Andrew Gavin Marshall: PunishingPakistan and Challenging Chinah

As Senator Obama became the President-elect Obama, his foreign policy strategy on Afghanistan was already being formed. In 2007, Obama took on veteran geo-strategist and Jimmy Carter's former National Security Adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski as one of his top foreign policy advisers, and he remained his foreign policy adviser throughout 2008. On Obama's campaign, he announced that as President, he would scale down the war in Iraq, and focus the "War on Terror" on Afghanistan, promising to send in about 10,000 more troops and to strike next-door Pakistan, if top terrorists are spotted there. In October of 2008, before the Presidential elections, senior Bush administration officials gathered in secret with Afghanistan experts from NATO and the United Nations, to deliver a message to advisers of McCain and Obama to tell them that the situation in Afghanistan is getting worse, and that the next president needed to have a plan for Afghanistan before he took office, or else it could be too late. Both McCain and Obama had agreed to a troop increase for Afghanistan before he took office, or else, it could be too late. Both McCain and Obama had agreed to a troop increase for Afghanistan, essentially ensuring the continuity of empire from one administration to the next. A week after winning the election, Obama invited one of Hillary Clinton's top supporters and advisers to meet with him. Richard Holbrooke, who had worked in every Democratic administration since John F. Kennedy, which extended from the Vietnam War, in the sixties, to the Balkan conflicts of the nineties, was Clinton's Ambassador to the United Nations for the last year and a half of the Clinton administration. Obama had decided that Holbrooke should take on the the hardest foreign-policy problem that the administration faced: Afghanistan and Pakistan. Holbrooke wrote in March 2008, before Obama won the Presidency, that "The conflict in Afghanistan will be far more costly and much, much longer than Americans realize, and it will eventually become the longest in American history!"

William Blum: Unending American Hostility in Libya

If I could publicly ask our "beloved" (sarcasm) president one question, it would be this:"Mr. President, in your SHORT time in office, you have waged war against six countries - Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Somalia, and Yemen, this after stiffing the Nobel Prize committee of their Peace Prize. With all due respect: "What is WRONG with you"!! The idiot American media, whom you tolerated to pimp for you, has done its best to dismiss or ignore Libyan charges that NATO/US missiles have been killing civilians (re-the people you had wanted to "protect" by blowing them and their infant children up with our high-priced, and taxpayer purchased bombs), but recent bombing "mistakes" are so easily covered up, especially if they happen to be five months old! But who in the mainstream media has questioned the NATO/US charges that Libya was targeting and "massacring" Libyan civilians a few months ago, which, we've been told by those who manufacture these lethal weapons, is the "reason" for our attacks? Don't look to Al Jazeera for answers: The government of Qatar, which owns the station, has a deep-seated animosity toward Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi, and was itself a leading purveyor of the Libyan "massacre" stories, as well as playing a military role in the war against Tripoli. Al Jazeera's reporting on the subject has been so disgraceful that I've stopped looking at the station. Alain Juppe, Foreign Minister of France, which has been the leading force behind the attacks on Libya, spoke at the "Brookings" Institution in Washington on June 7. After his "useless" talk, he was asked a question from the audience by local activist Ken Meyercord: "An American observer of events in Libya has commented: "The evidence was NOT persuasive that a large-scale massacre or genocide was either likely or imminent." That comment was made by Richard Haass, President of our Council of Foreign Relations. If Mr. Haass is right, and if he is a fairly knowledgeable fellow, then what NATO has done in Libya is attack a country that wasn't threatening anyone; in other words: AGGRESSION! Are you at all concerned that NATO deals more and more death and destruction on the people of Libya that the International Criminal Court may decide that you and your friends in the Naked Aggression Treaty Organization should be prosecuted rather than Mr. Gaddafi?" Monsieur Juppe then stated that, without attribution, someone's estimate that 15,000 Libyan civilians had been killed by pro- Gaddafi forces, to which Monsieur Juppe then stated, without attribution, some-bodies estimate estimate that 15,000 Libyan civilians had been killed by pro-Gaddafi forces, to which Mr. Meyercord replied: "So where are the 15,000 bodies?"

Andrew Hammond: Libya Risks Extremism if the War Drags On!

A protracted struggle for Libya could leave it in the hands of extremists instead of the liberal economic technocrats who now lead its rebel movement, the World Bank's representative for Libya said on Thursday: "If this civil war goes on, it would be a new Somalia, which I don't say lightly," said Marouane Abassi, World Bank country manager for Libya, who has been in Tunisia since February. "In three months, we could be dealing with extremists. That's why time is very important in this conflict, before we face problems in managing it." Abassi, who is Tunisian, said the World Bank had been working with Libya since 2006 on plans for economic reforms led by leader Muammar Gaddafi's son Saif al-Islam, although many of those reform plans were scuppered by Gaddafi. He described some of the leaders of the rebel "Transitional National Council" as among those most strongly associated with economic reform plans. "We know them, we did good work with them," Abassi said, citing Ali Issawi, a former economy minister and ambassador, and Mahmoud Jebril, who resigned from a state economic think-tank after Gaddafi overruled his suggestion for liberalizing the economy. "These guys tried inside Gaddafi's government. In 2009, Gaddafi stopped the connection between us and them," said Abassi. Nevertheless, parts of Gaddafi's government and local councils were still seeking World Bank advice up to February, when pro-democracy protests broke out, he said. "In the last two years it was a battle between reformists and the old guard, but even the last minister of economy who was against us accepted the rules of the game," he said.

Michael Parenti: Making the World Safe for Hypocrisy

Why has the United States government supported counterinsurgency in Columbia, Guatemala, El Salvador and many other places around the world, at such a loss of human life to the populations of those nations? Why did it invade tiny Grenada and then Panama? Why did it support mercenary wars against progressive governments in Nicaragua, Mozambique, Angola, Ethiopia, Afghanistan, Indonesia, East Timor, Western Sahara, South Yemen, and elsewhere? Is it because our leaders want to save "democracy?" Are they concerned about the well-being of these defenseless people? Is our "national security" threatened? I shall try to show that the arguments given to justify US policies are false ones. But this does not mean that the policies themselves are senseless. American intervention may seem "wrongheaded" but, in fact, it is fairly consistent and horribly successful. The history of the United States has been one of territorial and economic expansionism, with benefits going mostly to the US business class in the form of growing investments and markets, access to rich natural resources and cheap labor, and the accumulation of enormous profits. The American people have had to pay the costs of empire, supporting a huge military establishment with their taxes, while suffering the loss of jobs, the neglect of domestic services, and the loss of tens of thousands of American lives in overseas military ventures. The greatest costs, of course, have been borne by the peoples of the Third World, who have endured poverty, pillage, disease, dispossession, exploitation, illiteracy, and the widespread destruction of their lands, cultures, and lives. As a relative latecomer to colonialism, the United States could not match the older European powers in the acquisition of overseas territories, but the United States was the earliest and most consummate practitioner of neo-imperialism or neo-colonialism, the process of dominating the politico-economic life of a nation without benefit of direct possession. (Please read the rest of this important story by Michael Parenti, titled- Making the World Safe for Hypocrisy)


Huffington Post: A Defiant Moammar Gadhafi

A defiant Moammar Gadhafi threatened Friday to carry out attacks in Europe against "homes, offices, families", unless NATO halts its campaign of airstrikes against his regime in Libya: The Libyan leader, sought by the International Criminal Court for "brutally crushing an uprising" against him, delivered a warning in an audio message played to thousands of supporters gathered in the main square of the capital Tripoli. It was one of the largest pro-government rallies in recent weeks, signalling that the embattled Libyan leader can still muster significant support. Gadhafi addressed the mass meeting in Green Square, speaking from an unknown location in a likely sign of concern over his safety. Addressing the West, Gadhafi said Libyans might take revenge: "These people (the Libyans) are able to one day take this battle to Europe, to target YOUR homes, offices, families, which would become legitimate military targets, just as you have targeted OUR homes." "We can decide to treat you in a similar way," he said of the Europeans. "If we decide to, we are able to move to Europe like locusts, like bees. We advise you to retreat before you are dealt a disaster." Friday's was one of the largest pro-government rallies in recent weeks, coming just four days after the "International Criminal Court" issued arrest warrants for Gadhafi, his son Seif al-Islam and Libyan intelligence chief Abdullah al-Sanoussi for crimes against humanity.

Pravda: Bank of America agrees to pay $85 billion to resolve claims of bondholders!

Bank of America, America's biggest bank, agreed to pay $85 billion to resolve claims made by bondholders that the lenders sold "troubled mortgage-backed securities" that soured when the housing market tanked! The deal, which must be approved by a court, was announced Wednesday after a group of 22 investors demanded that the Charlotte, NC bank repurchase $47 billion in mortgages that its Countrywide unit sold to investors in the form of bonds. The group, which includes the Federal Reserve Bank of New York and Blackrock Financial Management, argued that Countrywide enriched itself at the expense of investors in the form of bonds. The group, which also includes the Federal Reserve Bank of New York and Blackrock Financial Management argued that Countrywide enriched itself at the expense of investors by continuing to service bad loans while running up fees. According to the New York Daily News, Bank of America, which bought Countrywide in 2008 for $4 billion, has denied those claims. The payout settles claims by just 22 investors, who said Bank of America Corp. sold bonds based on substandard home mortgages. The bonds fell in value, when the housing market collapsed and left investors with losses on $424 billion worth of mortgages. The $8.5 billion settlement eclipses earnings from the past three years at the Charlotte, NC bank. Bank of America still faces the prospect of billions of dollars in fines from US and state regulators investigating foreclosure procedures!

Raw Story: Death Toll Spikes for Iraqis and US Troops!

Violence killed more Iraqis last month than at any time since September, figures showed Friday, after the US reported deaths that also made June the deadliest month for its troops in Iraq for three years. The Baghdad (read US) government blames Al-Qaeda for most of the 271 deaths of its citizens last month, while the US military accuses "Iranian-backed" Shiite insurgent groups for the attacks that killed 14 Americans. Data compiled by the health, interior, and defense ministries showed that 155 civilians, 77 policemen, and 39 soldiers died in attacks last month, 34 percent more than the 177 killed in May. Last month's toll was the highest monthly figure for the number of Iraqis killed since September 2010, when 273 died. The previous high for this year was January, when 273 died. The previous high for this year was January, when 259 were killed. A further 454 people were wounded in June, including 192 civilians, 77 policemen, and 39 soldiers. The majority were killed or wounded by car bombs, improvised explosives or shootings, with a large number of senior officials also assassinated with silencer guns. The worst attack was a June 21 double car-bombing outside the governor's home in the central city of Diwaniyah, which killed 26 people, most of them policemen guarding the official, who escaped unharmed. Two days later, three bombs packed in shopping carts killed 21 people and wounded 86 others at a market in southern Baghdad crowded with weekend shoppers. On the same day, an American contractor with USAID was killed, and another wounded by an improvised bomb next to their armored vehicle in the capital.

The CIA's Fake "Arab Spring" Becoming A Long, Hot Summer Of War

Obama Regime Courts World Conflagration: Imperial Overstretch Threatens as US, NATO Wage Five Wars: Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, Libya, and Yemen - Are Syria, Iran, and Lebanon Next? With the previously covert US bombing of Yemen out in the open, the Obama administration is now waging illegal wars against at least five countries: Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, Libya and Yemen. Given Obama's absurd and Orwellian theory that acts of war from the air in the sea do not constitute hostilities under the the terms of the War Powers Act, this list may be incomplete, and stealth US attacks may be going on elsewhere as well. As spring turns into summer along the banks of the Potomac, there are signs that Obama's next move may be a trifecta of aggression - an attack on Syria, which would also embroil the US in a war with Iran and with the Hezbollah forces of Lebanon. Or, the Obama rampage may strike Pakistan. The "Arab Spring" of color revolutions, military coups, and destabilizations is moving inexorably towards a possible world conflagration whose outlines are already visible. According to military sources speaking on the Alex Jones radio program on June 15, US Special Forces units based at Fort Hood, Texas have been told to prepare for deployment to Libya no later than July. Also on alert, reportedly for September or October, are the heavy armored units of the First Cavalry Division, currently located in Iraq and Afghanistan, along with other components of the US III Corps at various US bases. Observers point out that US Special Forces have been in Libya since February this year.


Dr. Ingrid Rimland Zundel:Japan in WWII: A Casualty of Usury?

Thanks to best-selling author David Irving, the establishment view that the United States of America became embroiled in World War II as a result of a surprise attack on Pearl Harbour on December 7, 1941 is no longer accepted by major historians. The origins of this conflict, says South African politician and noted banker, Stephen Goodson, have far deeper roots. Goodson explains the background as follows: During the 1930's Japan rapidly expanded her industrial production, while the rest of the world, with the exception of National Socialist Germany, stagnated. By 1941 Japan had become the leading economic power in East Asia. Her exports were steadily replacing those of America and England. Though Japan had very few natural resources, the secret of her success was due to Major Clifford Hugh Douglas, whose economic theory advocated the transfer of money, which he termed "social credit". He also favored the payment of a basic income or national dividend to each citizen, providing consumers with the additional buying power necessary to absorb all of the current production of goods in a non- inflationary manner. All of Douglas's financial proposals for an honest money system, based on government creating the nation's money and credit on on an interest-free basis, were enthusiastically received by Japanese industry and its government. All of Douglas's books and pamphlets were translated into Japanese , and more copies were sold in that country than in the rest of the world.

Dave Cohen: Brace Yourselves For The Next Oil Price Shock

In our United States, which I served in Vietnam as Advisory Team Leader, "bad", and by that I mean not reversible problems are just about to happen: Looking at the oil supply & demand fundamentals, next year looks like an accident waiting to rear their ugly heads. If economic growth in emerging economies remains on track, and that is a "Big If", the next oil price shock will occur in 2012. David Rosenberg recently put the odds of America going into recession in 2012at 99%, but I doubt he had oil in mind when he said that- On the current path, oil is set to hit $150 per barrel next summer. Take an economy in recession, add in oil prices well in excess of $100/barrel, and what do you get? Let's briefly review the fundamentals. Here's the Energy Information Administration's current outlook (STEO, June 7 edition). EIA projects that total world oil consumption will grow by 1.7 million barrels per day in 2011, which is about .3 bbl/d higher than last month's outlook, primarily because of higher forecasts of consumption for electricity generation in China, Japan, and the Middle East. Projected world consumption increases by 1.6 million bbl/d in 2012, unchanged from last month's Outlook. Projected supply from non-OPEC countries increases by an average of .6 million bbl/d in 2011 and .05 million bbl/d in 2012. EIA expects that the market will rely on both a draw-down of inventories and increases in production from both OPEC and non-OPEC countries to meet the projected demand growth. These daunting numbers - 1.7 million barrels per day in 2011, 1.6 million barrels-per-day in 2012, portend a demand shock just like the one the world experienced in 2006-2007. The key phrase is is a draw-down of inventories.


Uncommon Wisdom: Obama's Desperate Move Could Send Oil Prices Soaring

The sudden announcement last week that the International Energy Agency (IEA) would release strategic oil supplies onto the world markets caused a significant selloff, and crude oil prices dropped around $9 in two days. The 60 million barrel release from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR), is merely a drop in the bucket of global usage, and will likely have the opposite effect on prices long term. The government move is simply more psychological window dressing for the comic theater that is happening in Washington right now. It would be funny, if it weren't so sad: In fact, it is really a sign of "desperate measures". By releasing supplies from the SPR with crude at around $90, if prices go up again, the administration will have to fill the SPR back up at a higher price. A big chunk of that oil will come from outside our borders: It's another foolish rob-Peter-to-pay-Paul action by the imploding US government. The careless action taken by the IEA and President Obama has now underscored how worried "they" actually are about the global economic growth and tight supplies, so in essence this move could actually stoke the fire to drive prices much higher, much more quickly. In a recent Bloomberg report, Caroline Bain, of the Economist Intelligence Unit was quoted as saying: "Although the immediate impact of the IEA's reserve release will be to depress prices, in the more medium term, it could actually be bullish for prices. Reserves are finite and cannot be released forever." Unlike Uncle Ben's printing press that never seems to run out of ink, oil supplies are not something the US government can simply print more of!

Patrick Martin: Obama's "Sacrifice" Plan Targets Health Care and Social Security

Bipartisan talks between the Obama administration and congressional leaders of both the Democratic and Republican parties would have a deal "beyond $1 trillion" in budget cuts before the Fourth of July recess, Vice President Joseph Biden said Tuesday, after the first three scheduled meetings this week. "I"m convinced that we can come up with an agreement that gets the debt limit passed and makes some real serious down payment on the commitment to 4 trillion bucks over the next 10 to 12 years," he said, referring to the deficit reduction proposal made by Obama in April. The parameters for the talks were determined by the Obama administration's capitulation to the demand of House Speaker John Boehner, the top congressional Republican, that legislation to raise the federal debt ceiling should include spending cuts of an equal amount. Since the Treasury has forecast that about $2.4 trillion in new federal borrowing will be needed between now and the end of 2012, that would require $2.4 trillion in spending cuts. The Treasury stopped borrowing in mid-May, when it reached the current debt ceiling of $14.3 trillion. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner said that one-time financial maneuvers could sustain federal government operations through August 2, but there will be no funds to cover Social Security checks to be sent out August 3, unless the debt ceiling is raised. Biden indicated that the negotiators hoped to have a preliminary proposal by July 1, to give Boehner and Obama time for additional top-level talks to finalize the agreement and to persuade majorities in both the House and Senate to back the deal.


Lisa Savage: Mayors Tell Congress: Bring War Dollars Home

Mayors from around the world met in Baltimore this week to set public policy for the billions of people living in big cities, depending on municipal services to stay safe. While Congress considered allocating another $118 billion to conduct wars next year, and "President" Obama absurdly maintained that the costly bombing of Libya is "not" an act of war, and thus not subject to Congressional oversight, mayors listened to the people. Following a lively debate about adding stronger language supporting troops and their families, and adding President Obama as a recipient, mayors voted in their June 20 plenary session to call on the federal government to stop funding wars, and bring the money home. The US Conference of Mayors' Resolution Number 59 was only a twinkle in the eye two years ago, when a coalition of citizens alarmed at endless wars and catastrophic budget shortfalls coined the slogan "Bring Our War Dollars Home" at activist Sally Breen's kitchen table in Winthrop, Maine. That state's campaign took off on Martin Luther King Jr. Day in 2010, and soon spread nationally with adoption by the women-led peace group CODEPINK. Locations across Main soon adopted war dollars home solutions, including Deer Isle, Portland, and School Administrative District #74, followed by Northampton and Amherst, Massachusetts and, most recently, by Hartford, Connecticut. Meanwhile, Congress continues to pass war funding supplemental bills, but without the support of Maine's two representatives in the House. Rep. Mike Michaud (D-2nd) and Rep. Chellie Pingree (D-1st) defied Democrat party leadership to repeatedly vote no on the measures. Pingree began speaking out in Congress and in the press about the need to listen to her constituents' demands to end the wars as Maine's economy unraveled, and local budgets for education, health care, housing and job training were slashed!

Paul Craig Roberts: Whom Does The Law Serve?

Is the law controlled by the rich? The political left knew that Michael Milken was guilty, because the rich junk bond king financed takeovers of corporations that threw workers out of jobs. Leftists accepted the "Justice Department's fanciful claims" that the Exxon Valdez oil spill was a criminal act, not an accident for which civil damages were the remedy. Leona Helmsley was guilty, because she was a rich bitch. So was Martha Stewart. The left-wing was firm: All white people in prison are guilty, and the only reason they are in prison is that they are so obviously guilty that the system could not let them off. In other words, they were so audacious in their crimes that the crimes could not be covered up. The same mentality now dominates discussions of the Dominique Strauss-Kahn case. Strauss-Kahn, who at the time of his highly publicized arrest headed the International Monetary Fund, and the expected winner of the next French presidential election, was arrested on sexual abuse and attempted rape charges on the word of an immigrant hotel maid in New York. While the police are required to respond to the charges by questioning the accused, they are not supposed to make a public spectacle of him in order to create the impression that he is guilty before he is even charged.


Alex Spillius: Nato is trying to Kill Colonel Gaddafi

A senior American general involved in the Libyan campaign has admitted that NATO forces are trying to kill Colonel Muammar Gaddafi, according to a member of the United States Congress: In the first such admission, Adm Samuel Locklear, commander of the NATO Joint Operations Command in Naples, said that efforts had been stepped up to target the Libyan leader, despite declarations of the "Obama" administration that "regime change" was not the goal! The admiral's comments were revealed by Representative Mike Turner, an Ohio Republican and member of the House Armed Services Committee. Mr. Turner has opposed the military intervention from the outset, and was among those who voted in the House of Representatives last week to deny Obama the authority to wage war against Libya. He told Foreign Policy magazine that he came away from his conversation with Admiral Locklear convinced that NATO was acting beyond "remit" of the United Nations 1973 resolution on Libya, which allowed for enforcement of a no-fly zone and the defense of civilians against Col. Gaddafi's forces. "I believe that the scope that NATO is pursuing is beyond what is contemplated in civil protection, so they are exceeding the mission, he said!" The admiral also repeated a comment he made last month, that a "small" force might be needed on the ground in the initial stages, after the fall of the fall of the Gaddafi regime!

Timberly Ross: Flood Berm Collapses at Nebraska Nuclear Plant

A berm holding the flooded Missouri River back from a Nebraska nuclear power station collapsed early Sunday, but federal regulators said they were monitoring the situation and there was no danger. The Fort Calhoun Nuclear Station shut down in early April for refueling, and there is no water inside the plant, the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission said. Also, the river is not expected to rise higher than the level the plant was designed to handle. NRC spokesman Victor Dricks said the plant remains safe. The federal commission had inspectors at the plant 20 miles north of Omaha when the 2,000-foot berm collapsed about 1:30 am Sunday. Water surrounded the auxiliary and containment buildings at the plant, it said in a statement. The Omaha Public Power District has said that the complex will not be reactivated until the flooding subsides. Its spokesman Jeff Hanson, said the berm wasn't critical to protecting the plant, but a crew will look at whether it can be patched: "That was an additional layer of protection we put in," Hanson said. The berm's collapse didn't affect the reactor shutdown cooling or the spent fuel cooling , but the power supply was cut off after water surrounded the main electrical transformers, the NRC said. Emergency generators powered the plant until an off-site power supply was connected Sunday afternoon, according to OPPD. NRC Chairman Gregory Jaczko will tour the plant Monday. His visit was scheduled last week, but on Sunday, he was touring Nebraska's other nuclear power plant, which sits along the Missouri River near Brownsville.

Mike Whitney: More Treachery at the Fed?

At the end of today's FOMC meeting, there will be a few surprises: The "recovery" has stalled, and the Fed can't decide whether we have just hit a "soft patch", or we are going to hit something more serious. If it is indeed more serious, the Fed will need a contingency plan to start the economy. Will we have another round of Quantitative Easing, rate caps on short term treasuries, or something else altogether? The financial media want to know, and only Ben Bernanke knows the answers. First quarter growth of our economy is currently an anemic 1.8 percent, and economists are now shaving their estimates for Q2. Some think that the Tsunami in Japan, as well as debt problems in the euro-zone are mainly responsible for the poor growth, but that does not explain the sharp downturn in hiring, manufacturing, housing and consumer confidence: The US is experiencing a drop-off in demand at the worst possible time, just as Obama's $800 billion fiscal stimulus and Bernanke's $600 billion monetary surplus are running out of gas. That means even less support for an economy that can barely stand upright as it is: Here is an excerpt from an article by Nouriel Roubini with a rundown on the economy: "There are good reasons to believe that we are experiencing a more persistent slump - the factors slowing US growth are chronic: These include slow but persistent private and public sector de-leveraging, rising oil prices, weak job creation, another downturn in the housing market, severe fiscal problems at the state and local level, and an unsustainable deficit and debt burden at the federal level. If what is happening now turns out to be something worse than a temporary soft patch, the market correction will continue further, thus weakening growth as the negative wealth effects of falling equity markets reduce private spending. More and more mainstream economists have joined Roubini in thinking that recent sluggishness is more than a "soft patch."


James P. Tucker Jr.: Can Anyone Stop Bilderberg's Lust for War?

Barack Obama says the US role in invading Libya is not a "war", because it is limited to air strikes. If so, the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor on Dec. 7, 1941 was not "war," because Japan had no boots on the ground. Patriots now understand that President Franklin D. Roosevelt baited the Japanese into attacking Pearl Harbor as a means of getting the US into what became World War II. By going to war, the Great Depression could be ended as 12 million men got jobs carrying guns, and millions more would be employed making tanks, jeeps, planes, bombs, bullets, bayonets and other war material. This also benefits Bilderberg and similar groups, which are heavily invested in manufacturing goods to kill people. "Americans buy war like children gobble candy," laughed Henry Kissinger, longtime Bilderberg luminary, "Of course, Barack Obama has to be publicly reluctant to go to war, but we can depend on him!" But Bilderbergers are frankly worried that their campaign to expand the Libyan invasion into a big bloodletting in the Middle East faces difficult obstacles. Obama's claim that the invasion of Libya is not "war" is an effort to avoid complying with the War Powers Act that requires Congress to approve military action 60 days after the guns fire, but bipartisan opposition is emerging in Congress: House Speaker John Boehner threatened to withhold funds for the war, suggesting Congress could take action at any moment: "We have got drone attacks under way, we're spending $10 million a day. We're part of an effort to drop bombs on Qadaffi's compound. It doesn't pass the straight-face test." Senator Jim Webb (D-Va.), a decorated combat veteran and member of the Armed Services Committee, scoffed at the "not a war" claim. "Spending a billion dollars and dropping bombs on people sounds like hostilities to me," he told Associated Press!

Timothy Bancroft-Hinchley-PRAVDA: Legal Background to NATO War Crimes!

NATO is committing war crimes in Libya. The rules of engagement are bound by the UN Security Council Resolutions 1970 and 1973, in which there is NO mention of taking out Colonel Gaddafi, his aides or his children or grandchildren. NATO was supposed to police a "no-fly zone" and explain any misgivings to the international community. The People's Republic of China and the Russian Federation asked the countries proposing the above-mentioned Resolutions to explain the details of the "measures" inherent in the agreements. No explanations were given, making the basis for the Resolutions void! No rules of engagement allow for the purposeful targeting of Libyan officials, so the murder of Colonel Gaddafi's grandchildren and the recent strikes on civilian targets in Tripoli amount to to war crimes. The author of this piece has already pressed war crimes charges against David Cameron and Barack Obama in the nearest police station, according to the UN rules. The lack of enforcement of international law leaves the justice system of NATO in question. Supposedly, the international community is bound by the rules of international law, which is subject to the UN charter, and resolutions from the UNSC. Disturbingly, NATO has acted outside these laws, and therefore Barack Obama, David Cameron, Nicholas Sarkozy and the other NATO warmongers are now guilty of war crimes .

Robert Parry: The Lie Behind the Afghan War

In Official Washington, there is one fact about the Afghan War that nearly everyone "knows". In February 1989, after the Soviet Army left Afghanistan, the United States walked away from the war-torn country, creating a vacuum that led to the rise of the Taliban and its readiness to host al-Qaeda's anti-American terrorists. It is a point made by senior administration officials, including incoming Ambassador Ryan Crocker and departing Defense Secretary Robert Gates, who once summed up the conventional wisdom by saying: "We will not repeat the mistakes of 1989, when we abandoned the country, only to see it descend into civil war and into Taliban hands." Gates was there at the time, as President George H W Bush's deputy national security adviser, so he should know! If there is any doubt about about this key historical "lesson" regarding Afghanistan, you simply need to watch the Tom Hanks movie: "Charlie Wilson's War", in which you see Hanks as Rep. Wilson pleading for additional aid to Afghanistan, and getting rebuffed by "feckless" members of a congressional committee. Unfortunately, there is not a word of truth in that movie. There was no immediate cutoff of funds for the Afghan mujahedeen in 1989. Indeed, hundreds of millions of dollars in covert CIA funding continued to flow to the rebels for several years as the US government sought a clear-cut victory over the left-behind communist leader Najibullah, who was holed up in Kabul. With the departure of the Soviets in February 1989, the war was anything but morally unambiguous. By 1990, the Afghan "freedom fighters" had suddenly gone back to form, reemerging as nothing more than feuding warlords, obsessed with settling generations-old scores! The difference was that they were now armed with hundreds of millions of dollars' worth of weapons and explosives of every conceivable type. The justification for the huge CIA operation had been to halt Soviet aggression, not to take sides in a tribal war.

Patrick Henningsen: Why is there a Media Blackout on a Nuclear Incident in Nebraska?

Since flooding began on June 6th, there has been a disturbingly low level of media attention to the crisis at the Fort Calhoun Nuclear Facility near Omaha, Nebraska, but evidence strongly suggests that something VERY SERIOUS has in fact happened there. On June 7th, a fire was reported at Fort Calhoun. The "official story" is that the fire was in an electrical switchgear room at the plant: Apparently the facility lost power to a pump that cools the spent fuel rod pool, allegedly for a duration of approximately 90 minutes. The following sequence of events is documented on the Omaha Public Power District's own website, stating among other things, that there was no imminent danger with the Fort Calhoun Station spent-fuel pool, and that due to a fire in an electrical switchgear room at FCS on the morning of June 7, the plant "temporarily" lost power to a pump that cools the spent-fuel pool. In addition to the flooding that has occurred on the banks of the Missouri River at Fort Calhoun, the Cooper Nuclear Facility in Brownville, Nebraska may also be threatened by the rising flood waters. As was declared at Fort Calhoun on June 7th, another "Notification of Unusual Event" was declared at Cooper Nuclear Station on June 20th. This notification was issued because the Missouri River's water level reached an alarming 42.5 feet. Apparently, Cooper Station is advising that it is unable to discharge sludge into the Missouri River due to flooding, and therefore "overtopped" its sludge pond. Not surprisingly, and completely ignored by the "mainstream" media, these two nuclear power facilities in Nebraska were designated temporary restricted NO FLY ZONES by the FAA in early June. The FAA restrictions were reported as "hazards", and were "effective immediately", and "until further notice". Yet, according to the NRC, there is no cause for the public to panic. A news report from local NBC 6 on the Ft. Calhoun Power Plant and large areas of farm land flooded by the Missouri River, interviews a local farmer worried about the levees: "We need the Army Corps of Engineers to do more. The Corps needs to tell us what to do, and where to go. This is NOT mother nature, this is man-made. Nearby town Council Bluffs has already implemented its own three-tier warning system, should residents be prepared to leave the area quickly. On June 6, 2011, the Federal Aviation put into effect "temporary flying restrictions" "until further notice" over the Fort Calhoun Nuclear Power Plant in Blaine, Nebraska. Nuclear engineer Arnie Gundersen explains how cooling system pumps must operate continuously, even years after a plant is shut down.