The Many Faces of US Politics...

[Tyrones own]

I seriously doubt if magicmushroom or tyrones moan woul know the difference between hostile fire and ceasefire

As they say in Kandahar......away and ball your own dung!!

Someone got into his parents drink cabinet it would seem
But on a more serious note; could the Mods please explain in lay mans terms how this, and it's one of many

u and your arsehole frie3nds on here can suck my a~~.....I've been sorting out the USA's mess for too long now to care about arsewipes like you and your f**kbuddies on here.

can be repeatedly justified under the rules of the board

[Puckoon]

What? Did it really take you 3 days to work that out? Thank God for education
u and your arsehole frie3nds on here can suck my a~~.....I've been sorting out the USA's mess for too long now to care about arsewipes like you and your f**kbuddies on here.
Stay in your bunker in Tralee

What are you smoking?

[Hedley Lamarr]

By LAWRENCE DAVIDSON
Is US replaying Iraq in Iran?
On July 15, 2010 Time Magazine carried an article entitled, "An Attack on Iran: Back on the Table."

According to the piece, the point man for this growing belligerency is Secretary of Defense Robert Gates. It is to be noted that when the same Gates served the infamous George W. Bush (the year was 2008), he actually helped talk that president out of attacking Iran. At the time we were bogged down in Iraq and so yet another war in the Middle East was, according to Gates, "the last thing we need." Now it is 2010 and we are bogged down in Afghanistan. No matter, Gates appears to have changed his mind. Or perhaps, he has been instructed to do so. "I don't think we're prepared to even talk about a nuclear Iran....We do not accept the idea of Iran having nuclear weapons."

All of this is mighty strange. First of all, there is no supportable evidence that Iran is planning to build nuclear weapons. UN inspections and even US intelligence reports fail to support this conclusion. This being the case, why does Gates speak as if a nuclear Iran is imminent? One possibility is that he and others in Washington are working from assumptions based on what the US would do if it was in Iran's shoes. To understand this better we can ask what Gates and President Barack Obama would do if, magically transformed into Iran's leaders, they were confronted with the following questions and answers?

Who backed Saddam Hussein in his war on Iran? The United States. Who attacked Iraq and then blamed much of the resistance coming from Shiite quarters on Iran? The United States. Who has virtually surrounded Iran with potentially hostile military bases? The United States. Who has very likely abetted violent terror attacks by some of Iran's minority groups? The United States. Who now speaks of Iran in tones remarkably similar to those used for Iraq prior to invasion of that country? The United States. Who speaks almost daily of launching a military attack on Iran? America's No. 1 "ally" Israel. Who characterized Iran as one of the three "rogue" states making up the Axis of Evil? The United States. And finally, and perhaps most relevant to our present situation, which one of those three "rogue" states has not been invaded or threatened with attack by the United States? The one with the nuclear weapons (North Korea). The defense secretary does not have to be a genius to assume that, despite the lack of hard evidence, Iran might very well seek to be nuclear armed. Because that is almost certainly what Washington would do if it was in Tehran's place.

At this point someone ought to stop and ask why the United States cares if Iran has one or two or three nuclear warheads for defensive purposes? In modern times Iran has never invaded or even attacked another country unless it was attacked first. The whole notion that Amadinejad wants to "wipe Israel off the map" is a Zionist propaganda story based on a mistranslated speech. It is on the same level as the neocon tale about Iraqi soldiers throwing Kuwaiti infants out of incubators. Also, given the description above, the US could easily help remove most of the fears that might be driving Iran in a nuclear direction. That is because those fears are mostly a function of American policies. Just a month or so ago Washington actually had an opportunity to lay this whole nuclear controversy to rest when Turkey and Brazil succeeded in negotiating third party enrichment for Iran's nuclear fuel. Obama failed to pursue it. Instead, he has sent Gates out to talk tough. To tell us that the "military option is back on the table." The Time also informs us that US Army Central Command "which is in charge of organizing military operations in the Middle East" has "made real progress in planning targeted air strikes (against Iran)." And, perhaps the scariest part of all this, "Israel has been brought in to the planning process."

There is something not right about this. We are missing a vital piece to this puzzle. I want to say that I usually do not believe in reducing complicated issues to a one simple cause. But I must confess, that when I think about our present situation relative to Iran, my mind is taken back to John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt's The Israeli Lobby, and particularly to the 32 pages they devote to showing what a great role the American Zionists and their neocon allies played in getting George W. Bush, the Congress, and much of the American public so hyped up with lies and distortions that we all ran right off the cliff into a disastrous war. How many Americans remember that? How many news reporters, who like to pretend to be professional journalists, point this out to their readers and listeners? On both accounts it seems the answer is precious few. Our incredibly short historical memory is a serious problem and it means that our history can repeat itself.

The Time article tries to soften its message by asserting that Obama is still "skeptical...about a military strike." It implies that Obama knows that such an action would "unify the Iranian people" and also "unify much of the world including Russia and China...against a recowboyfied US." We might add to this that Iraq, Afghanistan and Lebanon would likely explode in an anti-US and anti-Israel frenzy. The Gulf oil lanes would turn into a battle ground and Hezbollah would likely proceed to make northern Israel uninhabitable.

Even if this assessment of an aware and skeptical Obama is accurate, surely the president is still playing with fire when he helps sustain the Iran nuclear hype. So we must ask why he risks scaring the American public in a manner reminiscent of the Bush administration? If we follow the Mearsheimer and Walt line, and I think there is something to it, the most likely answer is that he seeks to mollify the American Zionists so as to politically neutralize them through the November elections. After all, given the power of the American Zionist lobby, Middle East foreign policy has been converted to domestic political policy.

If Obama is in fact hyping the Iran nuclear issue for domestic political gain, it is a foolish strategy. The Zionist lobby will work very hard against Obama and the Democrats come November whatever tact he takes on Iran. He is also setting himself up for the accusation of being soft on the Iranians when, hopefully, he does not follow through on Gates' belligerent talk. This may, unfortunately, come back to bite him in the next presidential election. It would be much wiser to tell the truth about both Iran and Israel. Tell the American people that Iran is no real threat to the United States, but Israel and its Zionist operatives always have been and still are a great threat. They have drained us of much national treasure, they have corrupted our Congress and political parties, and they contributed to our unnecessary but horridly bloody invasion of Iraq.

And now they want us to attack Iran. Morton Klein the fanatical leader of the Zionist Organization of America wants you to believe that a nuclear Iran will give atomic weapons to terrorists. To avoid this Washington will be forced into an "unending series of concessions" amounting to "nuclear blackmail" (Philadelphia Inquirer, July 17, 2010). There is not a shred of evidence for this assertion and a lot of evidence that suggests it is absolutely wrong. The Iranians fear and dislike the Sunnis of Al-Qaeda. They have cooperated with the US, even under the Bush administration, in the "war against terrorism." And, they have their own terrorist problems that encourages them to continue to aid us in this regard. But, Klein and his Zionist cohort, are not interested in facts. They are interested in solidifying the fraying American alliance with Israel. Scare tactics serve their purpose, just as they did in the case of Iraq. And Obama seems to be going along with this fraudulent campaign.

It is a dangerous situation. It bears repeating that Americans have short historical memories and are easily manipulated by the media and government spokesmen who supply most of them with "the news." If history does repeat itself, don't blame Iran. More accurately you can blame the American Zionists and their new partners in propaganda, the Obama administration.

— Lawrence Davidson works in the Department of History, West Chester University, West Chester, Pennsylvania.

[Hedley Lamarr]

By ASSOCIATED PRESS

Published: Jul 21, 2010 15:42 Updated: Jul 21, 2010 15:47

SEOUL, South Korea: The Obama administration moved Wednesday to push new sanctions against North Korea over its nuclear weapons program, as Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton and Defense Secretary Robert Gates showed solidarity with South Korea during a visit to the area that separates it from the North.

Clinton announced the new measures — targeting the sale or purchase of arms and related goods used to fund the communist regime's nuclear activities, and the acquisition of luxury items to reward its elite — after she and Gates toured the heavily fortified border in a symbolic trip four months after the sinking of a South Korean warship blamed on the North.

The penalties are intended to further isolate the already hermetic North and persuade its leaders to return to talks aimed at getting it to abandon atomic weapons. The US is also trying to forestall future provocative acts like the torpedoing of the Cheonan, which killed 46 South Korean sailors.

With specifics of the sanctions still being worked out, the more striking demonstration of US resolve came when Clinton and Gates — in a first for America's top two cabinet members — together toured the demilitarized zone in the village of Panmunjom.

Under sporadic downpours and the watchful gaze of curious North Korean guards, they paid tribute to the US, South Korean and international forces that patrol the world's last Cold War-era border. Sixty years after the fighting began, the peninsula remains divided in a state of war because the conflict ended in a truce, not a peace treaty.

At one point, in the Military Armistice Commission building where officials from North Korea and the UN

Command meet for talks, Clinton and Gates stood briefly on North Korean soil while a North Korean solider peered at them through a window.

Gates said the visit was intended "to send a strong signal to the North, to the region and to the world that our commitment to South Korea's security is steadfast." "In fact, our military alliance has never been stronger and should deter any potential aggressor," he said.

In response to the Cheonan sinking, the US and South Korea have announced plans to conduct new military exercises in the coming weeks, sparking threats from North Korea and expressions of concern from its lone major ally, China.

Both Gates and Clinton noted that since the Korean War, the South has become a major economic power while the North has stagnated under international isolation.

"Although it may be a thin line, these two places are worlds apart," Clinton said, referring to the three-mile (five-kilometer) -deep buffer zone that stretches from east to west and lies just 30 miles (50 kilometers) from the South Korean capital. She urged North Korea to turn away from the isolation that has left its people suffering.

"We continue to send a message to the North: There is another way. There is a way that can benefit the people of the North," she said. "But until they change direction, the United States stands firmly on behalf of the people and government of the Republic of Korea, where we provide a stalwart defense along with our allies and partners." Clinton repeated that message later after security talks with Gates and their South Korean counterparts.

Presenting the outlines of the fresh sanctions, Clinton said the North could win "the security and international respect it seeks" by stopping its provocative behavior, halting threats toward its neighbors and returning to denuclearization talks.

Details of the sanctions are being finalized, but Clinton and other US officials said they would enhance and expand on existing international financial and travel sanctions.

The US will freeze additional assets, prevent more individuals from traveling abroad and collaborate with banks to stop suspect transactions, they said.

The US will also seek to stop North Korea's abuse of diplomatic privileges to carry out illegal activities, notably cigarette and currency counterfeiting and money laundering, they said.

The UN Security Council has imposed stiff sanctions on North Korea in recent years to punish the regime for defying the world body by testing nuclear weapons and long-range missiles, and illegally selling arms and weapons.

The council earlier this month approved a statement condemning the Cheonan incident, but did not directly blame Pyongyang. Still, the US and South Korea are adamant that North Korea apologize for the incident or face punishment, and warned against further provocations.

An international team of investigators pinned the explosion of the Cheonan on a torpedo fired from a North Korean submarine. But North Korea denies any involvement and has threatened war if punished for it.

[give her dixie]

De-classified Vietnam-era Transcripts Show Senators Knew Gulf Of Tonkin Was A Staged False Flag Event
     

Elected Reps. chose to hide details from American public for fear of reprisals from "the big forces" that run the media and the presidency

Steve Watson
Infowars.com
Thursday, Jul 15th, 2010

Over 1,100 pages of previously classified Vietnam-era transcripts released this week by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee highlight the fact that several Senators knew that the White House and the Pentagon had deceived the American people over the 1964 Gulf of Tonkin incident.

The latest releases, which document skepticism over the pretext for entry into the Vietnam war, date from 1968.

Four years into the war, senators were at loggerheads with Lyndon B. Johnson. At the time Foreign Relations Committee meetings were held behind closed doors.

It would take over thirty years for the truth to emerge that the Aug. 4, 1964 Gulf of Tonkin incident, where US warships were apparently attacked by North Vietnamese PT Boats – an incident that kicked off US involvement in the Vietnam war – was a staged event that never actually took place.

However, the records now show that at the time senators knew this was the case.

In a March 1968 closed session of the Foreign Relations Committee, Senator Albert Gore Sr. of Tennessee, the father of former vice president Al Gore, noted:

"If this country has been misled, if this committee, this Congress, has been misled by pretext into a war in which thousands of young men have died, and many more thousands have been crippled for life, and out of which their country has lost prestige, moral position in the world, the consequences are very great,"

Senator Frank Church, Democrat of Idaho, said in an executive session in February 1968:

"In a democracy you cannot expect the people, whose sons are being killed and who will be killed, to exercise their judgment if the truth is concealed from them,"

Other senators were keen to withhold the truth about Tonkin in order not to inflame public opinion on the war:

Senator Mike Mansfield, Democrat of Montana, stated, "You will give people who are not interested in facts a chance to exploit them and to magnify them out of all proportion."

Mansfield was referring to the proposed release of a committee staff investigation that raised doubts over whether the Tonkin incident ever took place.

The committee decided in the end to effectively conceal the truth, with Senator Church noting that if the committee came up with proof that an attack never occurred, "we have a case that will discredit the military in the United States, and discredit and quite possibly destroy the president."

He also noted that if the senators were to follow up on their skepticism over Tonkin, "The big forces in this country that have most of the influence and run most of the newspapers and are oriented toward the presidency will lose no opportunity to thoroughly discredit this committee."

The LBJ Presidential tapes, declassified and released in 2001, prove that LBJ knew the Tonkin incident never happened. After dressing down his Defence Secretary Robert McNamara for misleading him, Johnson then discussed how to politically spin the non-event and escalate it as justification for air strikes.

"You just came in a few weeks ago and said they're launching an attack on us – they're firing at us," Johnson tells McNamara in one conversation, "and we got through with the firing and concluded maybe they hadn't fired at all."

The NSA also deliberately faked intelligence data to make it appear as if two US ships had been lost in the "attack".

Johnson used the 1964 false flag event to expand dramatically the scale of the Vietnam War by ushering in the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution, as well as to rope in much needed domestic support with the Congress and public.

Perhaps if the Foreign Relations Committee hadn't been so afraid of "the big forces" controlling America, a large percentage of the almost 60,000 American soldiers and 2 million Vietnamese people wouldn't have lost their lives.

Sadly, modern day elected representatives have failed the American people in exactly the same way over the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.

[Puckoon]

What? Did it really take you 3 days to work that out? Thank God for education
u and your arsehole frie3nds on here can suck my a~~.....I've been sorting out the USA's mess for too long now to care about arsewipes like you and your f**kbuddies on here.
Stay in your bunker in Tralee

What are you smoking?

No answer Hedley? How is the sorting going?

[Hedley Lamarr]

Woodbine since you are asking

Sorting going great....some of the marines now know how to say please and thankyou in Arabic (officers obviously)

[Hedley Lamarr]

Land of the free....

CAIR: California Tea Party to use dogs to harass Muslim worshippers
By ARAB NEWS

Published: Jul 27, 2010 22:38 Updated: Jul 27, 2010 22:38

WASHINGTON: The Greater Los Angeles Area office of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR-LA) on Tuesday denounced a planned anti-mosque protest by California Tea Party supporters who are being told to bring dogs to harass Muslim worshippers during a Friday congregational prayer, or "Jummah."

CAIR-LA called on local officials and interfaith leaders to show support for the Islamic Center of Temecula Valley, the target of the July 30 protest by the Southwest Riverside County (SWRC) Tea Party group. The protest is in opposition to a proposal for a new mosque in the area.

An e-mail announcing the anti-mosque protest sent to area newspapers by "a leader of a conservative coalition that has been active with Republican and Tea Party functions" stated: "An Islamic Mosque is planned to be built in Temecula. Islam is not a religion. It is a worldwide political movement meant on domination of the world. And it is meant to subjugate all people under Islamic law ... Islam treats women as second class people and they also hate dogs. Women are forbidden to sing and dogs are killed. We will not be submissive to Shariah Law. Tennessee was able to stop the mosque so bring your bibles, flags, signs, dogs and singing voice on Friday."

"Californians of all faiths should repudiate those who would target a house of worship using tactics specifically designed to cause offense," said CAIR-LA Executive Director Hussam Ayloush. "National and state Tea Party leaders should explain why their movement has apparently deviated from its agenda on fiscal responsibility and limited government to the promotion of Islamophobia."

Ayloush noted that many Muslims believe the saliva of dogs invalidates the ritual ablution (wudu) performed before prayer. For this reason, it has become a cultural norm for individuals not to have dogs in their houses — not because the dog is "hated."

The Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) allowed the use of dogs for protection and for hunting, and he related several traditions in which individuals were rewarded by God for protecting animals, including dogs, and punished for mistreating them.

In response to the planned protest, the Islamic Center of Temecula Valley released a statement that read in part: "It has come to our attention that a group of people are seeking to disrupt our prayer session on Friday, July 30. We are disheartened and saddened that a group of our neighbors seeks to disrespect and make our community feel unwelcome."

Last week, CAIR called on Florida US Senate candidate Marco Rubio not to accept an invitation to take part in an Aug. 21 Tea Party rally featuring an extremist anti-Islam keynote speaker who stated that Muslims should not be allowed to hold public office, that an American Muslim "cannot be a loyal citizen" and that Islam is the "real enemy."

Earlier this month, CAIR offered support for an NAACP resolution asking the Tea Party movement to condemn racism within its ranks.

Other Islamophobic incidents nationwide indicate a growing level of anti-Islam sentiment in American society and a trend toward seeking to restrict American Muslim civil rights.

CAIR is America's largest Muslim civil liberties and advocacy organization. Its mission is to enhance the understanding of Islam, encourage dialogue, protect civil liberties, empower American Muslims, and build coalitions that promote justice and mutual understanding.

[Hedley Lamarr]

Audit: US can't account for $8.7B in Iraqi funds


By ASSOCIATED PRESS

Published: Jul 27, 2010 21:36 Updated: Jul 27, 2010 21:36

BAGHDAD: The US Defense Department is unable to properly account for over 95 percent of $9.1 billion in Iraqi oil money tapped by the US for rebuilding the war ravaged nation, according to an audit released Tuesday.

The report by the US Special Investigator for Iraq Reconstruction offers a compelling look at continued laxness in how such funds were being spent in a country where people complain basic services like electricity and clean water are sharply lacking seven years after the US-led invasion that toppled Saddam Hussein.

The audit found that shoddy record keeping by the Defense Department left the Pentagon unable to fully account for $8.7 billion it withdrew between 2004 and 2007 from a special fund set up by the UN Security Council. Of that amount, Pentagon "could not provide documentation to substantiate how it spent $2.6 billion." The funds are separate from the $53 billion allocated by Congress for rebuilding Iraq.

The report comes at a critical time for Iraq, which four months after inconclusive elections squabbling political factions have still not agreed on a new government.

Despite security gains made since 2008, bombings remain near a daily occurrence that compound the frustrations and fears of Iraqis increasingly weary of the political crisis — one many say reflects how the country's politicians are more interested in their own interests than those of the nation.

The continuing impasse was highlighted on Tuesday when Iraqi lawmakers gathered for the second time this month only to indefinitely postpone the parliamentary session because there was still no decision on the new government.

Acting speaker Fouad Massoum told reporters that the postponement was designed to give the political blocs more time to discuss contentious issues and agree on the distribution of positions in the new government.

"With every delay, the suffering of the Iraqi people and security risks are increasing," lawmaker Salman Al-Jumaili told reporters, criticizing the move.

The US audit is unlikely to do anything but further stoke that frustration felt by Iraqis who continue to suffer from poor infrastructure despite the billions spent.

The audit cited a number of factors behind the inability to account for most of the money withdrawn by the Pentagon from the Development Fund for Iraq.

It said most of the Defense Department organizations that received DFI money failed to set up Treasury Department accounts, as required.

In addition, it said no Defense Department organization was designated as the main body to oversee how the funds were accounted for or spent.

"The breakdown in controls left the funds vulnerable to inappropriate uses and undetected loss," the report said.

Calls to Iraqi officials for comment went unanswered.

The Defense Department, in responses attached to the audit, said it agreed with the recommendations laid out in the report about establishing better guidelines for monitoring such funds, including appointing an organization to be responsible for overseeing such funds mostly likely by November.

The audit found that the US continues to hold about $34.3 million of the money even though it was required to return it to the Iraqi government.

The audit did not indicate that investigators believed there were any instances of fraud involved in the spending of these funds.

The DFI includes revenues from Iraq's oil and gas exports, as well as frozen Iraqi assets and surplus funds from the now-defunct, Saddam Hussein-era oil-for-food program.

With the establishment of the Coalition Provisional Authority, which ran Iraq shortly after the start of the US invasion in 2003 until mid-2004, about $20 billion was placed into the account.

The Iraqi government had agreed to allow the US

continued access to the funds after the CPA was dissolved in 2004, but it revoked that authority in December 2007.

In other developments, seven people were killed in a series of bombings and apparent assassinations in Baghdad and Mosul, a northern city where Al-Qaeda is believed to still have a strong presence. Among those killed were two women shot dead in their home by gunmen and a Baghdad electricity official who died of wounds sustained after a morning roadside bombing.

[give her dixie]

There Goes The Tea Party
By Keith Johnson


What's going on with the Tea Party?  Remember the good old days when TEA was an acronym for "Taxed Enough Already?"  Today, it's starting to sound more like "Terminate Every Arab!"

It could be argued that the once noble Tea Party has been thrown to the wolves.  In its place is a political machine that has hijacked the Tea party name and is using it to stage a NeoCon-Republican comeback.

Last week, Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN) spoke at a press conference in Washington D.C. to announce the formation of a 44-member Tea party caucus in the House of Representatives.  All of the members are mainstream NeoCon Republicans with an allegiance to the state of Israel and an insatiable appetite for war.  As a matter of fact, of the 44 members, almost half of them have recently signed on to HR 1553, which endorses Israeli military action against Iran.  The resolution states that Israel should be allowed,  "to use all means necessary to confront and eliminate nuclear threats posed by the Islamic Republic of Iran, including the use of military force."

Bachmann is a frightening woman who recently stated—at a Republican Jewish Coalition event—that "I am convinced in my heart and in my mind that if the United States fails to stand with Israel, that is the end of the United States . . . [W]e have to show that we are inextricably entwined, that as a nation we have been blessed because of our relationship with Israel, and if we reject Israel, then there is a curse that comes into play."

Sure, we all got excited when anti-incumbent fever swept the nation and wrangled to unseat many longtime Senators and career Congressmen.  But what did we get in return?  Let's take a look at some of the big primary winners—who have been dubbed "Tea Party candidates"—and hear what their position is on foreign policy issues like Israel, Afghanistan, Iran and the "so-called" war on terror:

Robert Hurt (R-VA)

'On September 11th thousands of innocent Americans were attacked by Osama Bin Laden and his terrorist regime known as Al Qaeda. This terrorist regime has only one goal–destroy America and end our free and prosperous way of life.'

'We need to ensure that fully funding our anti-terrorism efforts at home and abroad is the top priority for our government. As we wage this effort for freedom and security of the American people, we need to stand behind our brave soldiers who are fighting and dying for us. The United States needs to remain vigilant and do everything in our power to monitor, track and defeat these terrorists at home and abroad.'

Mike Lee (R-UT)

"The government currently ruling in Iran presents a threat to the security of both the United States and Israel. I will therefore support efforts to place pressure on the government of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, with an eye toward persuading Iran to abandon its nuclear weapons ambitions. Should those efforts prove unsuccessful, military action would be justified."

"I support direct talks between Israel and the Palestinian Authority based on the fundamental principals that Israel should remain (and be recognized by the Palestinians as) a Jewish state, Israel must have safe and secure borders and the ability to monitor and protect those borders, and any peace treaty must bring a permanent end to any and all claims of the Palestinians."

Sharron Angle (R-NV)

'Israel, a democratic nation, is the United States' strongest ally in the Middle East. Israel's sovereignty, stability and security are in the best interests of the United States, especially when dealing with radical Islamic terrorism.'

Tom Graves (R-GA)

In reference to H.R. 5501, the "America Stands With Israel Act" that he helped co-sponsor:

'Our alliance with Israel is of great importance and I strongly support their right to defend their interests. America's commitment to Israel must be solid, and I am proud to join Rep. King and co-sponsor this important legislation.'

Jon Runyan (R-NJ)

'The special bond between the United States of America and Israel must never be broken, and believe strongly that the first step to peace in the Middle East is ensuring that Israelis and their Democratic way of life is secure. First and foremost that means that Israel's neighbors must recognize their right to exist.

The United States must stand with Israel in preventing Iran from achieving nuclear capabilities that can threaten Israel and further de-stabilize the region, and continue cooperative efforts both militarily and economically. As a member of Congress, I will strongly support continued foreign aid to Israel to ensure they have the tools necessary to stand strong in the face of hostilities by their enemies.'

Scott Rigell (R-VA)

From a press release reprimanding Congressman Nye for being one of 54 Democratic representatives who called upon Israel in a signed letter to lift travel restrictions in Gaza:

"Having just returned from a fact-finding visit to Israel, where I met with senior Israel leadership and saw firsthand the rockets that have terrorized the city of Sderot and neighboring cities in the south of Israel, I am stunned by our freshman congressman's decision to sign this letter.  By signing the letter and aligning himself with the most liberal members of our Congress, including John Conyer, Jim McGovern and Barbara Lee, Congressman Nye seems more concerned about the rights of Hamas than innocent Israeli citizens.  Our freshman congressman fails to fully understand that Hamas is an organization that openly calls for the destruction of the State of Israel and has used Israel's voluntary withdrawal from Gaza to turn schools into terrorist bases, homes into rocket launch pads, and market places into battlefields.  The travel restrictions on Gaza are reasonable given Israel's right, indeed its duty, to protect its citizens.  Our freshman congressman has made clear that he has a naïve world view and a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature and scope of the threat posed by Hamas to the citizens of our ally, Israel."

And let's not forget the darling of the Neo-Tea Party movement, Sarah Palin, whose positions on Israel and foreign policy are well known to us all.

Jane Fryer of the Daily Mail has been touring the American mid-west on the trail of the tea party movement.  Jane is an ardent left-winger, but nonetheless prudent in her reporting on things I've witnessed myself.

During a visit to a small town in Kansas, Jane ran into a burly fellow at a Tea Party rally who spoke to her through a cheek full of tobacco:

'I love Sarah Palin, I just LOVE her. She's bright, she's clever and she thinks like we do, she acts like we do and she lives like we do.  She listens to the people, and she has a proven track record. She talks the talk and walks the walk and she'd make a wonderful president.'

And he's not the only fan.  The big guy's neighbor couldn't wait to throw his two cents in:

'What's more, she's got good old common horse sense, as we call it round here. She tells it like it is. And she can shoot and skin a moose! Not many world leaders can do that.'

O.K., I admit, that was only two out of the 26 attendees.  You're probably thinking there were at least a few who had a less than favorable opinion about the good ship Mrs. Palin, right?

Let's hear from 63-year-old Dee Sadler, the organizer of this humble Tea Party event:

'I just hope she runs for president. She's the only person who can unite the Tea Party movement and the Republican Party. Sarah Palin is America's last hope!'

To which the entire groupof 26 chimed in with a chorus of:

'Amen."

'Sarah Palin for President.'  Think about that.

If you took this woman's brain and transplanted it into the body of a middle aged homeless man, you'd have a disheveled vagrant standing on the corner—somewhere in Anchorage, Alaska—hoisting a cardboard sign over his head that reads: 'Jesus is coming...and he's pissed!'

I guess a Sarah Palin-style theocray is precisely what some people want.  It certainly is in this sleepy little Kansas town.

But I know—you're going to tell me that this is only one small group of people who don't really represent the majority of Tea Party activists, right?  Maybe it is—but I'm not finding evidence of real anti-war sentiment among the ranks of the Tea Party members I've run into!  Could it be that the only reason the Tea Party has any press at all is because the Tea Party movement is now predominantly comprised of war loving, Arab hating NeoCons who reminisce about the good old Bush-Cheney days?

For those infiltrators who are now emerging as Tea Party leaders, it's no longer about taxes.  It's about where those taxes go.  Government run health care, Wall Street bailouts and cap-and-trade schemes are just things that are competing for that precious war dollar.  Is this the same Tea Party that you and I enthusiastically put our endorsement behind?

The Tea Party began as a suggestion by CNBC's Rick Santelli, who called for a "Chicago Tea Party" to revolt against the Obama Administration's mortgage bailout plan. That suggestion became a reality when Ron Paul supporters adopted the Tea Party moniker to advance the ideals of their great statesman.

If you want to know what the Tea Party was all about, just follow the career of Ron Paul.  Ron Paul is about limited government, abolishing the Fed and bringing an end to these never-ending—needless wars.

But that's not what it has become.

Today, the Tea Party has become a branch of the GOP.  And whose fault is that?  Mine...yours, and everyone else who didn't step up to the plate and take an aggressive stand against the warmongering infiltrators who came to silence our message of peace.

What did we expect would happen when we let Israel's favorite shiksa, Sarah Palin, feel welcome at our Tea Party functions?  We should have been there from day one calling her out and sending her home!  We should have stepped in front of news cameras and made it nice and sparkling clear that these hijackers were only here to poison the well and stake a claim on a movement they had no part in creating.

Now I fear that it just may be too late to get it back.  The problem now is that public perception of what the Tea Party is about is relegated to this faction of NeoCons, who are the only ones whose voices are being heard.

Do we really want to spend our time defending ourselves against the missteps of others or trying to explain that our Tea Party is not the same Tea Party that everyone is used to hearing about?  That's exactly what they want us to do.

Maybe it's about time we just started identifying ourselves as Americans.  What's wrong with that?

I submit that we should distance ourselves from parties and affiliations.  We're not part of a movement, a rebellion or a revolution.  Our war was won over 200 years ago and we emerged victorious.

The GOP, the Democrats and many of those who now identify themselves as Tea Party activists are the real rebels and revolutionaries.  They have rebelled against the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, the Declaration of Independence and everything else America stands for.

I'm an American, plain and simple—and from now on, that's the only thing I'm going to identify myself as

[Hedley Lamarr]

Cancer rate in Fallujah worse than Hiroshima
By TOM ELEY | WSWS.ORG

Published: Jul 28, 2010 20:11 Updated: Jul 28, 2010 20:11

The Iraqi city of Fallujah continues to suffer the ghastly consequences of a US military onslaught in late 2004.

According to the authors of a new study, "Cancer, Infant Mortality and Birth Sex-Ratio in Fallujah, Iraq 2005–2009," the people of Fallujah are experiencing higher rates of cancer, leukemia, infant mortality, and sexual mutations than those recorded among survivors in Hiroshima and Nagasaki in the years after those Japanese cities were incinerated by US atomic bomb strikes in 1945.

The epidemiological study, published in the International Journal of Environmental Studies and Public Health (IJERPH), also finds the prevalence of these conditions in Fallujah to be many times greater than in nearby nations.

The assault on Fallujah, a city located 43 miles west of Baghdad, was one of the most horrific war crimes of our time. After the population resisted the US-led occupation of Iraq — a war of neo-colonial plunder launched on the basis of lies — Washington determined to make an example of the largely Sunni city. This is called "exemplary" or "collective" punishment and is, according to the laws of war, illegal.

The new public health study of the city now all but proves what has long been suspected: that a high proportion of the weaponry used in the assault contained depleted uranium, a radioactive substance used in shells to increase their effectiveness.

In a study of 711 houses and 4,843 individuals carried out in January and February 2010, authors Chris Busby, Malak Hamdan, Entesar Ariabi and a team of researchers found that the cancer rate had increased fourfold since before the US attack five years ago, and that the forms of cancer in Fallujah are similar to those found among the Hiroshima and Nagasaki atomic bomb survivors, who were exposed to intense fallout radiation.

In Fallujah the rate of leukemia is 38 times higher, the childhood cancer rate is 12 times higher, and breast cancer is 10 times more common than in populations in Egypt, Jordan, and Kuwait. Heightened levels of adult lymphoma and brain tumors were also reported. At 80 deaths out of every 1,000 births, the infant mortality rate in Fallujah is more than five times higher than in Egypt and Jordan, and eight times higher than in Kuwait.

Strikingly, after 2005 the proportion of girls born in Fallujah has increased sharply. In normal populations, 1,050 boys are born for every 1,000 girls. But among those born in Fallujah in the four years after the US assault, the ratio was reduced to 860 boys for every 1,000 female births. This alteration is similar to gender ratios found in Hiroshima after the US atomic attack of 1945.

The most likely reason for the change in the sex ratio, according to the researchers, is the impact of a major mutagenic event — likely the use of depleted uranium in US weapons. While boys have one X-chromosome, girls have a redundant X-chromosome and can therefore absorb the loss of one chromosome through genetic damage.

"This is an extraordinary and alarming result," said Busby, a professor of molecular biosciences at the University of Ulster and director of scientific research for Green Audit, an independent environmental research group. "To produce an effect like this, some very major mutagenic exposure must have occurred in 2004 when the attacks happened. We need urgently to find out what the agent was. Although many suspect uranium, we cannot be certain without further research and independent analysis of samples from the area."

Busby told an Italian television news station, RAI 24, that the "extraordinary" increase in radiation-related maladies in Fallujah is higher than that found in the populations of Hiroshima and Nagasaki after the US atomic strikes of 1945. "My guess is that this was caused by depleted uranium," he said. "They must be connected."

The US military uses depleted uranium, also known as spent nuclear fuel, in armor-piercing shells and bullets because it is twice as dense as lead. Once these shells hit their target, however, as much as 40 percent of the uranium is released in the form of tiny particles in the area of the explosion. It can remain there for years, easily entering the human bloodstream, where it lodges itself in lymph glands and attacks the DNA produced in the sperm and eggs of affected adults, causing, in turn, serious birth defects in the next generation.

The research is the first systematic scientific substantiation of a body of evidence showing a sharp increase in infant mortality, birth defects, and cancer in Fallujah.

In October of 2009, several Iraqi and British doctors wrote a letter to the United Nations demanding an inquiry into the proliferation of radiation-related sickness in the city:

"Young women in Fallujah in Iraq are terrified of having children because of the increasing number of babies born grotesquely deformed, with no heads, two heads, a single eye in their foreheads, scaly bodies or missing limbs. In addition, young children in Fallujah are now experiencing hideous cancers and leukemias....

"In September 2009, Fallujah General Hospital had 170 newborn babies, 24 percent of whom were dead within the first seven days, a staggering 75 percent of the dead babies were classified as deformed....

"Doctors in Fallujah have specifically pointed out that not only are they witnessing unprecedented numbers of birth defects, but premature births have also considerably increased after 2003. But what is more alarming is that doctors in Fallujah have said, 'a significant number of babies that do survive begin to develop severe disabilities at a later stage.'"

The Pentagon responded to this report by asserting that there were no studies to prove any proliferation of deformities or other maladies associated with US military actions. "No studies to date have indicated environmental issues resulting in specific health issues," a Defense Department spokesman told the BBC in March. There have been no studies, however, in large part because Washington and Baghdad have blocked them.

According to the authors of "Cancer, Infant Mortality and Birth Sex-Ratio in Fallujah," the Iraqi authorities attempted to scuttle their survey. "hortly after the questionnaire survey was completed, Iraqi TV reportedly broadcast that a questionnaire survey was being carried out by terrorists and that anyone who was answering or administering the questionnaire could be arrested," the study reports.

The history of the atrocity committed by American imperialism against the people of Fallujah began on April 28, 2003, when US Army soldiers fired indiscriminately into a crowd of about 200 residents protesting the conversion of a local school into a US military base. Seventeen were killed in the unprovoked attack, and two days later American soldiers fired on a protest against the murders, killing two more.

This intensified popular anger, and Fallujah became a center of the Sunni resistance against the occupation — and US reprisals. On March 31, 2004, an angry crowd stopped a convoy of the private security firm Blackwater USA, responsible for its own share of war crimes. Four Blackwater mercenaries were dragged from their vehicles, beaten, burned, and hung from a bridge over the Euphrates River.

The US military then promised it would pacify the city, with one unnamed officer saying it would be turned into "a killing field," but Operation Vigilant Resolve, involving thousands of Marines, ended in the abandonment of the siege by the US military in May, 2004. The victory of Fallujah's residents against overwhelming military superiority was celebrated throughout Iraq and watched all over the world.

The Pentagon delivered its response in November 2004. The city was surrounded, and all those left inside were declared to be enemy combatants and fair game for the most heavily equipped killing machine in world history. The Associated Press reported that men attempting to flee the city with their families were turned back into the slaughterhouse.

In the attack, the US made heavy use of the chemical agent white phosphorus. Ostensibly used only for illuminating battlefields, white phosphorus causes terrible and often fatal wounds, burning its way through building material and clothing before eating away skin and then bone. The chemical was also used to suck the oxygen out of buildings where civilians were hiding.

Washington's desire for revenge against the population is indicated by the fact that the US military reported about the same number of "gunmen" killed (1,400) as those taken alive as prisoners (1,300-1,500). In one instance, NBC News captured video footage of a US soldier executing a wounded and helpless Iraqi man. A Navy investigation later found the Marine had been acting in self-defense.

Fifty-one US soldiers died in 10 days of combat. The true number of city residents who were killed is not known. The city's population before the attack was estimated to be between 425,000 and 600,000. The current population is believed to be between 250,000 and 300,000. Tens of thousands, mostly women and children, fled in advance of the attack. Half of the city's building were destroyed, most of these reduced to rubble.

Like much of Iraq, Fallujah remains in ruins. According to a recent report from IRIN, a project of the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, Fallujah still has no functioning sewage system six years after the attack. "Waste pours onto the streets and seeps into drinking water supplies," the report notes. "Abdul-Sattar Kadhum Al-Nawaf, director of Fallujah general hospital, said the sewage problem had taken its toll on residents' health. They were increasingly affected by diarrhea, tuberculosis, typhoid and other communicable diseases."

The savagery of the US assault shocked the world, and added the name Fallujah to an infamous list that includes My Lai, Sabra-Shatila, Guérnica, Nanking, Lidice, and Wounded Knee.

But unlike those other massacres, the crime against Fallujah did not end when the bullets were no longer fired or the bombs stopped falling.

The US military's decision to heavily deploy depleted uranium, all but proven by "Cancer, Infant Mortality and Birth Sex-Ratio in Fallujah," was a wanton act of brutality, poisoning an entire generation of children not yet born in 2004.

The Fallujah study is timely, with the US now preparing a major escalation of the violence in Afghanistan. The former head of US Afghanistan operations, Gen. Stanley McChrystal, was replaced last month after a media campaign, assisted by a Rolling Stone magazine feature, accused him, among other things, of tying the hands of US soldiers in their response to Afghan insurgents.

McChrystal was replaced by Gen. David Petraeus, formerly head of the US Central Command. Petraeus has outlined new rules of engagement designed to allow for the use of disproportionate force against suspected militants.

Petraeus, in turn, was replaced at Central Command by Gen. James "Mad Dog" Mattis, who played a key planning role in the US assault on Fallujah in 2004. Mattis revels in killing, telling a public gathering in 2005 "it's fun to shoot some people.... You know, it's a hell of a hoot."

[ONeill]

[Hardy]

As an obvious Sarah Palin voter, she should know you have to go to Alaska to be able to watch Russia.

(Always remember these monkeys have nuclear weapons).

[muppet]

That is very funny.

[Tyrones own]

No surprise here that the same two lads that each googled and or called my home ph # 
would be the ones to jump in with both wellingtons to what was an obvious gaffe...
Caught again lads.....Well done O'Neill