~
“Massive Leak of Secret Files Exposes True Afghan War” – The Guardian - (Gasp!!)
“Leak Itself Gains More Attention Than the Contents” – Washington Post (Yawn…)
"Nothing We Didn't Already know..." Post article content
“The emerging picture from this leak adds up to little more than what we knew already – that the war in Afghanistan was deteriorating over the past several years, and that we were not winning" - John McCain.
“Leaks? What Leaks? You mean oil?” – New York Times (Hey, we got a story here… how do you turn this computer on?...)
(Okay, just kidding about the New York Times headline)
There are many comments to the effect that there is “nothing new” in the Afghanistan war files revealed by WIKILEAKS in the last 24 hours, nothing that we didn’t expect to see. In other words, military & America-speak for “None of this is important so don’t pay any attention to it.” (and even if it is important we’re not going to admit it…)
Poor military. Poor politicians. They hate it when secrets get revealed. Of course, they’re in the business of secrets, aren’t they? When a covert story becomes a cover story, then the whole point of covert becomes moot.
Earlier today the headlines were groaning and a little panicky – Wikileaks blew the cover, everything is going to hell in a hurry, all the secrets are out, no telling what the damage will be, etc...
The Guardian broke the story. The Washington Post picked it up. The New York Times?
Never even ran the story in their early online edition, until this afternoon someone over there finally realized this was a real news story. Here is their eventual headline: Document Leak May Hurt Efforts To Build War Support.
War support?
In other words, the leak may hurt President Obama’s efforts to “sell” the war.
It is, I admit, difficult to contain my reaction to this, so I must at once let my readers know how I feel:
Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha ….
War support? Our troops have been over there for 9 years! We’re in the most unpopular war(s) in America’s history next to Viet Nam. It’s no secret on the street that the vast majority of Americans (& non-Americans) want us out of there. Obama said in his campaign speeches that many of the troops would be on their way home by now, and what happened?
He didn’t do it. Instead he escalated the war. So…he lied.
And he is worried that some leaks about an ugly nasty dirty slimy war that goes on and on and scrapes against every Geneva convention is going to make it difficult for him to “sell” us on the war?
Am I missing something here?
Still, I digress somewhat. The gist of “official” reactions to the leaked documents was “nothing we didn’t already know.” But I say…Who? Nothing WHO didn’t already know? You guys the military or you guys the politicians? You don’t mean we the public, do you? Or do you?
I say the public doesn’t know very much about the Afghan war at all, and hasn’t ever since its inception, or the Iraq war, or Pakistan, or the debacle with Iran. All we get here at home are pictures in the paper of some soldiers frisking someone in some town, or someone in robes walking down a road. They could be anyone, anywhere in the Middle East. How are we to trust the story we are being told? Videos on the news show the same 10 second footage four or five times over the course of a news story, and, from that, we the people in America are supposed to know what is going on over there?
Thank God for the internet or we wouldn’t get any news at all, no shots of Israeli soldiers beating up old ladies and children, or intimidating teen age boys, or dropping onto ships loaded with Gaza relief supplies and killing several people. No shots of depleted uranium turning people’s faces into play-dough and melting their limbs off.
If the leaking of documents means that your military war councils have been screwed up, General, then I say Thank God Almighty! Screw the war! Everyone else is going out of business in this country thanks to your bloated military budget. Why shouldn’t you be out of a job also?
The leaked documents purport to show, among other things, how ill-treated civilians have been by soldiers of all sides in this war. If that is the only thing to come out of these documents into the public consciousness, then I say Good for Wikileaks for getting the documents out there, before you insane politicians and military people shut off the internet and do something really stupid.
If death and destruction and torture is old hat to you, and nothing really new, then I would love to be a fly on the wall when you all meet your maker.
~
Monday, July 26, 2010
Afghanistan war logs: Wikileaks founder rebuts White House criticism | World news | guardian.co.uk
Afghanistan war logs: Wikileaks founder rebuts White House criticism | World news | guardian.co.uk
WikiLeaks today released over 75,000 secret US military reports covering the war in Afghanistan. The documents, written by soldiers and military leaders, covers the years 2004-2010. The White House, naturally, is not pleased. Neither, I'm sure, are several generals and subordinate officers.
Julian Assange, the founder of Wikileaks, defended his right to publish the documents. According to Assange, the secret files show that "thousands" of war crimes may have been committed in Afghanistan.
See http://wardiary.wikileaks.org/
No one in the Nixon White House was pleased with Daniel Ellsberg in 1971 when he released the Pentagon Papers - a top-secret Pentagon study of US government decision-making about the Vietnam War - to The New York Times and other newspapers. Many of the documents in the Pentagon Papers, also written by military leaders, admitted that the VietNam war was not "winnable", and were also critical and cynical of American citizens protesters against the war.
Assange rejected accusations that the leak had compromised America's national security.
For astrologers out there, this particular day, as Assange publishes the war documents through Wikileaks, transiting Saturn is exactly opposing transiting Uranus. This underscores the importance of this event, shedding light on the dark underbelly of war and politics.
WikiLeaks today released over 75,000 secret US military reports covering the war in Afghanistan. The documents, written by soldiers and military leaders, covers the years 2004-2010. The White House, naturally, is not pleased. Neither, I'm sure, are several generals and subordinate officers.
Julian Assange, the founder of Wikileaks, defended his right to publish the documents. According to Assange, the secret files show that "thousands" of war crimes may have been committed in Afghanistan.
See http://wardiary.wikileaks.org/
No one in the Nixon White House was pleased with Daniel Ellsberg in 1971 when he released the Pentagon Papers - a top-secret Pentagon study of US government decision-making about the Vietnam War - to The New York Times and other newspapers. Many of the documents in the Pentagon Papers, also written by military leaders, admitted that the VietNam war was not "winnable", and were also critical and cynical of American citizens protesters against the war.
"The public is lied to every day by the President, by his spokespeople, by his officers. If you can’t handle the thought that the President lies to the public for all kinds of reasons, you couldn’t stay in the government at that level, or you’re made aware of it, a week. … The fact is Presidents rarely say the whole truth—essentially, never say the whole truth—of what they expect and what they’re doing and what they believe and why they’re doing it and rarely refrain from lying, actually, about these matters." - Daniel Ellsberg, 1998
Assange rejected accusations that the leak had compromised America's national security.
"We are familiar with groups whose abuse we expose attempting to criticise the messenger to distract from the power of the message."
For astrologers out there, this particular day, as Assange publishes the war documents through Wikileaks, transiting Saturn is exactly opposing transiting Uranus. This underscores the importance of this event, shedding light on the dark underbelly of war and politics.
Friday, July 23, 2010
The U.S. Incursion of Costa Rica (and, in time, other places...)
The recent “incursion” of 200 U.S. military helicopters and 46 war ships to Costa Rica, along with 7000 U.S. Marines, begs the question: Why? The tiny country, about the size of Rhode Island, abolished its military in 1948. What’s more, Costa Rica has freely given the U.S. permission to be there. This military action, already in motion, will take place between July 1 and December 1.
So why?!
The most ready answer is so that the U.S. can fight “drug trafficking” in the area, but this is highly unlikely. As some other writers have pointed out, the military is not equipped to handle the subtleties of drug wars. You need surgical instruments, not a broadsword. This is a lot of military force for the purpose of combating drugs.
A more likely answer lies in the geography of the area. Costa Rica lies next door to Panama. Costa Rica, like Panama, is an Isthmus, a narrow strip of land with the Atlantic to the east and Pacific to the west. The country of Panama is the owner of the world-iconic Panama Canal built in the early 20th century (started by the French in 1881 and finished by the U.S. in 1914), leased by the United States from Panama until Dec 31, 1999, when it reverted back to Panama.
The Panama Canal is the only shortcut from the Atlantic Ocean to the Pacific, as everyone learned in History class. Militarily, control of the canal is a sound idea, like a bouncer at the barroom door if you're not sure of all the shady characters (ships) coming and going. But surely all this military might is not there to guard the Panama Canal...
Relations between Panama and the U.S. are generally good. (Except for the Manuel Noriega history.) Panama’s eastern border is the boundary between the Isthmus of Panama and South America, specifically the country of Columbia. Relations between Columbia and the U.S. are generally good. Columbia’s neighbor to the east is Venezuela. Relations between Columbia and Venezuela are antagonistic at best.
Relations between Venezuela and the U.S. are also antagonistic. Venezuela has vast oil reserves. Venezuela’s President Hugo Chavez has made great pretexts in the past of presenting discounted oil to various countries, some to the U.S. itself. Venezuela has also expressed its solidarity with Iran and its President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Outspoken Chavez has, like Ahmadinejad, expressed his contempt of Israel.
The U.S. is currently Israel’s strongest ally, and has been since Israel’s creation in 1948, largely (in the U.S. eyes) because of Israel’s important position in the oil rich middle-east area.
Perhaps the real reason the U.S. is off the coast of Costa Rica, so close strategically to Venezuela, is best offered by the socialist leader Chavez himself. Chavez severed diplomatic ties with Columbia on July 22, 2010, amidst Columbia’s claims that Venezuela was harboring leftist rebels. Chavez denied the accusations and decided to end the diplomatic relationship.
Chavez has argued in the past that U.S. officials are using Colombia as part of a broader plan to portray him as a supporter of terrorist groups to provide justification for U.S. military intervention in Venezuela.
"(Chavez) said the United States is using Colombia to undermine Venezuela's efforts toward regional integration. He said he has doubts that Colombia's president-elect, Juan Manuel Santos, will stray from Uribe's (Columbia's outgoing Prez) U.S.-backed military policies." -
From http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hCIKDzMk3thB2iiP8uhH7lXThSCQD9H4BCH00
Ending diplomatic ties with a neighbor is one polite way of thumbing one’s nose, but closing embassies and sending people packing – Chavez closed the embassy in Bogotá and gave Columbia’s ambassador 72 hours to leave Venezuela - is stronger language. If this diplomatic cold war should evolve into more physical aggression, Columbia could call on U.S. aid, (which may be part of the plan) and the U.S. could establish bases (and various weaponry) in Columbia. The result would be an effective U.S. stronghold in northern South America, and in a strategic vantage point to seize Venezuela’s oil fields. Recently, in June 2010, Venezuela's government seized control of 11 oil rigs owned by U.S. driller Helmerich & Payne, which shut them down because the state oil company was behind on payments. The rigs are now "nationalized." The U.S. will not look favorably on this, and adds incentive for this unusual military build-up in Costa Rica. Though the U.S. claims it will leave after 6 months, it is highly unlikely. When the U.S. military comes knocking, especially a force of this size, it is not just a diplomatic visit. They are there to stay.
In addition, BP, (and Deepwater Horizon) of the now world-famous Gulf Oil Debacle, has had ambitious plans for some time to establish its foothold into Brazilian deep water drilling. The U.S. is also very interested. There may be a connection here as well.
In order to see things more clearly, one thing should be clear:
Nothing in today’s world is as clear as it seems.
~
So why?!
The most ready answer is so that the U.S. can fight “drug trafficking” in the area, but this is highly unlikely. As some other writers have pointed out, the military is not equipped to handle the subtleties of drug wars. You need surgical instruments, not a broadsword. This is a lot of military force for the purpose of combating drugs.
A more likely answer lies in the geography of the area. Costa Rica lies next door to Panama. Costa Rica, like Panama, is an Isthmus, a narrow strip of land with the Atlantic to the east and Pacific to the west. The country of Panama is the owner of the world-iconic Panama Canal built in the early 20th century (started by the French in 1881 and finished by the U.S. in 1914), leased by the United States from Panama until Dec 31, 1999, when it reverted back to Panama.
The Panama Canal is the only shortcut from the Atlantic Ocean to the Pacific, as everyone learned in History class. Militarily, control of the canal is a sound idea, like a bouncer at the barroom door if you're not sure of all the shady characters (ships) coming and going. But surely all this military might is not there to guard the Panama Canal...
Relations between Panama and the U.S. are generally good. (Except for the Manuel Noriega history.) Panama’s eastern border is the boundary between the Isthmus of Panama and South America, specifically the country of Columbia. Relations between Columbia and the U.S. are generally good. Columbia’s neighbor to the east is Venezuela. Relations between Columbia and Venezuela are antagonistic at best.
Relations between Venezuela and the U.S. are also antagonistic. Venezuela has vast oil reserves. Venezuela’s President Hugo Chavez has made great pretexts in the past of presenting discounted oil to various countries, some to the U.S. itself. Venezuela has also expressed its solidarity with Iran and its President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Outspoken Chavez has, like Ahmadinejad, expressed his contempt of Israel.
The U.S. is currently Israel’s strongest ally, and has been since Israel’s creation in 1948, largely (in the U.S. eyes) because of Israel’s important position in the oil rich middle-east area.
Perhaps the real reason the U.S. is off the coast of Costa Rica, so close strategically to Venezuela, is best offered by the socialist leader Chavez himself. Chavez severed diplomatic ties with Columbia on July 22, 2010, amidst Columbia’s claims that Venezuela was harboring leftist rebels. Chavez denied the accusations and decided to end the diplomatic relationship.
Chavez has argued in the past that U.S. officials are using Colombia as part of a broader plan to portray him as a supporter of terrorist groups to provide justification for U.S. military intervention in Venezuela.
"(Chavez) said the United States is using Colombia to undermine Venezuela's efforts toward regional integration. He said he has doubts that Colombia's president-elect, Juan Manuel Santos, will stray from Uribe's (Columbia's outgoing Prez) U.S.-backed military policies." -
From http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hCIKDzMk3thB2iiP8uhH7lXThSCQD9H4BCH00
Ending diplomatic ties with a neighbor is one polite way of thumbing one’s nose, but closing embassies and sending people packing – Chavez closed the embassy in Bogotá and gave Columbia’s ambassador 72 hours to leave Venezuela - is stronger language. If this diplomatic cold war should evolve into more physical aggression, Columbia could call on U.S. aid, (which may be part of the plan) and the U.S. could establish bases (and various weaponry) in Columbia. The result would be an effective U.S. stronghold in northern South America, and in a strategic vantage point to seize Venezuela’s oil fields. Recently, in June 2010, Venezuela's government seized control of 11 oil rigs owned by U.S. driller Helmerich & Payne, which shut them down because the state oil company was behind on payments. The rigs are now "nationalized." The U.S. will not look favorably on this, and adds incentive for this unusual military build-up in Costa Rica. Though the U.S. claims it will leave after 6 months, it is highly unlikely. When the U.S. military comes knocking, especially a force of this size, it is not just a diplomatic visit. They are there to stay.
In addition, BP, (and Deepwater Horizon) of the now world-famous Gulf Oil Debacle, has had ambitious plans for some time to establish its foothold into Brazilian deep water drilling. The U.S. is also very interested. There may be a connection here as well.
In order to see things more clearly, one thing should be clear:
Nothing in today’s world is as clear as it seems.
~
Thursday, July 22, 2010
The Associated Press: Obamas to vacation on Florida's Gulf Coast in Aug.
The Associated Press: Obamas to vacation on Florida's Gulf Coast in Aug.
Boy, would I love to be President! Then I could take at least 12 vacations each year, one a month. what a life.
Anyway, my hat's off to Michelle Obama, who alerted the nation recently to the simple, overlooked solution to helping the abysmal Gulf Oil Situation.
Forget about going down to Louisiana and nearby parts and putting on platex gloves and important-looking orange suits and trying to physically clean up oil with a corexit sponge and running into impossibly obese policemen with high blood pressure and bellies the size of east Texas.
(To understand this, go to this video)
It is sooo obvious. (Slap to forehead.) Why didn't I think of this? I could paraphrase, but it is far better to let Michelle explain her solution:
Here's Michelle:
Quote: "One of the best ways that fellow Americans can help is to come on down here and spend some money," Mrs. Obama said this month in Panama City Beach, Fla., where she strolled barefoot in the (clean) sand and bought a cup of chocolate ice cream.
"On their trips to the region, both the president and Mrs. Obama have made a point of encouraging people to visit Gulf Coast beaches that are open and oil-free to help boost an area economy battered by the sharp decline in tourism that followed the spill. end quote.
(from Google news & CBS news, although CBS left out Michelle's direct quote. I wonder why?)
Remember George Bush's advice to recuperate from the horror of 9-11? Go shopping. And he kept on it. Here's a quote from 2007:
So go on down, as the President's wife suggests. All the merchants in the oily coastal areas are already screwed. But you'll be helping out the merchants in the open and oil-free areas tremendously.
If you can still find any.
~
Boy, would I love to be President! Then I could take at least 12 vacations each year, one a month. what a life.
Anyway, my hat's off to Michelle Obama, who alerted the nation recently to the simple, overlooked solution to helping the abysmal Gulf Oil Situation.
Forget about going down to Louisiana and nearby parts and putting on platex gloves and important-looking orange suits and trying to physically clean up oil with a corexit sponge and running into impossibly obese policemen with high blood pressure and bellies the size of east Texas.
(To understand this, go to this video)
It is sooo obvious. (Slap to forehead.) Why didn't I think of this? I could paraphrase, but it is far better to let Michelle explain her solution:
Here's Michelle:
Quote: "One of the best ways that fellow Americans can help is to come on down here and spend some money," Mrs. Obama said this month in Panama City Beach, Fla., where she strolled barefoot in the (clean) sand and bought a cup of chocolate ice cream.
"On their trips to the region, both the president and Mrs. Obama have made a point of encouraging people to visit Gulf Coast beaches that are open and oil-free to help boost an area economy battered by the sharp decline in tourism that followed the spill. end quote.
(from Google news & CBS news, although CBS left out Michelle's direct quote. I wonder why?)
Remember George Bush's advice to recuperate from the horror of 9-11? Go shopping. And he kept on it. Here's a quote from 2007:
As we work with Congress in the coming year to chart a new course in Iraq and strengthen our military to meet the challenges of the 21st century, we must also work together to achieve important goals for the American people here at home. This work begins with keeping our economy growing. … I encourage you all to go shopping more.
So go on down, as the President's wife suggests. All the merchants in the oily coastal areas are already screwed. But you'll be helping out the merchants in the open and oil-free areas tremendously.
If you can still find any.
~
Campaign For Liberty — Obama's War on the Internet ��| by Philip Giraldi
MORE Signs of the Times!!
Campaign For Liberty — Obama's War on the Internet
Also see: this article
You are about to lose internet access. Maybe not all at once, but incrementally.
You will not only lose most of the "private" internet access you enjoy now, but the access you have remaining you will pay through the nose for.
Think I'm exaggerating?
From the article:
"...Governments of the world have been rocked by the power of the internet and are seeking to gain control of it so that they will have a virtual monopoly on information that the public is able to access."
Why would they do that?
1. "The anonymity of the internet has permitted criminal behavior, fraud, pornography, and libel."
2. "Managing the internet is an integral part of the "global war on terror" in that it is used by terrorists to plan their attacks requiring governments to control those who use it."
These are great reasons to quash the internet - if you are a paranoid schizophrenic:
-or a politician
-or a Federal Reserve "banker"
-or the military
Are these my reasons? Or yours? Of course not. But they are Joseph Lieberman's reasons, who introduced an internet regulation bill, and other politicians who feel as he does, that there is too much "free" information flowing on the internet. "Free" is the operative word here. In other words, there's money to be made in regulation.
Also see: this article on Joseph Lieberman
There is only one reason for putting the brakes on the internet:
-to control the information you have access to.
In other words, some world leaders and movers & shakers do not want you to know the truth about what is really going on in the world.
They want you to be so caught up in working, paying your bills, making ends meet that you have no time to think about how they are running the world and waging war and impoverishing countries, and especially how they are getting you to pay for it. If you have too much time on your hands, you might think too hard and figure things out. You just might decide to revolt and say NO.
And of course that is the last thing they want. They do not want you to have time enough to see the big picture.
~
Campaign For Liberty — Obama's War on the Internet
Also see: this article
You are about to lose internet access. Maybe not all at once, but incrementally.
You will not only lose most of the "private" internet access you enjoy now, but the access you have remaining you will pay through the nose for.
Think I'm exaggerating?
From the article:
"...Governments of the world have been rocked by the power of the internet and are seeking to gain control of it so that they will have a virtual monopoly on information that the public is able to access."
Why would they do that?
1. "The anonymity of the internet has permitted criminal behavior, fraud, pornography, and libel."
2. "Managing the internet is an integral part of the "global war on terror" in that it is used by terrorists to plan their attacks requiring governments to control those who use it."
These are great reasons to quash the internet - if you are a paranoid schizophrenic:
-or a politician
-or a Federal Reserve "banker"
-or the military
Are these my reasons? Or yours? Of course not. But they are Joseph Lieberman's reasons, who introduced an internet regulation bill, and other politicians who feel as he does, that there is too much "free" information flowing on the internet. "Free" is the operative word here. In other words, there's money to be made in regulation.
Also see: this article on Joseph Lieberman
There is only one reason for putting the brakes on the internet:
-to control the information you have access to.
In other words, some world leaders and movers & shakers do not want you to know the truth about what is really going on in the world.
They want you to be so caught up in working, paying your bills, making ends meet that you have no time to think about how they are running the world and waging war and impoverishing countries, and especially how they are getting you to pay for it. If you have too much time on your hands, you might think too hard and figure things out. You just might decide to revolt and say NO.
And of course that is the last thing they want. They do not want you to have time enough to see the big picture.
~
Army reports record number of suicides for June - USATODAY.com
More Signs of the Times
Army reports record number of suicides for June - USATODAY.com
I'm rather surprised (and glad) that this was reported by USA Today, but it does still make me skeptical, because I feel we can trust our national media less than we can trust the US Dollar. But the content does not surprise me. I have been hearing about the increased suicide rate in armed forces for some time now, and it is about time it came to light.
Because I do not trust the media, government, banks, and especially the military to tell us the truth, these suicide statistics are probably higher, just as "body counts" (ours & theirs) are usually higher.
Take note of a few things:
-the military suicide rate is higher than the national average
-the Marines suicide rate is the highest of all (per 100,000)
-(From the article): "A leading military suicide researcher says changing a culture that views psychological illness as a weakness takes time."
Huh?!
I am still trying to wrap my brain around this statement. In other words, ordering soldiers to destroy a culture by killing mostly innocent men, women and children, torturing, maiming, humiliating - and then continuing to do this globally, downplaying the horror by calling these worldly warring engagements "theaters" of war - is this not the real psychological illness?...And yet this is not seen as weakness...
Some other facts to ponder:
-the US has now been fighting in Iraq & Afghanistan for 9 YEARS!
-the US is gradually engaging a war with Iran
-the US is provoking an ongoing war between N & S Korea
-the US is establishing a heavy presence off Costa Rica, a small country that abolished its military in 1948 because it didn't NEED a military. Why is the US there? To send a message to Hugo Chavez of Venezuela. What could the US possibly want with Hugo Chavez (besides Oil)?
(See my separate blog on this subject)
Another war coming up?
And more military suicides...
Is it any wonder the suicide statistics are going up? And with more and more war on the horizon, do you think these Statistics are going to go down anytime soon?
When pigs fly.
~
Army reports record number of suicides for June - USATODAY.com
I'm rather surprised (and glad) that this was reported by USA Today, but it does still make me skeptical, because I feel we can trust our national media less than we can trust the US Dollar. But the content does not surprise me. I have been hearing about the increased suicide rate in armed forces for some time now, and it is about time it came to light.
Because I do not trust the media, government, banks, and especially the military to tell us the truth, these suicide statistics are probably higher, just as "body counts" (ours & theirs) are usually higher.
Take note of a few things:
-the military suicide rate is higher than the national average
-the Marines suicide rate is the highest of all (per 100,000)
-(From the article): "A leading military suicide researcher says changing a culture that views psychological illness as a weakness takes time."
Huh?!
I am still trying to wrap my brain around this statement. In other words, ordering soldiers to destroy a culture by killing mostly innocent men, women and children, torturing, maiming, humiliating - and then continuing to do this globally, downplaying the horror by calling these worldly warring engagements "theaters" of war - is this not the real psychological illness?...And yet this is not seen as weakness...
Some other facts to ponder:
-the US has now been fighting in Iraq & Afghanistan for 9 YEARS!
-the US is gradually engaging a war with Iran
-the US is provoking an ongoing war between N & S Korea
-the US is establishing a heavy presence off Costa Rica, a small country that abolished its military in 1948 because it didn't NEED a military. Why is the US there? To send a message to Hugo Chavez of Venezuela. What could the US possibly want with Hugo Chavez (besides Oil)?
(See my separate blog on this subject)
Another war coming up?
And more military suicides...
Is it any wonder the suicide statistics are going up? And with more and more war on the horizon, do you think these Statistics are going to go down anytime soon?
When pigs fly.
~
Struggling Towns 212
Signs of the Times
Struggling Towns 212
The mighty Federal Reserve Bank (which BTW is NOT a federal institution, nor is it a "bank") has managed for decades to do to the dollar what BP did to the Gulf in only a couple of days: make a murky mess out of the national economy with the inevitable result that no one trusts the US dollar any more, and neither do some of the cities listed in this article.
This is the wave of the immediate future for now - script cash and barter if you can manage it. When you can afford to do so, stop using banks.
Because the Federal government has no intentions of helping.
~
Struggling Towns 212
The mighty Federal Reserve Bank (which BTW is NOT a federal institution, nor is it a "bank") has managed for decades to do to the dollar what BP did to the Gulf in only a couple of days: make a murky mess out of the national economy with the inevitable result that no one trusts the US dollar any more, and neither do some of the cities listed in this article.
This is the wave of the immediate future for now - script cash and barter if you can manage it. When you can afford to do so, stop using banks.
Because the Federal government has no intentions of helping.
~
Monday, July 12, 2010
Israel: Bad Intel Led to Botched Flotilla Raid - CBS News
Israel: Bad Intel Led to Botched Flotilla Raid - CBS News
Good news:
"An Israeli military report has concluded that flawed intelligence-gathering and planning led to the deadly botched raid on a Gaza-bound flotilla."
And more good news: "The report does not fault the commandos who opened fire after being confronted by violent pro-Palestinian activists on board one of the ships."
What a relief! We can finally put this matter to rest.
Israel rejected any UN investigation into the deadly flotilla incident on May 31, saying that the UN's report would be "biased." Israel has therefore conducted its own investigation into the incident of their commandos attacking the Turkish ship Mavi Marmara, which was delivering aid supplies to Gaza.
The official report? It was not the fault of the commandos for attacking the ship. Rather, they had "flawed intelligence" and "did not plan well."
Huh?...
This is the best that the Israeli-cons can come up with?
I'll remember this argument if I'm ever audited by the IRS.
Meanwhile, the Moldova-flagged cargo ship Amalthea commissioned by a Libyan state charity organization, is now on its way to Gaza with supplies, having embarked on Friday. They have been ordered to dock in Egypt instead of Gaza by the Israeli-cons. The Libyans have said they are going straight to Gaza. A confrontation is inevitable, potentially violent, and deadly.
(Update Note: The Amalthea docked in Egypt as Israel "requested." Still, there are more ships sailing to Gaza, intent on breaking the blockade.)
How will this end? Will Prime Minister Netanyahu and President Obama once again clap each other on the back swearing fealty to each other after another successful blockade? Does it make you wonder: Why is President Obama not taking a firmer stance against Israel?
Does it make you wonder?
~
Good news:
"An Israeli military report has concluded that flawed intelligence-gathering and planning led to the deadly botched raid on a Gaza-bound flotilla."
And more good news: "The report does not fault the commandos who opened fire after being confronted by violent pro-Palestinian activists on board one of the ships."
What a relief! We can finally put this matter to rest.
Israel rejected any UN investigation into the deadly flotilla incident on May 31, saying that the UN's report would be "biased." Israel has therefore conducted its own investigation into the incident of their commandos attacking the Turkish ship Mavi Marmara, which was delivering aid supplies to Gaza.
The official report? It was not the fault of the commandos for attacking the ship. Rather, they had "flawed intelligence" and "did not plan well."
Huh?...
This is the best that the Israeli-cons can come up with?
I'll remember this argument if I'm ever audited by the IRS.
Meanwhile, the Moldova-flagged cargo ship Amalthea commissioned by a Libyan state charity organization, is now on its way to Gaza with supplies, having embarked on Friday. They have been ordered to dock in Egypt instead of Gaza by the Israeli-cons. The Libyans have said they are going straight to Gaza. A confrontation is inevitable, potentially violent, and deadly.
(Update Note: The Amalthea docked in Egypt as Israel "requested." Still, there are more ships sailing to Gaza, intent on breaking the blockade.)
How will this end? Will Prime Minister Netanyahu and President Obama once again clap each other on the back swearing fealty to each other after another successful blockade? Does it make you wonder: Why is President Obama not taking a firmer stance against Israel?
Does it make you wonder?
~
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)