1. “Keith Olbermann blames Bush, Cheney for 9/11 attacks
(1) How did “19 Arabs” suspend 3 of the laws of nature, at will, for a period of two hours that Tuesday morning?(If ‘they” can pull off stunts like that, we’ve really got a problem and a half…..)
(2) How did “19 Arabs” somehow run rings around the entire US military apparatus that morning for two straight hours, to the point that they failed to protect (or couldnt even be bothered to defend) even their own headquarters? (in other words, why bother with a $600 billion a year Pentagon budget if they can’t , and won’t defend our own soil?).
(3) How did “19 Arabs” know, while in the process of hijacking 2 of the 4 planes involved (77 and 93), that they could fly all the way to the Kentucky and Ohio borders respectively, that they would not be intercepted and challenged by fighter jets from a dozen or so air bases in the general area of their bizarrely tortuous flightpaths? The operation was allegedly planned years in advance (according to the official story), and the alleged hijackers knew nothing about the automatic FAA/NORAD scramble procedures which have worked with 100% effectiveness for years? Ha! This issue alone renders the official explanation a pile of bull-biscuits.
and ….
(4).. How did “al Qaeda” agents bypass security at the 3 buildings in the WTC and rig them with nano-thermite composites (exactly in the same parts of the Twin Towers that where the airplanes impacted)…. nanothermite being a state of the art explosive/incendiary only obtainable from US government weapons labs such as Lawrence Livermore. These AQ agents are pretty resourceful, huh Keith?
…
Keith, you are still being a weasel. You *know* that the “bin Laden/al Qaeda” stuff is bogus, untenable. While you still have a job, do the nation a service, be a patriot, and tell everyone the way it really is. History will look kindly on you if you do the right thing.
…
don’t forget that Olbermann is a liberal who works in the belly of the beast. It doesn’t surprise me that he and his ilk would self-censor. Speaking as someone who is decidedly left of liberal, my diagnosis of liberals is that, above all else, they want to be “respectable.” They want to be taken seriously and they have historically done this by finding the “crazies” to their left, and joining the ruling establishment in bashing them.”
http://www.911blogger.com/node/22597
2. Murderer:
“Under Obama, more targeted killings than captures in counterterrorism efforts”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/02/13/AR2010021303748_pf.html
3. “Report Ties Baptists’ Lawyer To Child Trafficking
The New York Times reported late Thursday that authorities in El Salvador are investigating whether the man representing the U.S. Baptists being held in Haiti is the same person suspected of leading a trafficking ring in that country involving Central American and Caribbean women and girls.”
http://cbs4.com/national/lawyer.baptists.Jorge.2.1492279.html
4. “Our human rights v. The Others
Why would National Review — which endorses far worse abuses when perpetrated on Muslims convicted of nothing — take up the cause of an accused child smuggler and possible child trafficker, and suddenly find such grave concern over detainee conditions? Or, to use their warped vernacular, which equates unproven accusations with guilt, why would National Review be advocating for the rights of child kidnappers and child traffickers? Because, as a Christian, Allen is deemed by National Review to deserve basic human rights, unlike the Muslim detainees whose (far worse) abuse they have long supported [in stark and commendable contrast to National Review, Southern Baptist leaders are also demanding that the Obama administration do more to secure the release of Allen and his fellow prisoners, but they at least have standing and credibility to do so, as the National Association of Evangelicals, the Southern Baptist Convention, and the leading Southern Baptist ethicist all condemned Bush policies as "torture" which "violates everything we stand for," although they did that quite belatedly].
…
The only thing worse than someone completely indifferent to human rights abuses when committed by their own government is someone whose concern for such matters is dictated by the religion or other demographic attributes of those whose basic rights are being denied. That’s the same mentality that leads our media to treat American journalists held by Evil Foreign Governments for a few weeks under dubious circumstances as screeching headline-making news, while ignoring almost completely those foreign (Muslim) journalists held by the U.S. Government for years without charges. How many Americans know and are outraged about Iran’s detention of Roxana Saberi, all while being completely ignorant of the numerous Muslim journalists held for years by the U.S., including a Reuters photojournalist, Ibrahim Jassam Mohammed, finally released last week after being held by the U.S. military for 17 months with no charges and even after an Iraqi court ordered him released? It’s the same mentality that allows the U.S. Government, with a straight face, to issue reports condemning as “torture” the very techniques we used, to protest indefinite detention, extra-judicial killings and lawless eavesdropping when engaged in by other countries, and to demand that other countries prosecute their war criminals and torturers in the name of “the rule of law” (while our own are feted on TV shows and given regular newspaper columns to glorify the torture and other war crimes they implemented).
…
The primary duty of a citizen is to protest bad acts by their own government. If you’re acquiescing to or even endorsing serious human rights abuses by your own government, then it’s not only morally absurd — but laughably ineffective — to parade around as some sort of human rights crusader when it comes time to protest the treatment of one of your own, however you might define that. It might produce some soothing feelings of self-satisfaction, but nobody will remotely take that seriously, nor should they.”
http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/02/14/haiti/index.html
5. As all surges are:
“Afghan Leaders Call Surge, “Imbecilic and Tragic”
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article24677.htm
6. ” What Do Empires Do?
How is it that so many people feel free to talk about empire when they mean a United States empire? The ideological orthodoxy had always been that, unlike other countries, the USA did not indulge in colonization and conquest.
The answer, I realized, is that the word has been divested of its full meaning. “Empire” seems nowadays to mean simply dominion and control. Empire—for most of these late-coming critics— is concerned almost exclusively with power and prestige. What is usually missing from the public discourse is the process of empire and its politico-economic content. In other words, while we hear a lot about empire, we hear very little about imperialism.
Now that is strange, for imperialism is what empires are all about. Imperialism is what empires do. And by imperialism I do not mean the process of extending power and dominion without regard to material and financial interests. Indeed “imperialism” has been used by some authors in the same empty way that they use the word “empire,” to simply denote dominion and control with little attention given to political economic realities.
But I define imperialism as follows: the process whereby the dominant investor interests in one country bring to bear their economic and military power upon another nation or region in order to expropriate its land, labor, natural resources, capital, and markets-in such a manner as to enrich the investor interests. In a word, empires do not just pursue “power for power’s sake.” There are real and enormous material interests at stake, fortunes to be made many times over.
So for centuries the ruling interests of Western Europe and later on North America and Japan went forth with their financiers—and when necessary their armies—to lay claim to most of planet Earth, including the labor of indigenous peoples, their markets, their incomes (through colonial taxation or debt control or other means), and the abundant treasures of their lands: their gold, silver, diamonds, copper, rum, molasses, hemp, flax, ebony, timber, sugar, tobacco, ivory, iron, tin, nickel, coal, cotton, corn, and more recently: uranium, manganese, titanium, bauxite, oil, and–say it again–oil. (Hardly a complete listing.)
Empires are enormously profitable for the dominant economic interests of the imperial nation but enormously costly to the people of the colonized country. In addition to suffering the pillage of their lands and natural resources, the people of these targeted countries are frequently killed in large numbers by the intruders.
This is another thing that empires do which too often goes unmentioned in the historical and political literature of countries like the United States, Britain, and France. Empires impoverish whole populations and kill lots and lots of innocent people. As I write this, President Obama and the national security state for which he works are waging two and a half wars (Iraq, Afghanistan, and northern Pakistan), and leveling military threats against Yemen, Iran, and, on a slow day, North Korea. Instead of sending medical and rescue aid to Haiti, Our Bomber sent in the Marines, the same Marines who engaged in years of mass murder in Haiti decades ago and supported more recent massacres by proxy forces.
The purpose of all this killing is to prevent alternative, independent, self-defining nations from emerging. So the empire uses its state power to gather private wealth for its investor class. And it uses its public wealth to shore up its state power and prevent other nations from self-developing.“
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article24678.htm
7. “The Monopolization of America
A handful of multinational corporations controlling each industry – or the supply chains of each industry.
Such dominant monopolies were illegal just thirty years ago.
But that all changed with Ronald Reagan and Robert Bork.
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article24680.htm
8. “Dreyfus, The Protocols and Goldstone
Unlike divided France that couldn’t make up its mind about Dreyfus, we are not divided about Israel being a criminal state and the biggest threat to world peace. The repulsion towards Israel and its brutality is actually a growing unifying force amongst humanists, peace lovers and the world at large. Israel will not be exonerated and considering the fact that it defines itself as the Jewish state, its crimes reflect disastrously on Jews as a collective, something that not even a dozen Jewish anti Zionist activists around the world can change. From an historical perspective it is rather clear that Israel has been very successful in exhausting the last drops of sympathy garnered for the idea of Jewish nationalism. As it happens, not a single humanist stands up against Goldstone or his balanced report.
…
However whether or not the Protocols is a fictional text or a forgery doesn’t change the fact that it explores our disastrous contemporary reality. A reality in which we are killing en mass the enemies of Israel in the ‘name of democracy’, a reality in which Dershowitz himself puts enormous effort into cleansing academia of any critical voices of Israel, Zionism and Jewish power in America and the West.
This is exactly where Goldstone is coming into the picture. In the last century we have been witnessing an evolving murderous Jewish nationalist movement. A movement that was born in part due to a calculated misinterpretation of the Dreyfus affair. For a century, the Zionist movement has managed to silence its critics using different tactics that are all explored in that fictional text from 1903. Zionism was very successful; it managed to mature into a state, at the expense of the Palestinian people. Only through violent expansionist methods including massacres and racially orientated ethnic cleansing have the Zionists and Israel managed to fulfill what they define as the Jewish national aspiration. But as Goldstone reveals, this aspiration matured into a criminal state that is terrorizing its indigenous population and threatening its neighbours
If we ever want to amend the reality we live in, we must curtail the Zionist operators in our midst, in the government, in politics, in the media, in academia, in finance and in the legal system. I am not talking here about Jews but about Zionists, people who are affiliated with a specific foreign tribal interest that counters universalism, ethics and humanism. Unless we do that we may soon have to face another Goldstone report investigating a much greater Zionist crime against humanity.
If we want to help Israelis and Jewish nationalists recover from their nationalist racist fanatical dream, we must persuade them that the Goldstone report is their new Bible, a recent catalogue of their departure from humanity.”
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article24671.htm
