1. In early August the US said that Russia attacked Georgia. I said at the time that Georgia attacked Russia with troops trained by US and Israel military officers in an attempt to make the US public think McCain was the right man to fight back against Russia – and take votes away from Obama. Now the European military has concluded that I was right, and the US government was telling purposeful lies to cover up a false flag attack:
“A damning admission on the Georgian war
The New York Times on Friday carried a front-page article headlined “Accounts Undercut Claims by Georgia on Russia War.” The article cited a report by the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), a multinational association of 56 member states whose monitors were in Georgia when the fighting broke out, which demolishes the official US account of the August 2008 Russian-Georgian war, according to which the war was an act of Russian aggression.
The OSCE concluded that the conflict began on August 7 when US-trained Georgian troops shelled Russian peacekeepers and civilians in the capital of Georgia’s breakaway province of South Ossetia, Tskhinvali.
…
OSCE monitors refuted Georgian claims that Georgian forces were responding to a Russian attack.
…
“It was clear to me that the [Georgian] attack was completely indiscriminate and disproportionate to any, if indeed there had been any, provocation.”
…
US government and media reporting at the time turned reality on its head, denouncing Russia in chorus for its “aggression.” As Russia sent reinforcements to South Ossetia and expelled Georgian forces, President Bush denounced Russia’s response as “disproportionate.” Vice President Dick Cheney said, “Russian aggression must not go unanswered,” adding that its continuation would have “serious consequences” for Russia’s relations with the United States.
In its August 12 editorial, the Times wrote, “Moscow claims it is merely defending the rights of ethnic minorities in South Ossetia and Abkhazia, which have been trying to break from Georgia since the early 1990s. But its ambitions go far beyond that. Prime Minister Vladimir Putin [...] appears determined to reimpose by force and intimidation as much of the old Soviet sphere of influence as he can get away with.”
…
In fact, the OSCE report completely refutes the US line, which was shot through with inconsistencies. While seeking to place the blame on Russia, the US media also spread claims that Georgian forces had acted without US knowledge—even though the US kept over 100 military advisors in Georgia in the run-up to the invasion, which followed soon after a major exercise with US forces entitled “Immediate Response 2008.”
Washington seized on the Russian-Georgian conflict to place missile defenses and troops in Poland and the Czech Republic, raising the specter of a direct military clash with Russia. It dismissed Russian claims of Georgian aggression out of hand.
…
First and foremost is the utter unreliability of the US political establishment and media, which expressed hardly any dissenting views, even as more critical accounts emerged in the European press in sharp contradiction to their accounts.”
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2008/nov2008/pers-n08.shtml
2. ” Sarah Palin blamed by the US Secret Service over death threats against Barack Obama
Sarah Palin’s attacks on Barack Obama’s patriotism provoked a spike in death threats against the future president, Secret Service agents revealed during the final weeks of the campaign.
The Republican vice presidential candidate attracted criticism for accusing Mr Obama of “palling around with terrorists”, citing his association with the sixties radical William Ayers.
The attacks provoked a near lynch mob atmosphere at her rallies, with supporters yelling “terrorist” and “kill him” until the McCain campaign ordered her to tone down the rhetoric.
But it has now emerged that her demagogic tone may have unintentionally encouraged white supremacists to go even further.
The Secret Service warned the Obama family in mid October that they had seen a dramatic increase in the number of threats against the Democratic candidate, coinciding with Mrs Palin’s attacks.
Michelle Obama, the future First Lady, was so upset that she turned to her friend and campaign adviser Valerie Jarrett and said: “Why would they try to make people hate us?”
The revelations, contained in a Newsweek history of the campaign, are likely to further damage Mrs Palin’s credentials as a future presidential candidate.”
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/uselection2008/sarahpalin/3405336/Sarah-Palin-blamed-by-the-US-Secret-Service-for-death-threats-against-Barack-Obama.html
3. “McCain got all blustery when John Lewis accused his campaign of sowing the seeds of hate. But of course Lewis was perfectly right.
Anyone who knows the history of race relations in the United States knows that accusing a Black man of ‘paling around with terrorists’ is the prelude to a lynching.
McCain and Palin knew exactly what they were unleashing with that line, as did Neocon Randy Scheunemann.
It should be remembered that rightwing rhetoric in Israel lambasting Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin as a traitor was implicated in whipping up an Orthodox assassin to kill him, thus destroying the Oslo peace process.
Words have consequences, even ignorant disconnected words like those of Sarah Palin.
…
President-elect Barack Obama said Friday that “Iran’s development of a nuclear weapon, I believe is unacceptable. . . Iran’s support of terrorist organizations, I think is something that has to cease.”
What I cannot understand is why American politicians who speak publicly on this issue do not at least acknowledge that to the best information of the American intelligence community, Iran has no nuclear weapons research program,as opposed to a civilian enrichment research program. A pdf of the National Intelligence Estimate on this issue is here. The Bushies and “anonymous senior officials” vowed that the NIE would not be allowed to enter the national debate on this issue and that they would ignore it and go on insisting that Iran has a weapons program. Since they lost, can’t we lose the alarmist rhetoric on all this?”
http://www.juancole.com/
4. “As President-elect, Obama is already receiving daily briefings from the CIA.
There are many important questions which Obama could ask about, and which “normal” Senators and congress people wouldn’t have the power or the security clearance to get answers to.
But I believe the most important question is whether the continuity of government plans implemented on 9/11 are still in effect.
Because – if they are – Obama would not be sworn in on January 20, 2009 as President of the constitutional American government, but rather as the powerless figurehead of an unconstitutional shadow government.
Wouldn’t that little difference make it important to find out one way or the other? Wouldn’t Obama want to know if he would be the leader of the Executive Branch, or whether Paulson, or Cheney, or Pelosi or somebody else is really calling the shots because they were anointed under COG emergency measures?
Remember, the White House has specifically refused to share information about Continuity of Government plans with the Homeland Security Committee of the U.S. Congress, even though that Committee has proper security clearance to hear the full details of all COG plans.
Obama might be the only person who can find out whether or not COG government is still in effect.
Some might argue that this issue is moot, because Obama will just cancel all unconstitutional activities after he is sworn in. However, if he doesn’t get to the bottom of the COG issue, shadowy forces outside of his field of vision may still control events during his Presidency.”
http://georgewashington2.blogspot.com/2008/11/what-obama-should-ask-his-cia-briefers.html
6. “You see, he’s so reasonable and civil and polite in how he conducts himself that it’s really wrong to say anything so critical about him. But, as one of his own commenters pointed out so adeptly, that is precisely the point:
Whether or not the policies are “radical” in terms of popular or political support, [Greenwald] believes them to be a radical departure from our constitutional principles. If you believed as he does, outrage would indeed be the proper response — one of his objections to what’s been going on is precisely the willingness to discuss outrageous policies (torture, unlimited executive authority) as if they were reasonable. The argument is simple: constitutional constraint depends on elites and ordinary citizens not merely *disapproving* of governmental overreach but *hating* it, being *outraged* by it — if constitutional violations become merely one area of policy disagreement to be traded off against others, republican government is doomed.
That’s exactly the point. The Bush administration was able to get away with its extremism and lawlessness over the past eight years because elites and “experts” sat around oh-so-civilly and self-importantly and reasonably debating these actions as though they were legitimate, as though support for those policies was worthy of serious and respectful consideration, as though the advocates of these policies were Serious People within our political mainstream, and — most of all — as though outrage and anger and revulsion over what the Bush administration was doing was only for the shrill, irresponsible and uncouth rabble.”
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/
7. “Why the GM – Cerberus – Chrysler bailout is bad for taxpayers”
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article21171.htm
8. “ I don’t want to make money or live in a militarily strong country. I don’t want to see America rule the world. I just want our country to do the right thing when it comes to its citizens. I want the middle class to grow again. I want our children to get a first class education. Terrorism is overstated and used to disguise wars for resources. We should be spending our time devising new alternative energies. We should be spending more on cancer research and less on weapons of war. We should be able to feed and clothe our poorest of citizens. We should stop borrowing against the future and we should be working to cure the ills of today. One more M1A1 Tank will not feed a community. The statues quo is criminal. It was devised and put in place by criminals. They should be charged for crimes against humanity.”
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article21167.htm
