Subtitle: I never joke about my work...
-=*=-
This is, as some say, zum Brüllen:
«The United States says crime groups operating as "mobsters without borders" have gained significant footholds in global markets and provide logistical support to terrorists.»
[AusBC/justin]
I mean, things like 'the pot and the kettle,' 'the blind leading the blind[1]' etc. all pale into utter insignificance, just no sense of irony at all.
You'd have to laugh - except for one tiny, little detail: the combined entity formed from the US and its M/I/C-plex plus Israel and its I/J/Z-plex[2], 'melded' by the neoCon cabal, say, and M-W's Israel Lobby etc., altogether USrael, is the worst criminal/terrorist entity the world has ever seen, and is ever likely to see.
-=*end*=-
Ref(s):
[1] "Uninformed and incompetent people leading others who are similarly incapable." ...probably inherited from the Upanishads - the sacred Hindu treatises, written 800-200 BC. From Katha Upanishad we have:
«Abiding in the midst of ignorance, thinking themselves wise and learned, fools go aimlessly hither and thither, like blind led by the blind.»
[The Phrase Finder]
[2] Extending Eisenhower's warning;
M/I/C-plex = military/industrial/Congress, plus the venal MSM.
I/J/Z-plex = Israeli/Jewish/Zionist, a truly evil constellation.
Epilogue: the world is teetering on the precipice, with the excess CO2 caused greedastrophe® drawing ever nearer. The criminals in Washington and Tel Aviv, plus the associated multinational resource rippers-off are plundering the world as never before (aka murder for spoil.)
Who or what, short of the ultimate calamity, can or will stop them?
10 comments:
G'day Phil, as you referred to "the worst criminal/terrorist entity" this article might be of interest:
http://www.counterpunch.org/
lamb04242008.html
It deals with facing reality and recalls some "adventures" from the past.
On the MIC - from Tom Dispatch, Nick Turse on how far the tenta cles reach:
http://www.tomdispatch.com/post/
174923/turse_a_pentagon_s_who_s
_who_of_your_life
As the US A-G Michael Mukasey has been mouthing off about mobsters without borders, I recommend readers go to Salon.com and have a look at the stories in Glenn Greenwald's archives about Mukasey and suspect claims in re 9/11. He might just like to make things up. A qualification, it seems, for a job in the Bush Administration.
And about a former administration legal eagle, John Yoo:
http://www.counterpunch.org/
vanbergen04242008.html
Now what were they saying about mobsters without borders?
And Phil, they are bringing the precious gift of freedom ... Chris Floyd on their generosity:
http://www.chris-floyd.com/content/view/1489/
135/
How did the song go ... "Freedom's just another word ..."
Sarky is getting narky again.
It seems more and more like the lead up to March 2003, (with some re-cast roles), as he vows no talks with Taliban, Hamas, Iran, Cheney's cronies talk up the "axis" again, Clinton buys into it (or it buys into Clinton, etc.
G'day Craig,
Wha'do they say? The more things change, the more they stay the same?
Sarky: "Plus c'est la même chose?"
Me, I reckon it's all the Zionists' fault; following what C Parsons (aka Eliot Ramsey) pointed out on March 21, 2007 - 11:42am:
«... It's always a good idea to couch terminology in seeming value-neutral phrases, like 'Zionist' or 'Israeli' rather than go on and on about the Joooooooz. Refer to 'Israeli policy' or some such thing...»
[WD_What if_1837; links don't work consistently anymore]
The really *BIG* question is, how much longer will the world put up with being led around by the nose by USrael, aka the Zionist-Lobby?
Note that I didn't say "It's all the Joooooooz' fault?"
Although, of course, it is.
G'day Phil and Craig, here is Part 2 of Franklin Lamb's 3 parter on Lebanon. And an extract about inconsistencies:
This month Khalilzad was joined with a nearly identical and simultaneous statement by Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barack and, perhaps out of politeness, none of the Security Council members mentioned Israeli violations of UNSC 1701. Not to be eclipsed by Silverberg, Khalilzad then urged member states to "generously support" the Special Tribunal for Lebanon to try suspects in the 2005 assassination of former Prime Minister Rafik Hariri.
The irony of his strident call to implement all of UNSC Resolutions 1559 and 1701 (which Israel has failed to do) was not lost on the Security Council members given recollections that in 1978 the Israeli army invaded south Lebanon and the Security Council issued Resolution 425 demanding Israel's immediate and unconditional withdrawal form Lebanese territory. Under US pressure the Security Council was paralyzed and for 30 years did nothing to implement the resolution. Nor did the Security Council invoke Chapter Seven of the UN Charter which would have allowed the UN to take military action to enforce 425.
While nothing effective was done to implement SCR 425 for 30 years or for 41 years concerning UNSCR 242 and more than a dozen others, the Bush administration supports the Israeli claim that the matter is now closed. Of course it is not closed and according to 174 countries out of 193 members of the UN whose delegates were polled by students from Columbia University, UNSCR 425 is not fully implemented since Israel still occupies the Lebanese territory of Shebaa Farms and Ghajar village.
Some UN members point out that it took only seven months for the key provision of UNSC 1559 regarding the withdrawal of Syrian troops and the "disarming of militias" to be implemented under threat of Chapter 7 military action (the next and seventh UNSC monitoring and progress report which will focus on Syria and Hezbollah will be issued on April 28): seven months to implement 1559 in contrast to 30 years for 425 or 41 for 242 both still not implemented. Why? A delegate from China surprised some by providing the short answer: Because 425 and 242 targeted Israel and 1559 favored Israel.
Glenn Greenwald on more inconsistencies, such as the US and Israel making (up) a case against Syria - remember that attack?
Worse still -- though completely unsurprising -- is the almost complete lack of challenge to the underlying premises. We just accept uncritically the idea that it is the expression of Ultimate Evil for Syria (or Iran) even to pursue nuclear power in accordance with their obligations under the NPT, let alone develop a nuclear weapon, even while Israel stockpiles enormous amounts of nuclear weapons and refuses to be a party to that treaty. Virtually nobody questions the right of Israel simply to attack its neighbors whenever it wants (imagine the reaction if Syria or Iran had unilaterally bombed a facility inside Israel which it claimed was used to develop destructive weapons). And all of that is underscored by recent claims by the Israeli Government that President Bush himself expressly approved of Israeli plans to expand settlement activities in the West Bank at a time when he was pretending to support a halt to that expansion.
More on that attack.
And who would you think would be behind claims against Syria?
Did you get it in one?
And let us not forget Somalia - Chris Floyd on the matter.
I spy ... or with friends like these.
G'day Phil and Craig, here's a twist - the proposition that by the US' standards, Iran has the right to invade the US.
You've probably seen that Hillary Clinton just said this:
CHRIS CUOMO: You said if Iran were to strike Israel, there would be 'massive retaliation." Scary words. Does 'massive retaliation" mean you'd go into Iran? You would bomb Iran? Is that what that's supposed to suggest?
CLINTON: Well, the question was, if Iran were to launch a nuclear attack on Israel, what would our response be? And I want the Iranians to know that if I am president, we will attack Iran. And I want them to understand that...we would be able to totally obliterate them. That's a terrible thing to say, but those people who run Iran need to understand that. Because that, perhaps, will deter them from doing something that would be reckless, foolish, and tragic.
While belligerently phrased, this was not a threat by Clinton to attack Iran first. Instead, it's a statement of deterrence. And interestingly, it's quite similar to an infamous statement by Saddam Hussein back in 1990. Here's an AFP story from that April:
President Saddam Hussein has ordered the Iraqi air force to retaliate with chemical weapons in the event of atomic attack by Israel, the official Iraqi News Agency agency reported Monday. "I gave the order to Iraqi air force and missile commanders to retaliate with binary chemical weapons as soon as they know that Israel has attacked any part of Iraq with an atomic bomb,'' he was quoted as telling a visiting U.S. Senate delegation on Thursday. It was unclear why the agency waited until Monday to report the president's comments. On April 2, Hussein threatened to "make fire burn up half of Israel with chemical weapons if it attacks Iraq.''
The difference is that (1) Saddam's statement was repeatedly used in 2002-3 as evidence for why he was a madman who had to be destroyed, and (2) the "if Israel attacks Iraq first" part was generally dropped, so it was no longer a statement of deterrence but rather a threat of naked aggression.
So by the standards we apply to others, Iran is now allowed to say Clinton has promised to "obliterate" them whether or not they attack anyone. And, since this demonstrates we're madmen who must be destroyed, they therefore are allowed to invade America.
Then follow examples of where Saddam's statement was misrepresented.
Further on Iran and Clinton's statement, plus ca change.
But is this the first time high level U.S. officials have spoken about "obliterating" Iran? No!
This is from a shockingly good episode of Nightline in 1992. Richard Armitage, who later became Colin Powell's deputy during the first George W. Bush administration, was Assistant Secretary of Defense under Reagan:
TED KOPPEL: [T]hroughout the ’80s and into the ’90s, U.S. assistance to Saddam Hussein and the government of Iraq dwarfed anything this country did for Iran...[T]here were actually U.S. contingency plans for an attack against the Iranian mainland.
Admiral Ace Lyons was commander of the Pacific fleet.
JAMES LYON, JR.: We were prepared — as I would say at the time — to drill them back to the fourth century...
RICHARD ARMITAGE: The decision was made not to completely obliterate Iran...However, had things not gone well in the Gulf, I’ve no doubt that we would have put those plans into effect.
More recently, Admiral William Fallon, then head of U.S. Central Command, said this about Iran:
"These guys are ants. When the time comes, you crush them."
Thugs without borders.
And McInsane's forpol - from Glenn Greenwald.
John McCain was on a conference call with right-wing bloggers yesterday and boasted:
I think that people should understand that I will be Hamas's worst nightmare.
What possible reason would a U.S. President have for turning himself and our country into a "nightmare" for Hamas, let alone its "worst nightmare"? Hamas is a single-issue Palestinian group, focused exclusively on its "territorial dispute" with Israel (and, in light of its victory in the U.S.-demanded election, is also now preoccupied with governing the Palestinian Authority). Is there anyone who thinks that Hamas has tried to, will try to, or ever could attack the U.S.? Hamas is an enemy of Israel, not the U.S. Is that a distinction we even recognize any more?
Back to Syria ...
US rebuked over Syria nuclear case.
Sy Hersh on the matter.
Gordon Prather.
Lebanon and Part 3 from Franklin Lamb.
Lots to mull over.
G'day Phil, more from Chris Floyd, this time on the core issue of the election - torture. The dark heart of the matter (a stain on America's soul):
The highest officials of the Bush Administration have gone to enormous lengths to twist, pervert and destroy legal precepts that have been in force in Anglo-American law for centuries -- precisely because they know that their policies are criminal under any reasonable understanding of the law. Bush, and the likely prime mover of the torture regime, longtime authoritarian Dick Cheney, were told at the very beginning that the policies they were instigating would leave them and their minions open to criminal charges. That's why the Administration's legal hacks have devoted so much relentless attention on subverting the Geneva Conventions, which are incorporated into and have the full force of American law.
Bush and his minions know that if the rule of law is ever restored -- even partially and imperfectly -- they will be rightly be subject to prosecution, imprisonment and possibly even execution.
And this is why torture is the core issue -- perhaps the only real issue -- in the presidential campaign. Iraq is not really an issue; whoever wins, the war will go on, in one form or another. Even under the so-called withdrawal plans of the "progressive" candidates, Americans will be killing and dying in Iraq for years to come. As for the economy, by their own admission none of the presidential aspirants will do anything more than tinker around the edges of the present rapacious system -- an unholy marriage of crony capitalism and corporate socialism that has devastated America's communities, left millions with harsher, diminished lives, corrupted civic society and degraded and homogenized American culture. For the elite factions that thrive on war profits and the brutal economic structure, none of the candidates represents a serious enough threat for any action -- beyond the usual lying, sabotage, vote-rigging and media manipulation to get their favorite into power, of course.
But torture is a different matter. Consider how many very powerful people -- and hundreds of their minions -- face very serious charges if the next president decides to apply the law. Will they really allow this to happen? Or even risk allowing this to happen?
Knowingly and deliberately committing crimes. And that warning - will they allow the next president to apply the law - best be heeded. They have ways and means and there is conjecture that an extreme remedy could be applied. Easiest is to ensure a tame next president. The system has that well in hand, but should someone escape the system?
A solution? The US could (has gone(?)) go broke. But beware the waning hegemon.
There are people who will reflexively reject thew views above, but they should take an objective look at the Bush administration's record. The lies and crimes have been well documented. There are likely more examples to come. The impact will be wide and deep. Everyone is likely to pay the price. Perhaps excepting the perpetrators, at least in the short term.
G'day Phil, a somewhat foggy morning here, internally, that is, so I'll link some articles for people to mull over.
First is from Tomdispatch and it is Chalmers Johnson on the RAND corporation.
The RAND Corporation of Santa Monica, California, was set up immediately after World War II by the U.S. Army Air Corps (soon to become the U.S. Air Force). The Air Force generals who had the idea were trying to perpetuate the wartime relationship that had developed between the scientific and intellectual communities and the American military, as exemplified by the Manhattan Project to develop and build the atomic bomb.
Soon enough, however, RAND became a key institutional building block of the Cold War American empire. As the premier think tank for the U.S.'s role as hegemon of the Western world, RAND was instrumental in giving that empire the militaristic cast it retains to this day and in hugely enlarging official demands for atomic bombs, nuclear submarines, intercontinental ballistic missiles, and long-range bombers. Without RAND, our military-industrial complex, as well as our democracy, would look quite different.
Next is Uri Avnery on the stupidity of war.
War with Syria? Peace with Syria?
A big military operation against Hamas in the Gaza strip? A cease-fire with Hamas?
Our media discuss these questions dispassionately, as if they were equivalent options. Like a person in a showroom making a choice between two cars. This one is good, and so is the other one. So which should one buy?
And nobody cries out: War is the height of stupidity!
War is too serious a business to be left to anyone.
But some want more.
Yet people allow it to happen over and over ... perhaps, from the US point of view this piece from Glenn Greenwald is an appropriate closer.
Any distraction will do.
G'day Phil, on torture and they have not always supported it. But then, it depends on who is alleged to be doing it. A hint: a section of this article is headed "Stunning Hypocrisy." And indeed it is.
However, we must credit them for their concern for children, even if it is exhibited as "We must destroy this child to save it."
And as it is the 5th anniversary of "Mission Accomplished", a review of their "success" from Juan Cole. Deals with the other war as well.
We can title this piece "Let them eat sh*t."
Sh*t like that detailed above has to stop before we will be able to address the very serious challenges facing us.
Post a Comment