Obama Asks $59 Billion in Extra Spending for Disaster Relief, Haiti, Agent Orange Disabilities and…War Whoring

Wednesday, May 26, 2010

Using a tactic he criticized when his predecessor employed it, President Barack Obama has asked Congress to approve “emergency” legislation to cover costs associated with disaster relief, assistance for Haiti and the military campaigns in Afghanistan and Iraq. Obama the candidate was critical of President George W. Bush’s use of supplemental spending measures to finance the two wars, and he swore upon taking over the Oval Office to pay for military operations through the normal budget process.

Of the $59 billion Obama is requesting, more than $33 billion is war-related spending, including weapons purchases, most of which is for the troop buildup in Afghanistan. Congress already approved $130 billion for the wars as part of the current federal budget.

It remains to be seen if Obama can get the votes for the spending bill. Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-California) says it will be a “heavy lift” to win support in the House, while Senator Tom Coburn (R-Oklahoma) intends to introduce an amendment requiring Congress to offset the emergency spending with cuts in other federal programs.

-Noel Brinkerhoff

Senate Takes Up 'Emergency' War Bill Despite Obama Pledge to End Practice (Fox News)

Summary of FY 2010 Emergency Supplemental (U.S. Senate Committee on Appropriations)

H. R. 4899 (Thomas.loc.gov)

http://www.allgov.com/Where_is_the_Money_Going/ViewNews/Obama_Asks_59_Billion_Dollars_in_Extra_Spending_for_Disaster_Relief_Haiti_Agent_Orange_Disabilities_and__War_100526

Pentagon Gets Around Troop Ban in Pakistan by Outsourcing Weapons Transport

(map: University of Texas)

Unable to deploy troops in Pakistan, but still in need of ways to transport weapons across it and into Afghanistan, the U.S. government is looking for defense contractors who can take on the task of logistical support through Pakistani territory. The Department of Defense has put out requests for companies to bid on the risky job of moving equipment and weaponry through sensitive areas of Pakistan—and to collect intelligence related to threat assessments.

The Nation has reported that U.S. personnel will be involved in the supply operation carried out by the contractor, which could mean the effort is being used to bypass the stated policy of no troops in Pakistan.

“Perhaps most striking about this US military contract solicitation is the admission by the military that contractors are being used for shipping and guarding military hardware as a run-around to the current official policy of the US and Pakistan governments that the US military does not conduct operations in Pakistan,” writes Jeremy Scahill in The Nation.

Among those interested in the job are an Afghan firm connected to the CIA and run by the son of Afghanistan’s defense minister, General Abdul Rahim Wardak, as well as a Pakistani company linked to the controversial security firm Xe, formerly known as Blackwater.

-Noel Brinkerhoff

Pentagon Seeks Contractor to Move Weapons Through Pakistan/Afghanistan (by Jeremy Scahill, The Nation)

The Secret US War in Pakistan (by Jeremy Scahill, The Nation)

http://www.allgov.com//US_and_the_World/ViewNews/Pentagon_Gets_Around_Troop_Ban_in_Pakistan_by_Outsourcing_Weapons_Transport_100528

Happy Memorial Day - AP tally: 1,000th US military death in Afghanistan

Another thousand senseless deaths, courtesy of the infernal 9/11 false flag. Just think: Our bestest ‘ally’ continues to get us to shovel our kids by the thousands into the jaws of hell — without sacrificing even one of their own. And they haven’t even begun on Iran (no worries: the Fifth Column in Congress is just about to deliver the goods). Netanyahu’s perpetual smirk says it all: ‘Why expend any of The Chosen Ones when we have an army of witless Goyim across the pond who’ll do the job for us’. [Should you need reminding: http://theinfounderground.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=5367&sid=414e626aeaa9f698fa7793703864ca92 ]...


May 28, 12:40 AM (ET)
By ROBERT H. REID

KABUL, Afghanistan (AP) - The U.S. military suffered its 1,000th death of the Afghan war Friday, according to an Associated Press count, when NATO reported a service member was killed by a roadside bomb in southern Afghanistan.

The NATO statement did not identify the victim's name or nationality, but U.S. spokesman Col. Wayne Shanks said the service member was American.

The Associated Press bases its tally on U.S. Defense Department reports of deaths suffered as a direct result of the Afghan conflict, including personnel assigned to units in Afghanistan, Pakistan or Uzbekistan.

Other news organizations count deaths suffered by service members assigned elsewhere as part of Operation Enduring Freedom, which includes operations in the Philippines, the Horn of Africa and at the U.S. detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

The NATO statement gave no details of the bombing Friday, nor did it specify where the attack occurred. U.S., NATO and Afghan forces are gearing up for a major operation in the south in a bid to shore up government control of Kandahar, the biggest city in southern Afghanistan and the Taliban's former headquarters.

The list of American service members killed in combat in Afghanistan begins with Sgt. 1st Class Nathan Ross Chapman of San Antonio, Texas. The 31-year-old career Special forces soldier was ambushed on Jan. 4, 2002, after attending a meeting with Afghan leaders in Khost province. He left a wife and two children. The base where a suicide bomber killed seven CIA employees in December bears his name.

The latest death was reported just ahead of the Memorial Day weekend in the United States when Americans honor their dead in all the nation's wars.

Elsewhere, Afghan officials said a Pakistani Taliban leader who spearheaded the takeover of Pakistan's Swat Valley three years ago may have been killed in a fierce battle with Afghan forces in remote eastern Afghanistan.

Hundreds of militants have been trying since Sunday to seize control of the Barg-e-Matal district of Nuristan province along the Pakistani border, provincial officials said.

Following a strong attack Wednesday night, villagers who took part in the fighting reported that they had killed the Taliban commander, Maulana Fazlullah, along with six of his fighters, according to Gen. Mohammad Zaman Mamozai, commander for Afghan border police in eastern Afghanistan.

Nuristan police Chief Mohammad Qasim said authorities were unable to confirm the death of Fazlullah, who gained prominence in 2007 as the "Radio Mullah" for his vehemently anti-Western sermons on local radio stations in the Swat Valley. The former mountain resort area fell under Taliban control until Pakistani forces drove them out last year.

In Pakistan, Maulana Faqir Mohammed, the Taliban chief in the Bajur area, told The Associated Press by phone that Fazlullah had gone to Nuristan with his fighters.

"We are trying to contact him," he said. "We believe that he is safe and he has not been killed."

Another Taliban commander in Bajur, Asad Ullah, insisted that Fazlullah was alive.

"Maulana Fazlullah was the guest of Taliban in Nuristan, and we don't think he can be killed so easily," he said.

The Afghan Interior Ministry said one police officer had also been killed in the Nuristan fighting, which continued Thursday. Officials said about 500 Pakistani Taliban were involved in the siege.

The insurgents first attacked the district government building on Sunday. Provincial police chief Gen. Mohammad Qasim Jangulbagh said local residents joined the fight against the Taliban because they heard Fazlullah had issued a fatwa, or religious command, to kill those who supported the government.

Nuristan is a rugged, mountainous province whose people have a reputation for fierce resistance to outsiders.

---

Associated Press writers Habib Khan in Bajur, Pakistan, Munir Ahmed in Islamabad and Amir Shah and Heidi Vogt in Kabul contributed to this report. 

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20100528/D9FVKI980.html

Who's Afraid of 9/11 Conspiracy Theories?

Maidhc Ó Cathail maidhcocathail.wordpress.com Posted 13 April, 2010

"The lady doth protest too much, methinks."     -Queen Gertrude, Hamlet. Whenever someone insists too strongly about something not being true, we tend to suspect that maybe it is. In their denials of involvement in 9/11, do Israel's apologists "protest too much?" While it would take a small book to adequately document the Israeli connection to 9/11—as Antiwar.com editor Justin Raimondo has attempted in The Terror Enigma—let us briefly recall some of the more intriguing facts as reported in the mainstream media, involving dancing Israelis, Odigo warnings, and ZimÕs timely move. The story of the five Israelis who were seen celebrating and filming as the Twin Towers burned and collapsed was investigated by Neil Mackay in Scotland's Sunday Herald. The so-called "dancing Israelis" worked for Urban Moving Systems, later deemed to be a Mossad front by the FBI. Despite failing numerous polygraph tests, the young men were deported to Israel two months later. Back home, several of the men appeared on a TV chat show, in which one of them amazingly said, "Our purpose was to document the event." Two employees of Odigo, an Israeli instant messaging service, received messages two hours before the World Trade Center attack on September 11 predicting the attack would happen, Ha'aretz reported. Zim-American Israeli Shipping Co., part-owned by the Israeli government, moved their North American headquarters from the 16th floor of the WTC to Norfolk, Virginia one week before the 9/11 attacks, incurring a $50,000 fine for breaking its lease, according to the Jerusalem Post. Despite being in the public domain, none of these relevant facts are mentioned in the 9/11 Commission's 567-page report. Moreover, Philip Zelikow, the executive director of the 9/11 Commission, is concerned about the spread of such inconvenient facts to the wider public. "Our worry," he says, "is when things become infectious…. [then] this stuff can be deeply corrosive to public understanding. You can get where the bacteria can sicken the larger body." But was Zelikow speaking here as an American government official or as a pro-Israeli insider? In the same month that he authored the so-called "Bush Doctrine" of preemptive war, which provided the justification for the 2003 invasion of Iraq, Zelikow made this candid admission: "Why would Iraq attack America or use nuclear weapons against us? I'll tell you what I think the real threat (is) and actually has been since 1990—it's the threat against Israel." Yet, instead of investigating the Israeli connection, Zelikow used the 9/11 Commission to sell the Israeli-inspired Iraq war to the American people. Zelikow's "bacteria" quote is cited in a 2008 paper entitled "Conspiracy Theories." Co-authored by Cass Sunstein, who currently heads President Obama's White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, the main focus of the paper "involves conspiracy theories relating to terrorism, especially theories that arise from and post-date the 9/11 attacks." Rather than attempting to debunk such theories, Sunstein and Vermeule claim that those who suspect Israeli involvement in 9/11 suffer from a "crippled epistemology." This, the authors argue, is due to "a sharply limited number of (relevant) informational sources." In other words, "they know very few things, and what they know is wrong." To counter these suspicions, Sunstein recommends "cognitive infiltration of extremist groups, whereby government agents, or their allies (acting either virtually or in real space, and either openly or anonymously) will undermine the crippled epistemology of those who subscribe to such theories. They do so by planting doubts about the theories and stylized facts that circulate within such groups, thereby introducing beneficial cognitive diversity." It could, of course, be argued that Sunstein's work also suffers from a crippled epistemology—his research relies heavily on pro-Israeli sources, most notably the notorious Islamophobe Daniel Pipes. Pipes is a bit of an expert on conspiracy theories, having written two books on the subject. "Conspiracism provides a key to understanding the political culture of the Middle East," Pipes opines in The Hidden Hand: Middle East Fears of Conspiracy. "It helps explain much of what would otherwise seem illogical or implausible, including the region's record of political extremism and volatility, its culture of violence, and its poor record of modernization." Like Sunstein, Pipes is concerned that many in the region suspect Israeli involvement in 9/11. "The implications in the Middle East are quite profound," Pipes told the LA-based Jewish Journal. "It's one more brick in the edifice of fear and loathing of Israel and the Jews." In the absence of a proper 9/11 investigation, there remains a broad range of opinion about the precise nature of Israeli complicity. In The Terror Enigma, Justin Raimondo tentatively concludes that the Israeli connection to 9/11 amounts to "foreknowledge and passive collaboration with Bin Laden's jihad." Other experts, such as Alan Sabrosky, are less circumspect. Dr. Sabrosky, former director of studies of the Strategic Studies Institute at the US Army War College, has recently stated that "it is 100 percent certain that 9/11 was a Mossad operation. Period." Either way, it's hardly surprising that some of the most obsessive critics of 9/11 "conspiracy theories" have ties to Israel. If Americans ever find out that their "staunchest ally" had anything to do with the mass murder of their fellow citizens on September 11, 2001, the would-be conspiracy debunkers have good reason to be afraid.

The WTC Leaseholder and His Associates That Cheated Death on 9/11: Was it Coincidence or Foreknowledge?

World Trade Center developer Larry Silverstein, left, shared a laugh with John Whitehead, chairperson of the Lower Manhattan Development Corp., at a groundbreaking ceremony last week for the Goldman Sachs building under construction catty-corner to the W.T.C. site. 

New York real estate developer Larry Silverstein and several key individuals associated with his firm, Silverstein Properties, appear to have had remarkable luck on September 11, 2001, when changes in their schedule or coincidental circumstances saved them from being high up in the World Trade Center when it was attacked.

Silverstein Properties took over the lease of the World Trade Center seven weeks before 9/11, the only time the complex had gone under private control [1], and after 9/11 Larry Silverstein sought damages of over $7 billion from his insurers for the destruction of the Twin Towers. [2] On September 11, the firm had temporary offices on the 88th floor of the North Tower. (American Airlines Flight 11 impacted that tower between its 93rd and 99th floors.) Of its 160 employees, 54 were working in those offices at the time of the attacks and four of them died. [3]

HIGH-LEVEL INDIVIDUALS AVOIDED DANGER ON 9/11
The fortunate circumstances that kept the high-level individuals out of danger the morning of 9/11 were quite extraordinary. Larry Silverstein survived the attacks supposedly because his wife forced him to go to a doctor's appointment instead of a meeting at the WTC; Silverstein's son and daughter survived because, independently of each other, they were running late; his top aide survived because he cut short a meeting he was in at the top of the North Tower; his publicist agreed to join a meeting at the WTC at 9:00 a.m. instead of 8:00 a.m.; and others associated with Silverstein Properties may have avoided danger due to the cancellation of a meeting on the 88th floor of the North Tower.

There are three possible explanations for the combined good fortune of these individuals on September 11. Maybe it was all due to coincidence. Or, more sinisterly, perhaps some of these individuals had foreknowledge of the attacks and therefore knew of the threat to the WTC. Or maybe they received some kind of forewarning from others who had specific foreknowledge of the danger. While it will be impossible to draw definite conclusions until there is a proper investigation, the accounts of these individuals, described below, make clear why such a new investigation into the 9/11 attacks is needed.

WTC LEASEHOLDER PERSUADED TO GO TO DOCTOR'S APPOINTMENT INSTEAD OF TRADE CENTER
After his company took over the lease of the Twin Towers on July 24, 2001, Larry Silverstein reportedly "spent his days at the towers, meeting and greeting his tenants." [4] According to the New York Times, "Every morning after the deal was finalized, Mr. Silverstein held breakfast meetings at Windows on the World," the restaurant at the top of the North Tower. [5] Those meetings would begin at 8:30 a.m. [6]

All of the approximately 170 people in Windows on the World at the time of the attack on the North Tower--8:46 a.m.--died when the tower subsequently collapsed. [7] Yet September 11 was the one morning when Larry Silverstein was not at the restaurant. Instead, he was at his apartment on New York's Park Avenue. [8] The reason, as the Washington Post described, was that he had "complained of a problem with his skin and the sun. His wife, Klara, demanded that he go to the dermatologist. She even made the appointment, which was scheduled for that morning." Silverstein has recalled that he was "getting dressed to go to the doctor" on 9/11, but complained to his wife: "I have so much to do downtown. This is a horrendous waste of my time. I should be going to work." She retorted, "You're not going to cancel this appointment this morning, you're going to the dermatologist." Silverstein has noted, "When you're married to the same woman for 46 years, you learn early on to say, 'Yes, dear.'" He therefore did not head to the WTC. Referring to these circumstances that saved his life, Silverstein commented, "That morning was the serendipitous quality of life." [9]

LEASEHOLDER'S SON AND DAUGHTER LATE FOR MEETINGS AT WTC
Two of Larry Silverstein's three children, Roger and Lisa, were vice presidents of Silverstein Properties. [10] After the company took over the lease of the WTC, Roger and Lisa Silverstein worked in its temporary offices on the 88th floor of the North Tower and, according to the New York Observer, attended meetings with tenants each morning at Windows on the World. But on the morning of September 11, apparently independently of each other, both of them "were running late." As a result, Roger Silverstein was in the parking garage of WTC Building 7 when the North Tower was hit, and Lisa Silverstein was subsequently turned away from the WTC complex by police further uptown. The New York Observer noted, "If the attack had happened just a little later, [Larry] Silverstein's children would likely have been trapped at Windows" on the World. [11]

LEASEHOLDER'S TOP AIDE ENDS MEETING AT WTC EARLY
An executive with Silverstein Properties who was even more fortunate was Larry Silverstein's top aide, Geoffrey Wharton, who was actually at the 8:30 a.m. meeting at Windows on the World that Silverstein missed. [12] Wharton was meeting with Liz Thompson, the executive director of the Lower Manhattan Cultural Council, to discuss the council's relationship with Silverstein Properties, and its studio and performance programs. Fortunately, as Thompson has recalled, Wharton "had to cut the meeting a little short." [13] And, according to the Engineering News-Record, he then "decided to escort his guest down to the lobby." [14] Consequently, Wharton and Thompson got on an elevator at 8:44 a.m., just two minutes before Flight 11 hit the tower. Only two other individuals were in that last elevator down from the 107th floor: Michael Nestor and Richard Tierney, both senior officials with the New York Port Authority, who were leaving the restaurant because Nestor had a meeting downstairs to attend. The four of them were the last people to make it out of Windows on the World alive. [15]

LEASEHOLDER'S PUBLICIST AGREES TO JOIN MEETING AT WTC AN HOUR LATE
Another key individual who was fortunate not to be in the World Trade Center when it was hit was publicist Howard Rubenstein, who had represented Larry Silverstein for over 30 years and would subsequently work with the real estate developer on the reconstruction of the WTC. [16]

The day before 9/11, Rubenstein was called by John O'Neill, the former FBI counterterrorism chief, who had recently started work as head of security at the WTC. O'Neill invited Rubenstein to a meeting he was going to be leading, which would be held in the WTC at 8:00 a.m. on September 11. It was to discuss how the building's management was protecting the Twin Towers against terrorism. Rubenstein has recalled that O'Neill told him, "Bring your staff, two people."

Rubenstein agreed to attend the meeting, because "we were then representing the World Trade Center." However, after further thought he called O'Neill back and said, "I have a staff meeting on Tuesday, do you mind if I don't go?" O'Neill told him to send a colleague in his place, but Rubenstein replied, "But that somebody is also at my staff meeting." So O'Neill told Rubenstein to "come at 9 o'clock instead of 8 o'clock."

According to Rubenstein, the morning of September 11 he was in the staff meeting when his secretary ran in and told him, "The World Trade Center just got hit and you were supposed to be there." While Rubenstein and his staff members were safe, "Everyone at that breakfast meeting died, including John O'Neill." [17]

COMPANY MEETING IN WTC ON 9/11 CANCELED THE NIGHT BEFORE
Furthermore, Silverstein Properties had been scheduled to hold a meeting the morning of September 11 in its offices on the 88th floor of the North Tower, reportedly "to discuss what to do in the event of a terrorist attack." According to the New York Times, that meeting was canceled the night of September 10, "because one participant could not attend." [18] Further details of the meeting--such as who was meant to be there, and whether any people managed to stay away from the WTC on 9/11 thanks to its cancellation--are unknown.

As we can see, some notable people connected with the WTC leaseholder, Larry Silverstein, appear to have been particularly lucky on September 11. Under slightly different circumstances they may well have been among the victims of the attacks. While their accounts, described above, do not prove anything sinister, the series of apparent coincidences that kept these individuals away from danger on 9/11 surely need to be examined as part of a new investigation into the attacks.

NOTES[1] "Silverstein Properties and Westfield Win $3.2B World Trade Center Lease." International Council of Shopping Centers, April 27, 2001 <http://www.icsc.org/srch/front/200104270803.htm> ; "Governor Pataki, Acting Governor DiFrancesco Laud Historic Port Authority Agreement to Privatize World Trade Center." Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, July 24, 2001 <http://www.panynj.gov/press-room/press-item.cfm?headLine_id=81> .
[2] Simon English, "Magnate's Tower Plan Under Threat." Daily Telegraph, October 10, 2001 <http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/2737023/Magnates-tower-plan-under-threat.html> ; Mark Hamblett, "Jurors Deal World Trade Center Leaseholder Major Setback." New York Law Journal, April 30, 2004 <http://web.archive.org/web/20040617171233/http:/www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1082923373947> .
[3] Doug Saunders, Caroline Alphonso, Colin Freeze, Lisa Priest, and Geoffrey York, "Surviving History." Globe and Mail, September 7, 2002 <http://www.ctv.ca/special/sept11/hubs/canadian/history.html> .
[4] Lynne Duke, "At Ground Zero, a Tall Order for the Developer." Washington Post, November 20, 2002 <http://web.archive.org/web/20021207052827/http:/www.hughhewitt.com/past_news_links_11.02/11.20.02.At_Ground_Zero.html> .
[5] Deborah Sontag, "The Hole in the City's Heart." New York Times, September 11, 2006 <http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/11/nyregion/nyregionspecial3/11groundzero.html> .
[6] Nadine M. Post, "World Trade Center's Rebuilders Find Opportunity in the Face of Tragedy." Engineering News-Record, September 13, 2004 <http://enr.construction.com/features/buildings/archives/040913a-1.asp> .
[7] "The Last Elevator." Morning Edition, NPR, September 11, 2003 <http://soundportraits.org/on-air/the_last_elevator/transcript.php> .
[8] Robert Kolker, "Who Wants to Move to Ground Zero?" New York Magazine, May 21, 2005 <http://nymag.com/nymetro/realestate/urbandev/features/11718/> .
[9] Lynne Duke, "At Ground Zero, a Tall Order for the Developer." <http://web.archive.org/web/20021207052827/http:/www.hughhewitt.com/past_news_links_11.02/11.20.02.At_Ground_Zero.html>
[10] Mervyn Rothstein, "Downtown Tower Gets a New Look." New York Times, February 3, 1999 <http://www.nytimes.com/1999/02/03/nyregion/commercial-real-estate-downtown-tower-gets-a-new-look.html> ; Tracie Rozhon, "Developer Daughters, Born to Build." New York Times, March 22, 2001 <http://www.nytimes.com/2001/03/22/garden/developer-daughters-born-to-build.html> ; Doug Saunders, Caroline Alphonso, Colin Freeze, Lisa Priest, and Geoffrey York, "Surviving History." <http://www.ctv.ca/special/sept11/hubs/canadian/history.html>
[11] Tom McGeveran, "Mike Sees City Taking Control at Ground Zero." New York Observer, March 16, 2003 <http://www.observer.com/node/47252> ; Robert Kolker, "Who Wants to Move to Ground Zero?" <http://nymag.com/nymetro/realestate/urbandev/features/11718/>
[12] Nadine M. Post, "World Trade Center's Rebuilders Find Opportunity in the Face of Tragedy." <http://enr.construction.com/features/buildings/archives/040913a-1.asp>
[13] Jim Dwyer, Eric Lipton, Kevin Flynn, James Glanz, and Ford Fessenden, "Fighting to Live as the Towers Died." New York Times, May 26, 2002 <http://www.nytimes.com/2002/05/26/nyregion/26WTC.html> ; Creative Downtown: The Role of Culture in Rebuilding Lower Manhattan. New York: New York City Arts Coalition, 2002, p. 9 <http://www.nycityartscoalition.org/creativedowntown.pdf> .
[14] Nadine M. Post, "World Trade Center's Rebuilders Find Opportunity in the Face of Tragedy." <http://enr.construction.com/features/buildings/archives/040913a-1.asp>
[15] Jim Dwyer, Eric Lipton, Kevin Flynn, James Glanz, and Ford Fessenden, "Fighting to Live as the Towers Died" <http://www.nytimes.com/2002/05/26/nyregion/26WTC.html> ; "The Last Elevator." <http://soundportraits.org/on-air/the_last_elevator/transcript.php>
[16] Dennis Fitzgerald, "The Bold and the Beautiful." The Deal, June 7, 2004 <http://www.rubenstein.com/files/The_Deal.pdf> .
[17] Charlie Rose. PBS, July 15, 2004 <http://www.charlierose.com/view/interview/1351> ; Aliza Davidovit, "Howard Rubenstein: Best Face Forward."Lifestyles Magazine, Fall 2004 <http://web.archive.org/web/20071120001602/http:/www.lifestylesmagazine.com/website/past/stories/193/Lifestyle_10-2004_006.html> .
[18] Andrew Ross Sorkin and Simon Romero, "Reinsurance Companies Wait to Sort out Cost of Damages." New York Times, September 12, 2001 <http://www.nytimes.com/2001/09/12/business/day-terror-insurers-reinsurance-companies-wait-sort-cost-damages.html> .

»<http://911blogger.com/users/shoestring>

The Coming Iran War

MJ Rosenberg

It's happening again.

The same forces – with a few new additions and minus a few smart defectors – who pushed the United States into a needless and deadly war with Iraq are now organizing for the next war.

This time the target is Iran, which, just like Iraq, is said to be on the verge of creating weapons of mass destruction.

Also, just like Iraq, its president is a supposed madman determined to destroy Israel.

In fact, in the case of Iraq, that president, Saddam Hussein, not only threatened to "incinerate half of Israel," he actually launched 39 SCUD missiles against Israel during the 1991 Gulf war.

That war finished off Saddam as a power.

But that was not good enough for Vice President Dick Cheney and his war profiteering buddies. Ten years later, with Cheney in the vice presidency and 9/11 as the pretense, the Cheney crowd led America into a war to depose Saddam. The goal: to turn Iraq into an American protectorate in order to make tens of billions of dollars for themselves and their corporate allies. So far, 4,400 Americans, 318 allied forces, and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis have died to advance that agenda.

But Cheney also enlisted a gang of war cheerleaders who had no interest in making money off the conflict. Those were the neocons who pushed for war out of the belief that eliminating Saddam Hussein would be good for Israel.

The Cheney gang consisted of people like Doug Feith, Joe Lieberman, John Bolton, Frank Gaffney, Richard Perle, Charles Krauthammer, Scooter Libby, Bill Kristol, Elliot Abrams and their various allies in government and media. The Israel lobby is also a member of that gang -- although it operated with nothing like the vigor that it now dedicates to the anti-Iran effort. (The pressure exerted by the lobby is a big part of the reason so many Democrats supported a war they knew was wrong.)

Of course, Iraq did not have WMDs and the Bush administration almost surely knew it. (If Iraq had them, we would no more have attacked Iraq than we now attack North Korea. In fact, the evidence that a country does not have WMDs is our willingness to consider bombing it.)

But, no matter, the gang of war profiteers and neocon ideologues were hell bent on war anyway. The supposed WMDs were just a pretense.

This would all be for the history books (and the grieving widows, parents, grandparents, children, partners, sisters and brothers of the fallen Americans) if the same scenario was not being played out today.

Earlier in May, Turkey and Brazil -- after months of intense negotiations -- persuaded the Iranian regime to accept a deal that would have vastly reduced its ability to produce a nuclear weapon. The Turkish-Brazilian deal was almost identical to the one President Obama and our allies pushed the Iranians to accept back in October.

Only this time, it wasn't good enough. The Obama administration ignored the Turkish-Brazilian breakthrough, saying its goal was crippling sanctions and that it was close to achieving them. Of course, few believe sanctions will have any significant effect other than to punish ordinary Iranians, people who are suffering quite enough under a monstrous regime.

But the administration seems to have been sold a bill of goods that leaves the U.S. with only two choices: sanctions or war. The diplomatic option seems to be off the table, pushed off by pressure from various warhawks, neocons, Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu and his allies in Congress. (Obama originally favored open-ended diplomacy with no deadline; Netanyahu somehow convinced him that a deadline on diplomacy made sense. It doesn't.)

Even some of the more progressive voices are falling for this false choice largely because the lobby – although clearly struggling as J Street moves into clear ascendancy among young and middle-aged Jews – still manages to intimidate.

The other day, an Op-Ed appeared in the Jewish newspaper, Forward, by Rabbi Eric Yoffie, head of the Reform Jewish movement in America and a progressive, that read like something out of 2002.

Yoffie's piece is a cris de couer, urging all Jews to support a hard line on Iran. "Now is the time," he writes, "to pressure our government to move more emphatically to counter the Iranian threat.

Yoffie's piece is significant on two counts. The first is that he does not push the ridiculous line that a nuclear Iran would happily commit suicide in order to destroy Israel. The rabbi clearly knows enough about international relations and human behavior to understand that there are limits to what nations will do to make a political point and that national suicide is not one of them.

No, his description of the threat to Israel is both more subtle and more honest.

He writes, "Even if Iran were to develop nuclear weapons and never use them, the danger to Israel would still be intolerable. Israel cannot live in the shadow of a nuclear Iran. In the minds of its own citizens and of the world community, Israel would cease to be a safe place to live."

There is truth in that. The thought of a nuclear Iran so close to Israel is upsetting. But then so was the Cold War. And so is the fact that North Korea, Pakistan, India, and Russia all have nuclear weapons – not to mention all those missing nukes which could end up, God forbid, in the hands of terrorists. And such is life these days in New York City, Washington, London and – especially – Seoul, where, just under the surface, is the fear that a catastrophe could happen at any time.

It also should be noted that for most of the world, the idea that Israel has 200-plus nuclear weapons and, unlike Iran, has not signed the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty  is itself deeply troubling. In fact, much of the world believes that Israel is so vehement about Iranian nukes because it wants to remain the only nuclear power in the Middle East, leaving it free to do what it wants, whenever it wants to. It enjoys its hegemony. That is what Yoffie is hinting at.

Nonetheless, I agree with him that the world, and not just Israel, would be better off if Iran never develops nuclear weapons.

But my idea of how to prevent a nuclear Iran is rather different than the rabbi's.

Here is Yoffie: "There is no conceivable solution to the threat of a nuclear Iran that will not require American leadership. All of the options – whether economic sanctions or military action – are impossible without American support."

Funny, Yoffie refers to "all" of the options when he only names two – sanctions or war. It is as if he intended to include the one option that makes sense, diplomacy, and changed his mind at the last minute. The "all" is a remnant of a thought he would not permit himself, either because he honestly opposes diplomacy or because he doesn't want to cross AIPAC.

Yoffie's alternatives are no alternatives at all. Sanctions won't work (except to punish ordinary Iranians and enrich those who defy the sanctions) and "military action" will produce nothing except more dead – including Americans – and, quite possibly, a regional war. War would also eliminate any chance that Israel will ever have peace with the Muslim world and would destroy America's standing in a critical region.

What is Yoffie thinking when he rules out diplomacy but rules in a third Middle East war? Is the preemptive slaughter of innocents really a legitimate option for civilized people in 2010? Well, it isn't for me or for the Reform Jews who look to Yoffie for leadership. (Jews are mostly doves and Reform Jews, to their credit, are the most dovish of all.)

It is war, not diplomacy, that belongs off the table. I'm sure Rabbi Yoffie knows that. That is what he should have written. 


www.huffingtonpost.com/mj-rosenberg/the-coming-iran-war_b_593434.html 

Beijing Suspects False Flag Attack on South Korean Corvette

The secretive US Special Operations Command (SOCOM) has revealed the data-handling features it would like to see on its planned new fleet of mini submarines for use by elite US Navy frogman-commandos. At the moment, the famous yet hush-hush Navy SEALs use the Swimmer Delivery Vehicle (SDV) Mark 8 Mod 1, a large electrically-propelled torpedo-like craft which typically operates from a “dry deck shelter” fitted to a full-size US nuclear submarine. The cylindrical deck shelter is hooked up to the sub’s aft escape hatch, functioning as an underwater docking bay for the mini-sub.




Wayne Madsen

Excerpt: “An investigation of the suspect torpedo's metallic and chemical fingerprints show it to be of German manufacture. There are suspicions that the US Navy SEALS maintains a sampling of European torpedoes for sake of plausible deniability for false flag attacks. Also, Berlin does not sell torpedoes to North Korea, however, Germany does maintain a close joint submarine and submarine weapons development program with Israel...”

WMR's intelligence sources in Asia suspect that the March attack on the South Korean Navy anti-submarine warfare (ASW) corvette, the Cheonan, was a false flag attack designed to appear as coming from North Korea.

One of the main purposes for increasing tensions on the Korean peninsula was to apply pressure on Japanese Prime Minister Yukio Hatoyama to reverse course on moving the U.S. Marine Corps base off Okinawa

Hatoyama has admitted that the tensions over the sinking of the Cheonan played a large part in his decision to allow the U.S. Marines to remain on Okinawa. Hatoyama's decision has resulted in a split in the ruling center-left coalition government, a development welcome in Washington, with Mizuho Fukushima, the Social Democratic Party leader threatening to bolt the coalition over the Okinawa reversal. 

The Cheonan was sunk near Baengnyeong Island, a westernmost spot that is far from the South Korean coast, but opposite the North Korean coast. The island is heavily militarized and within artillery fire range of North Korean coastal defenses, which lie across a narrow channel.

The  Cheonan, an ASW corvette, was decked out with state-of-the-art sonar, plus it was operating in waters with extensive hydrophone sonar arrays and acoustic underwater sensors. There is no South Korean sonar or audio evidence of a torpedo, submarine or mini-sub in the area. Since there is next to no shipping in the channel, the sea was silent at the time of the sinking.

However, Baengnyeong Island hosts a joint US-South Korea military intelligence base and the US Navy SEALS operate out of the base. In addition, four U.S. Navy ships were in the area, part of the joint U.S-South Korean Exercise Foal Eagle, during the sinking of the  Cheonan. An investigation of the suspect torpedo's metallic and chemical fingerprints show it to be of German manufacture. There are suspicions that the US Navy SEALS maintains a sampling of European torpedoes for sake of plausible deniability for false flag attacks. Also, Berlin does not sell torpedoes to North Korea, however, Germany does maintain a close joint submarine and submarine weapons development program with Israel.

The presence of the  USNS Salvor, one of the participants in Foal Eagle, so close to Baengnyeong Island during the sinking of the South Korean corvette also raises questions.

The  Salvor, a civilian Navy salvage ship, which participated in mine laying activities for the Thai Marines in the Gulf of Thailand in 2006, was present near the time of the blast with a complement of 12 deep sea divers.

Beijing, satisfied with North Korea's Kim Jong Il's claim of innocence after a hurried train trip from Pyongyang to Beijing, suspects the U.S. Navy's role in the Cheonan's sinking, with particular suspicion on the role of the Salvor. The suspicions are as follows:

1. The  Salvor engaged in a seabed mine-installation operation, in other words, attaching horizontally fired anti-submarine mines on the sea floor in the channel.

2. The  Salvor was doing routine inspection and maintenance on seabed mines, and put them into an electronic active mode (hair trigger release) as part of the inspection program.

3. A SEALS diver attached a magnetic mine to the  Cheonan, as part of a covert program aimed at influencing public opinion in South Korea, Japan and China.

The Korean peninsula tensions have conveniently overshadowed all other agenda items on Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's visits to Beijing and Seoul. 


http://onlinejournal.com/artman/publish/article_5930.shtml

Pot Calling Kettle Black Here Somewhere: Warner Bros. Sued for Pirating Anti-Piracy Technology

Andy Chalk

Warner Bros. has been sued by a German technology firm which claims the movie and television production company pirated its anti-piracy technology.

German firm Medien Patent Verwaltung claims that in 2003, it revealed a new kind of anti-piracy technology to Warner Bros. that marks films with specific codes so pirated copies can be traced back to their theaters of origin. But like a great, hilariously-ironic DRM Ouroborus, the company claims that Warner began using the system throughout Europe in 2004 but hasn't actually paid a dime for it.

"We disclosed our anti-piracy technology to Warner Bros. in 2003 at their request, under strict confidentiality, expecting to be treated fairly," the company said in a statement. "Instead, they started using our technology extensively without our permission and without any accounting to us."

Medien Patent Verwaltung originally claimed that Warner was infringing on patent 7,187,633, called "Motion Picture and Anti-Piracy Coding," but as The Hollywood Reporter discovered, the patent going by that particular name actually bears a different number and is held by none other than Warner Bros. MPV's attorney in New York acknowledged the error and said that the suit will be refiled with the proper information.

Which has no bearing on the question at hand: Is Warner Bros. using pirated anti-piracy technology? This one could be fun to watch.