Posted by: quiscus | June 27, 2009

June 27, 2009

1.  As a commenter says, obviously the reason US eradication efforts have failed is because the CIA makes billions from the drug trade:

“U.S. Gives Up On Eradicating Afghanistan’s Opium

Costa told Reuters on Saturday that U.S. opium eradication efforts had been a “sad joke” and a waste of lives, all to eliminate approximately three percent of the county’s production volume.”

http://www.911blogger.com/node/20495

2.  Where is the neat little pile of rubble and the cloud of dust?


Building collapse kills one worker in Shanghai

A 13-floor apartment building under construction collapses in Minhang district, Shanghai Saturday morning June 27, 2009, killing one worker.  [Xinhua]“

http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/china/2009-06/27/content_8330067.htm

3.  “Who to Trust on a Truth Commission?

While a truth commission to examine the crimes of the Bush administration has a certain appeal – especially if there’s not going to be a tough special prosecutor bringing criminal charges – there still would be the issue of who could fill the job of getting at the truth.

That’s because over the past three decades, the Washington media/political establishment has shown itself stunningly inept at conducting serious inquiries that can penetrate even the most implausible cover stories if a probe’s target has influential friends in high places.

Instead, investigations into difficult questions have usually settled for politically convenient half-answers, especially when the Democratic love of bipartisanship confronts Republican anger over holding accountable someone like Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush, Dick Cheney or George W. Bush.

The key staffing problem is that pretty much all the Wise Men and Wise Women of Washington have seen their reputations thrive in the hot house of intellectual corruption that has dominated the capital for the last 30 years — and thus they are hopelessly compromised.”

http://www.consortiumnews.com/2009/062609.html

4.  The run on Lehman started on 9/11/08:

“Goldman Sachs’ crash of markets last year was a false flag operation”

“This was a controlled demolition that was sponsored by Goldman Sachs.” “This was a false flag operation,” “The American people were scared out of their wits due to the financially engineered financial collapse by Goldman…” Very striking analogies to 9/11!!”

http://www.911blogger.com/node/20491

5.  “‘If I didn’t confess to 7/7 bombings MI5 officers would rape my wife,’ claims torture victim”

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1195484/If-I-didnt-confess-7-7-bombings-MI5-officers-rape-wife-claims-torture-victim.html

6.  “Is Barack Obama’s Realism Better than George W. Bush’s Idealism?

Obama’s pragmatism in foreign policy is more reassuring than the messianic meddling overseas of George W. Bush.  But if Obama is to avoid a common pitfall of realism — a dearth of values — he needs to value liberty at home above all and promulgate a restrained foreign policy that will preserve it.”

http://original.antiwar.com/eland/2009/06/26/is-barack-obamas-realism-better-than-george-w-bushs-idealism/

7.  “America’s “Bases of Empire”

Once upon a time, you could trace the spread of imperialism by counting up colonies. America’s version of the colony is the military base; and by following the changing politics of global basing, one can learn much about our ever more all-encompassing imperial footprint and the militarism that grows with it….even more than in past empires, a well-entrenched militarism (lies) at the heart of our imperial adventures.” To such an extreme that “each year we spend more on our armed forces than all others nations on Earth combined” to garrison troops “in more than 130 countries.”

http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=14104

8.  “Obama contemplates Executive Order for detention without charges

When Obama first unveiled his “preventive detention” policy, many defenders praised him (and claimed he was different than Bush) because of his vow that — as he put it — “my Administration will work with Congress to develop an appropriate legal regime.”  But now, relying exclusively on three Obama officials speaking behind a veil of anonymity, Peter Finn and Dafner Linza of The Washington Post and ProPublica report that the White House is “crafting language for an executive order that would reassert presidential authority to incarcerate terrorism suspects indefinitely.”  TPM calls thisthe latest installment in the Obama administration’s tendency to mimic the Bushies on war on terror tactics.”  And the article itself points out the obvious:  ”Such an order would embrace claims by former president George W. Bush that certain people can be detained without trial for long periods under the laws of war.”  Revealingly, the article quotes two Bush national security officials justifying the need for detention without charges.

There is one point in particular I really want to highlight about all of this:

There has now emerged a very clear — and very disturbing — pattern whereby Obama is willing to use legal mechanisms and recognize the authority of other branches only if he’s assured that he’ll get the outcome he wants. If he can’t get what he wants from those processes, he’ll just assert Bush-like unilateral powers to bypass those processes and do what he wants anyway.  In other words, what distinguishes Obama from the first-term Bush is that Obama is willing to indulge the charade that Congress, the courts and the rule of law have some role to play in political outcomes as long as they give him the power he wants.  But where those processes impede Obama’s will, he’ll just bypass them and assert the unilateral power to do what he wants anyway (by contrast, the first-term Bush was unwilling to go to Congress to get expanded powers even where Congress was eager to give them to him; the second-term Bush, like Obama, was willing to allow Congress to endorse his radical proposals:  hence, the Military Commissions Act, the Protect America Act, the FISA Amendments Act, etc.).

More important, look at the mentality being expressed — and about to be implemented — here:  there may be instances where we cannot get convictions because of witness unavailability or other logistical problems, so we’ll just imprison them anyway.  Does it really require any effort to demonstrate how dangerous that mentality is — that the President will have the power to order people imprisoned wherever there are some logistical barriers to obtaining convictions?  If there’s one principle that can be described as fundamental to the American founding, it’s that the state — and certainly the President — do not have the power to order people imprisoned without charges.  Thomas Jefferson said that trials by jury is “the only anchor ever yet imagined by man, by which a government can be held to the principles of its constitution.”  Why is this painfully obvious proposition still necessary to defend after the November election?”

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/

9.  “No Reason to Favor Private Health Insurers

In the national debate about health care reform absolutely nothing makes less sense than the positive views of much of the public about private health insurers. There is no good reason to have positive views of private health insurers, the companies that have relentlessly increased the costs for very limited health insurance. Copays, deductibles and premiums have raped those lucky enough to have health insurance while also making it very difficult much of the time to get coverage for all kinds of health problems. The US health care system is unbelievably inefficient, providing far less effective health care for what is incredibly high costs, compared to all other industrialized countries. The main reason is the private health insurance industry.

Part of the disinformation campaign is that people are being manipulated to think that a government insurance plan equates to government run health care itself, which is shear nonsense. Medicare users access exactly the same private health care system as those with private health insurance. Of course, private health insurers charge so much money that they pay physicians and hospitals more money than Medicare, which is primarily a tactic to keep much of those parts of the health care system supportive of maintaining the private insurance system.

http://informationclearinghouse.info/article22915.htm

Advertisement

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Categories

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.