a very kid glove approach to Israel, however there is a very healthy skepticism about Israel in the blogsphere and an exploration of issues corporate media simply refuses to touch.  My interests were more than a little aroused when I ran across articles that spoke of the Fairness Doctrine and net neutrality implying that the call for the “Fairness Doctrine” by politicians might infringe upon the more vibrant discussions that take place on the net and in the blogsphere.  I was happy to read that bloggers themselves were the first to oppose this idea of net neutrality.  I’m left wondering whether the real reason for mentioning this possibility by an  FCC commissioner was to frighten some away from a particular politician or party or was this a genuine threat/concern?  In any event back to my discussion about Israel, it’s a sure bet any government intrusion onto internet content will more positively affect Israel’s position on the internet than what we already have in main stream media.  Here is how some think corporate media deals with the recalcitrant Israelis.

Any news program which deserves special citation for being produced from an Israeli perspective should follow these rules: never mention the word “occupation,” nor the conditions that Palestinians are forced to endure when speaking about the West Bank and Gaza; if you address the issue of casualties suffered by innocent Palestinians as a result of Israeli military offenses, always give the Israelis time to appear “aware and troubled” and to claim they do everything possible to minimize “collateral damage”; never mention anything negative or embarrassing about the Israeli armed forces which cannot be dismissed as an unfortunate mistake. Finally, and this is key, always express that the targeted enemy is “Hitler” and that the military action under consideration will prevent another Holocaust.

Regime change, America’s pandora box


The US used the expression “regime change” to justify its incursion into Iraq in 2003, but the term has been around since the beginning of the 20th century and was used by Bill Clinton who like George Bush referred to it with regards to Iraq. In the language of geopolitics, or in other words raw power, regime change for the US means installing people in power who will place US strategic interests above their own country’s interests. The myth that regime change has something to do with democracy really is a lie when you look at those countries America has instituted regime change in which were at the time democracies, like 1953 Iran, 1960’s Republic of Congo, 1973 Chile and 1980’s Nicaragua just to name a few. Those are all examples where the overthrow of countries was attempted or done clandestinely by the US with results that were usually not democratic and in some cases autocratic and dictatorial. However the results were seen as favorable for long term US interests.

In the ’80s the methodology of regime change took a different direction as the US became an active, visible part in the dissolution of governments with the full might and power of the US military. Invasions with the insertion of US combat troops onto foreign soil to cause the overthrow of governments or the capture and/or arrest of government officials became the way by which regime change was done. Grenada and Panama are two prime examples arising from that time period. Elaborate excuses were advanced to the American public to win broad appeal for the invasion of these countries, and media outlets were used to put the spin on threats which were magnified to an extent that equaled existential threats to American security from mere banana republics. What is interesting is some of the people who were instrumental in trying to overthrow Iraq in the 21st century, Elliot Abrams, Doug Feith, Paul Wolfowitz and Richard Perle were honing their skills working in government, particularly the Pentagon, during the ’80s when America was overrunning small states, particularly in the “American sphere of influence” the Caribbean and Central America.

Of course we all know about the regime change which took place in Iraq where the Americans became an occupying power and conducted the plunder of Iraqi territory and the murder of many of its political figures. As in the recent past, rationale was given and the media was used to propagate that rationale to the satisfaction of the American public which gave its approval for grave violations of international law. Little if any consideration was given to world opinion and the rhetoric of the day made irrelevant bodies erected to maintain the rule of law, like the UN or Geneva Conventions, or opponents of American policy domestically or internationally were either belittled or completely ignored. Because America perceived itself, justifiably, as the only superpower in the world, there was no government strong enough to stop it and world opposition opinion was meaningless. What mattered to American lawmakers was instituting a policy which would insure American interests were given the highest priority of the newly installed government, even at the expense of American citizens. (Witness the kid glove approach the US Justice Department shows towards private contractors in Iraq who have committed crimes against American citizens in Iraq, and the extent to which the US wants these contractors to be immune from prosecution by the Iraqi government.) Little thought was given to the fact that this in your face behavior of the US would open the door for others to do the same thing, with the same behavior along the way and that’s exactly what has happened in the conflagration in the central Asian republic of Georgia.

Having lost its moral right to indignation because of its previous scorn for morality and international law, America is reduced to howling from the sidelines as Russia defines its interests in terms which are geopolitically correct with much more at stake. It is irrelevant for the sake of this discussion, who started the conflict that began in the late summer of 2008, what’s at issue is the unilateral military intervention of a superpower seeking to define its interests as it sees fit without regard to public opinion because there’s no one who can stop it, and more primordially, because it can! Russia’s conflict involved a neighbor on its border with whom it has had an almost two decade conflict, and this conflict is one of natural resources, oil. Under those circumstances it is understandable Russia would react to the slightest provocation, real or imagined. After all the “threat” exists on its borders. What is interesting is how quickly the US administration has forgotten this very principle it used to justify its own illegal acts merely months ago. It had to be reminded of its own transgressions when the Russian ambassador to the UN told that forum and the US directly that regime change was an American concept and therefore America had no right to use that as a pejorative term directed at Russia. Just as the US accused Saddam of gassing the Kurds and justified removing him from power because of that, the Russians accused the Georgians of ethnic cleansing and meant to remove Georgian insurgents from the disputed territories of Abkhaz and South Ossetia. They can also claim there was no shock and awe campaign designed to obliterate whole cities and neighborhoods which were of no military values, merely as an act of intimidation as was the case with the American invasion of Iraq. As we stand on what could be the precipice to world war, America ‘s disdain for Russian aggression is as meaningless as the world’s outcry against American aggression in Iraq. American policy wonks shouldn’t be allowed to forget they opened this box.

Images of war return to the public


A bipartisan effort initiated by Republican congressman Walter Jones, NC and co-sponsored by three Democrats and three Republicans has culminated in the The Fallen Hero Commemoration Act, or H.R. 6662, which states, “The Secretary of Defense shall grant access to accredited members of the media at military commemoration ceremonies and memorial services conducted by the Armed Forces for members of the Armed Forces who have died on active duty and when the remains of members of the Armed Forces arrive at military installations in the United States.”

We’ve blogged before about how the Administration has tried to control the images coming from their occupation in order to control public opinion and everyone from media to government and the public in general has gone along with the program.  Finally, members of Congress are attempting to correct that situation by using the power they have as legislators to undo this Bush Administration policy.  Let’s hope they can wipe the entire slate clean of the excesses done by this cabal.

Obama the Anti-Christ


Or at least according to John McCain, and it’s unbelievable CNN actually explored this topic on one of their news segments.  I know why they did it; it appeals to the cheap, gaudy, entertaining nature of “news” these days.  Why even I used the tactic to increase the hits this blog gets from people who “google” the topic, but it’s another indication why CNN is not a news channel and why John McCain shouldn’t be president.

Neocons Now Love International Law


A very nicely written editorial underscores the double standard employed by the US government today as it tries to deal with the Russian-Georgian conflict. I didn’t necessarily want to write or even mention this conflict because it’s on the peripheral of my concerns, but I have been reading about it and was amazed at the similarities it has with most of the foreign entanglements the US has gotten itself into lately. I was surprised, therefore, by the reaction of US lawmakers to the Russian intrusion of Georgia. Robert Parry makes the point, US policy wonks don’t have a leg to stand on in their condemnation of Russia’s action.

It’s touching how American neoconservatives who have no regard for international law when they want to invade some troublesome country have developed a sudden reverence for national sovereignty.

Read the whole article here. Hat tip to Monsieur Parry who really nails the neocons’ double standard and calls it what it is.

Getting it wrong on all accounts


The blogosphere is abuzz about the abandoned book on the Last Messenger’s love life with his younger wife Aisha and how publishers are giving in to Muslim pressure to censure things some may consider derogatory about Islam. What “Islamophobes”like to point out are cases in modern society where they think people have caved in to pressure to forget about the bad things in Islam in order to appease Muslims.  It doesn’t matter that the bad things they try to bring to light are “fallacious representation(s)”  or “anti-Islamic polemic(s) that uses sex and violence to attack the Prophet and his faith”, much like the book in question.

In some cases, however, the publisher got it right. The excuse given for not publishing because of fear of violence is unfortunate but there is a precedent for that concern.  We’ve talked about media manipulation of Muslims’ reactions before at Miscellany; how things are printed or said to get a rise out of Muslims which is then used to show the uncivilized nature of the Muslims, and that’s unfortunate. However, methinks they chose not to print a book that is factually inaccurate, and perhaps their  vetting process pointed that out to them. Perhaps the author can find an irresponsible publisher who will print ANYTHING no matter how wrong it may be, but Random House chose not to!  Here’s why:

In the time before Islam, Abu Bakr married Fatila bint Abdul Uzza,
from whom Abdullah and Asma were born.  Then he married Umm Ruman,
from whom Abdur Rahman and Aisha were born.  These four were born
before Islam.  ‘Abdullah, Asma, ‘Abdur-Rahman, and ‘A’isha were born
before the beginning of the Revelation (i.e, at least 13 years before
the Hijrah).  This is uncontested and well-known to the muslims.

‘A’isha was betrothed to Jubayr ibn Mut’im ibn Adi, before Abu
Bakr accepted Islam in the first year of the Call (12-13 years before
the Hijrah).  This is uncontested.

When Abu Bakr planned to go to Abyssinia during the fifth year of
the Call (8-9 years before the Hijrah), Mut’im broke off the
engagement because Abu Bakr had accepted Islam.  This is uncontested.

‘A’isha remembered the Revelation of a verse known to have been
revealed in the fifth year of the Call or before (i.e., 8-13 years
before the Hijrah).  This is uncontested.

‘A’isha was betrothed to the prophet two years after the death of
Khadijah, or a year before the Hijrah.  This is uncontested.

‘A’isha did not accompany her father and the prophet during the
Hijrah, but arrived in Madinah later, and became sick so that all of
her hair fell out.  This is uncontested.

‘A’isha moved in with the prophet a year or two after the Hijrah,
or two to four years after her betrothal.  This is unclear from the
various reports, which give different time periods, but all are agreed
as to the general time frame.

‘A’isha was widowed in 11h (the 11th year of the Hijrah).  This is
uncontested.

She was a widow for about forty years and died in 50h.  This is
uncontested.

Among the people who report these facts is one Hisham bin Urwa,
the grandson of Asma and ‘A’isha’s grand-nephew, who lived in Madina
for 71 years and then moved to Iraq, who reported that ‘A’isha died in
50h.  This is uncontested.

‘A’isha’s older sister Asma was ten years older than ‘A’isha.
Asma was 27 at the time of the Hijrah, making ‘A’isha 17.  This is
uncontested.  Asma died at the age of 100 in 73h.  23 years earlier,
when ‘A’isha died, Asma was 77.  This is uncontested.  Thus ‘A’isha
was 67 when she died in 50h, seventeen at the time of the Hijrah,
sixteen at the time of her betrothal to the prophet, and nineteen when
she moved in with him.

All of the reports saying that ‘A’isha was six at the time of her
betrothal to the prophet come from Iraq, as do all of the reports that
she was nine when she moved in with the prophet.  There are no reports
of this from Makkah or Madinah.  This is uncontested.  Most of these
reports from Iraq came through Hisham bin Urwa, Asma’s grandson,
mostly from his father.  This is indisputable.

Hisham bin Urwa is said to have reported (1) that ‘A’isha was nine
in the second year of the Hijrah, (2) was widowed in the eleventh year
of the Hijrah, and (3) died in the fiftieth year of the Hijrah ~ when
his grandmother, ten years older than his great aunt ‘A’isha, was 77.

The same person who said ‘A’isha was nine in 2h also said she was
67 in 50h.

So the only reports that ‘A’isha was six, or nine, come from
someone who also reports that she had to be sixteen when betrothed,
and nineteen when she moved in with the prophet.

And every other report showing her to be much older than six is
uncontested and considered reliable, while Hisham’s reports from Iraq
are considered unreliable for obvious reasons.

Of course not many people know about this and those that do choose to ignore or debate it, but what do you do with people who argue against facts?

Islamophobia and politics


One can expect the right wing of American politics to engage in distortion and race baiting.  It goes as far back as I can remember and that includes the administration of Richard Nixon.  So it is today, and the modern day target is the clean cut Arab/muslim guy or gal.  Mazen Asbahi is “it” today and I’m baffled in one sense but not totally surprised in another.  Baffled because monsieur Asbahi is as clean as they come, except for a really rather tangential connection to someone who had an equally tangentially inconsequential relationship with someone who…..well you know the rest.  This all boils down to party politics; Asbahi worked for Obama, and I guess it’s a little too much for the American palate to digest, so many strange sounding names working together.  But Asbahi has bonafides that not too many people who might even call themselves red blooded Americans possess, so I find his selection as a target unfortunate.  No matter how squeaky clean you try to get you can never get clean enough if you have one of those strange names or a swarthy complexion, but it’s just those characteristics that make him such an easy target. What inevitably the racists in American politics are trying to do is dilute the potency of Islamic charities by calling into question their raison d’etre and the full might of the US government to shut them down and take their assets.  For that reason I wish Asbahi had not resigned his position with the Obama campaign; there are bigger stakes here than helping someone who will gladly kick you to the curb in order to get elected. (That he decided to step down probably speaks more for his integrity than that of the Obama campain. )  Islamic charities have an important role to play in helping Muslims in developing countries maintain a subsistence level lifestyle; just as the cash strapped economies of central and south America depend on money from the American job force, so do those societies in the Middle East.  (Just ask Israel) Mazen was a political football kicked around to hurt a candidate who is running scared from the Muslim label and to damage the work of some honest hard working Muslims who wanted to establish a viable organization to help people at home and abroad.  I suspect there’ll be a lot more of this kind of election year posturing as the political season continues.

Quote


“God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion. The people
cannot be all, and always, well informed. The part which is wrong will be discontented,
in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. If they remain quiet
under such misconceptions, it is lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public
liberty. … And what country can preserve its liberties, if it’s rulers are not
warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let
them take arms.” Thomas Jefferson

Obama’s woes continue


I hadn’t given one iota’s thought to Obama’s race problem, or rather the problem his race is to the election process in a race conscious society like America which always tries to hide the depts of the problem by ignoring it.  But sure enough, race has reared it’s ugly head, and it’s from of all places, the corporate media. Check out the question being asked by some in mainstream media:

Can Black Journalists be trusted to cover Obama?

For me the question begs, do we even have black journalists, they are so rarely seen. In any event the writer tries to set the record straight.  I guess because of that question the sole black journalist covering the McCain campaign’s stop in Florida was singled out and told to leave the press pool, so perhaps we should turn the question on its face and ask if black journalists can be trusted to cover McCain?  Of course this brings back all the ugly racial stereotypes of African-Americans…..can blacks be trusted with your women, can they be trusted in your schools, etc., etc that have been a part of America for many years

So I guess you could call this piling on, when I reiterate my complaint about Obama’s handling of the Muslim constituency.  I found a rather excellent editorial by a secularist white guy that I think speaks to the heart of how Obama should handle this.  I keep finding pieces that I think tell Obama succinctly what he should do to combat this part of his image problem, and it seems he is listening to everybody BUT, which makes me wonder whether an Obama administration will be equally poorly advised.

Will anyone notice? Barack Obama’s team just threw its key Muslim advisor under the bus.

Barack Obama needs to make a statement loudly, clearly, and with passion that he embraces Muslims as much as any other Americans of Christian, Buddhist, Jewish or other religious persuasions. It wouldn’t hurt for him to embrace devout secularists like me for that matter.

But I’m irritated and saddened by news that Barack Obama’s Muslim-outreach coordinator, Mazen Asbahi, has resigned “amid questions about his ‘involvement’ in an Islamic investment fund and various Islamic groups.”

Let’s tally up Obama’s Muslim outreach record:

~ Obama campaign apparatchiks ask young Muslim women not to stand in photo with Obama because of head scarves (Obama campaign later apologizes).~ Barack Obama gives AIPAC speech that manages to run to the right of President Bush and Israel Prime Minister Ohlmert in demanding that “Jerusalem must not be divided.” (Obama later recants after the fact)

~ Barack Obama not only terminates Middle East advisor Robert Malley from his team because of Malley’s views that Hamas should be engaged — but his spokesman, Bill Burton, states that not only is Rob Malley no longer advising Obama “but will never advise Obama”. That’s running the bus over someone and then backing it up to make sure that Malley doesn’t survive and has no chance in an Obama administration. I like to remind folks that Paul Volcker and Ted Sorensen signed the same letter Malley did but have thus far missed the campaign guillotine.

~ Barack Obama gives an inspirational speech to more than 200,000 Germans in Berlin calling for a “World Without Walls.” But Obama is silent in Israel when it is the wall dividing Israelis and Palestinians that is becoming an increasingly worse and impactful global ulcer.

~ Barack Obama spends 30 plus hours in Israel and 45 minutes in Ramallah during his recent trip and meets many Iraelis who have been pro-settilement expansion, solidly violating international law and US policy. Some on Obama’s advisory team turn a blind eye to Israel’s expanding settlements and continue to be associated with and meet with settlement zealots — but Obama keeps ALL of these people on his team.

~ Barack Obama accepts the resignation of a mainstream Arab-American lawyer from his advisory team because eight years ago, Mazen Asbahi served on a board “for a few weeks” that included a muslim fundamentalist imam from Illinois. Asbahi resigned from the board. . .eight years ago.

What? Wait? Obama has had a many years long relationship with Jeremiah Wright — and sat on a board with William Ayers — NEITHER of which I think are disqualifiers for Obama’s candidacy. . .and yet Obama’s political team and Obama himself did not demand from Asbahi that he stay on the team, stand his ground, and fight back against the vile right-wing hit on him and his credibility?!

I think that this is outrageous — and those on the left who appreciate Obama and what he may mean for this country must become as tenaciously committed to what is right and what is good — and fighting for that — because those on the other side of these debates are trying to compel Obama to dilute himself.

Zalmay Khalilzad is an effective and popular MUSLIM Ambassador of the United States to the United Nations. We need more Muslims in our diplomatic corps. We need Muslims on the Supreme Court. We need more Muslims like Keith Ellison in the US Senate and House of Representatives.

Obama should say it. Convince the American public that he’s not setting up a zero sum game between Muslims on one side and Christians and Jews on the other.

Obama is a Christian. I get that. I’m a secularist hard core — but I won’t stand by to watch more good people be flushed down the political drain because they are Muslims trying to work for a balanced and level playing field in America.

This resignation by Asbahi stinks — and Obama and his team should immediately call him back and help him stand up to anti-Muslimism in America.

Islam, anti-semitism and France


We all remember the caricature of the last Messenger which appeared in European newspapers, some times more than once, as an act of solidarity with the Danish publishers where the cartoon originated. The worldwide reaction of Muslims ran the entire gamut of emotions from anger to demands that the offending cartoon be retracted to calls for the resignation of the cartoonist and/or the editor of the newspaper. European publishers insisted on their rights to a free press saying they would not be intimidated by any reaction no matter how violent or incendiary. Other publications printed the offending cartoon as an act of solidarity with the Danish publications. Sometime later, newspapers again published the cartoon, in my opinion, as an act of provocation hoping to get a reaction from Muslims which would be prominently displayed across the front page of newspapers around the world, but the basic premise of freedom of the press to publish a cartoon even if billions of people found it offensive was always the reason given for the cartoon’s publication. Editors, reporters, et.al all cited the right to a free press to publish unfettered any and everything deemed by them relevant to find its way on the printed page, no matter how many people it upset, no matter which religion was attacked.

Advance a short time later to 2008 and we find this headline.

Satirist sparks uproar with Sarkozy son Jewish jibe

and this one.

Cartoonist gets death threats over Sarkozy ‘Jew” quip

From the former headline:

A French newspaper satirist has sparked a feverish tug-of-war over free speech and anti-Semitism with a biting column on the engagement of President Nicolas Sarkozy’s son to a Jewish heiress.

Published on July 2 in the satirical weekly Charlie Hebdo, the piece cost the 79-year-old Sine, a veteran cartoonist and anarchist writer whose real name is Maurice Sinet, his job after he refused to apologise.

Since then it has unleashed a torrent of op-ed articles, blog entries, petitions and counter-petitions as French writers, politicians and armchair commentators line up to vilify or defend him.

A lifelong provocateur whose previous targets have included Muslim fundamentalists and gays, Sine finally went to the police after a website published a call for him to be murdered, his lawyer said on Sunday.

Explaining what the uproar is all about, the second link writes.

L’affaire Siné, as it is known, began a month ago when the cartoonist wrote a column in Charlie Hebdo, a satirical weekly, about the engagement of Mr Sarkozy, 21, to Jessica Sebaoun-Darty, the Jewish heiress of an electronic goods chain.

Sinet repeated an unfounded rumour that the son of the President planned to become Jewish and added: “He’ll go a long way in life, that little lad.”

The remark caused fury amid claims that it alluded to age-old prejudices about Jews and money.

With the press speculating that Mr Sarkozy could sue Charlie Hebdo, Philippe Val, its editor, asked Sinet to apologise.

“I’d rather cut my balls off,” he replied.

He was fired and Mr Val said that his comments “could be interpreted as making a link between the conversion to Judaism and social success and that was neither acceptable nor defendable in court”.

What I find amazing is the swiftness with which some people found the material offensive and retribution for the offense demanded, and the call by people who said the press had the right to publish material offensive to Muslims supporting the firing of someone who made at best a passing remark about Jewishness. With regards to French Jews, or Judaism, the press does not have the right to offend and should be concerned with French-Jewish reaction, it’s just that someone forgot to tell Monsieur Sinet that. It’s interesting how the reaction to Sinet’s cartoon follows closely the reaction Muslims had to offending material in the past, including the call by some in the Jewish community for Monsieur Sinet’s death! Shades of Salman Rushdie perhaps?

Could this be?


First we hear of the hostility Iranians have towards the American way of life.  You’ve heard the chorus, ‘they hate us because of our freedom’ that always punctuates any discussion of east and west.  Hyperbole always seems to characterize such discussions and during times of international tensions, such exaggerations can have deadly consequences.  Here is a story which portrays a different picture than the one we’ve been seeing about Iran, and I doubt you will see it in many venues besides this one. It addresses two stereotypes that are common place about the Muslim world.

Two Christian pastors have returned to Martinsville after a year and a half of study in Iran, where they set out to learn and build trust and love between the people of both nations.

Husband and wife David Wolfe and Linda Kusse-Wolfe, both Quaker ministers, studied Islam and Iranian culture at the Imam Khomeini Education and Research Institute in Qom, Iran, from January 2007 to May 2008. There, they found a “very hospitable, very gracious people” and made lasting friendships, Kusse-Wolfe said. “It was a really privileged look at a society many Americans don’t get to see,” she said.

*snip*

Before the trip, “we had people ask us, ‘Aren’t you scared to go over there?’” Kusse-Wolfe said. “I’m convinced the (Iranian) people would’ve laid down their lives for us.”

“We never heard an unkind word,” Wolfe said. The city of Qom has a “significant number” of English-speaking people, Kusse-Wolfe said, especially among university students. “They would almost immediately invite us home to meet their parents and share a meal,” she said. “There’s a saying in Iran that guests are friends of God. They really understand that.” Iran is “very diverse,” with communities of Christians, Jewish people and Zoroastrians, Wolfe said.

Some people were surprised to find out that the couple — and other Americans — believe in God, Kusse-Wolfe said. But by living their faith, they proved the stereotypes wrong.

“As we practiced our faith and shared with them, that opened a lot of doors. It meant we had integrity,” she said. Muslims consider Jesus an important prophet, and the people they encountered showed a great respect for the couple’s faith, she added. Muslims consider Christians and Jews to be “people of the book,” Wolfe said. “They believe that we all worship the God of Abraham, and they are all protected and have a place in Iran.” “Islam is a great monotheistic faith, very moral and ethical, with a deep sense of community and respect,” Kusse-Wolfe said. “What impressed me was their deep practice of their faith in God.” Explaining Christian beliefs to their Muslim hosts was educational for the couple, as well. “We’ve learned from having to explain what we believe,” Wolfe said. Kusse-Wolfe added, “My personal faith is certainly deeper, more joyful, more trusting now.” Before the trip, Wolfe was the chaplain at Memorial Hospital in Martinsville, and Kusse-Wolfe ministered at First United Methodist Church. “We’re significantly different people from having done this,” Wolfe said. “So what does this mean for our ministry? We don’t know yet.” They do know, however, that encouraging peace and understanding begins at home. “We could start by loving our Muslim brothers and sisters in our own towns. That would be a huge step forward for peace and friendship,” Kusse-Wolfe said. “Even if we disagree, we simply have to advocate for each other to live in peace.”

It’s too bad that most Americans don’t have the moral courage of the Wolfes.

What is Israel up to?


I first saw speculation about Israel possibly conducting a false flag operation and blaming Iran in order to get the US to retaliate, and thought nothing of it. However, I ran across an interview a former CIA official who was saying the same thing and decided the story might have legs. Here is the radio interview with Philip Giraldi.

Apparently a retired ex CIA officer is not the only one thinking this.

The top American military officer has warned Israel against orchestrating ‘USS Liberty Part II’ to provoke a US-led war against Iran.

The fact that American officials have to issue these types of warnings to an “ally” is frightening, and speaks volumes of the relationship between the two countries.

A dire prediction


“In short and simple terms, we would be plunged into a depression that would make the Great Depression of the 1930s in which I spent my childhood look like boom times.

Industries would fail, banks would collapse, government revenues would dry up, universities would have to close, health care, even as limited as it now is for roughly 75 million Americans, would virtually cease. In short, something like [what] the South suffered at the end of the Civil War would plague the country.

Even at today’s price, as you know, 14 airlines have gone out of business while others are hovering on the brink of bankruptcy and most have curtailed service and laid off personnel. At double or triple today’s price, none could fly unless nationalized. A whole range of other industries would be quickly drawn into the quicksand. Ironically, war would push America into a form of socialist economy.”

So says William R. Polk, former professor of history at the University of Chicago and a member of the Policy Planning Council under President Kennedy, describing what a post war with Iran America would look like, and it doesn’t look good.  My question is why would American politicians risk this catastrophic landscape knowing that Iran poses no threat to America, or for that matter America’s ally Israel, and that the same deception techniques used to enlist America in an Iraqi war are being used against Iran.

Unanswered questions


You’ve probably heard by now of the scientist who committed suicide after he learned he would be indicted for the anthrax terror attacks of 2001-2002, following 911.  That suicide (?) rather conveniently ties up some loose ends in an investigation of the terror attacks that until recently had gone nowhere, but which played a major role in the US going to war in Iraq.  You remember the headlines, don’t you? Media spoke of how the appearance of anthrax laced letters in the US postal system was Saddam Hussein’s way of waging biological warfare against America that would continue to even more disastrous levels unless we invaded his country right away.  Those attacks were just one among many Saddam could launch against our country that could conclude with a giant mushroom shaped cloud hovering over one of the major cities of America.

However that scenario over time became diminished, especially after it was learned that the one who initiated those mailings most likely was an American scientist who worked in a biological weapons grade laboratory on a military base.  False clues were strewn all along the landscape, some pointing to an Arab American employee of the lab and more prominently to a Dr. Stephen Hatfill. The Arab American Dr. Ayaad Assaad’s case is an example of the racism Arabs/Muslims face in 21st century America.  A well orchestrated effort was made to implicate Assaad in the anthrax attacks starting with an anonymous letter mailed to the FBI before the first victim became sick of exposure to anthrax, which suggested he might be hatching such a plot. He was quickly cleared of any involvement and the case languished for almost seven  years, despite highs and lows which featured another innocent man being accused and subsequently cleared of involvement. Several letters written magnifying an Islamic connection and spewing the usual anti-Israeli/American diatribes were prominently displayed for all to see the connection with terror and Islam.  Turns out all that was a lie as has been most everything else that has to deal with Islam in the West post 911.  But this is seven years later and with tremendous hindsight it’s brutally apparent these anthrax letters were used to scare an already frightened American public towards a policy it might not have considered otherwise.   Fellow blogger Xymphora writes about this latest development with some background I suggest you link to and read. Even with Ivins’ death, there are still unanswered questions like the ones posed by Xymphora, and my own, such as if there was a financial payoff for Ivins to gain through the development of a vaccine for anthrax why wasn’t that discovered sooner?  Why did he feel the need to make such a blatant connection with terror and Islam and Muslims?  What was his mental state back in 2001 as  well as his financial one?  Most likely the authorities will be quick to close the case now there appears so much supporting evidence to say Ivins was responsible.  Let’s hope they take their time and tie up all the other loose ends before doing so.