My Catbird Seat » Commentary/Analysis Sat, 23 Jul 2011 05:39:39 +0000 en hourly 1 Hillary Cracks the Whip Fri, 22 Jul 2011 20:07:53 +0000 Debbie While it would seem that international conferencing and seeking to overthrow two regimes would make for a busy weekend for even the most peripathetic secretary of state, Hillary also decided to whack her host, Turkey.

by Philip Giraldi

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was at it again last week. She was in Turkey attending a NATO gathering dealing with what to do about the succession in Libya, based on the perhaps erroneous assumption that Muammar Gadhafi is on his way out. Clinton and NATO decided, based on their own admittedly partial view of the situation, that the Gadhafi regime is no longer legitimate and that the rebels who are trying to topple him are now to be regarded as the legal government. The “international recognition” will enable them to use the roughly $30 billion in frozen Libyan government assets, mostly located in American and European banks. Hopefully, things will go better than they did in Iraq back in 2003. Washington sent in a proconsul supported by a host of neocon Myrmidons to make sure things would run smoothly. More than $20 billion of Iraqi state “reconstruction” funds were unfrozen and then went missing after liberation took place. The Iraqi people are still waiting for the electricity to come back on.

Clinton also took some heavy-handed swipes at Syria, making clear that both she and her boss want to see regime change. Three hundred fifty representatives of Syrian dissident groups were perhaps not coincidentally present in Istanbul for a “National Salvation Conference,” so Clinton took the opportunity to denounce President Bashar al-Assad’s government as having “lost legitimacy.” The White House backed up Clinton’s possibly impromptu comment, and over at Foggy Bottom, Victoria Nuland, the State Department’s neoconnish press spokeswoman, made the case more explicitly, denouncing “a Syrian government that continues to beat, imprison, torture, slaughter its own people.”

If Syria sounds like any number of regimes that the United States has quite comfortable relationships with, it should. While it would seem that international conferencing and seeking to overthrow two regimes would make for a busy weekend for even the most peripatetic secretary of state, Hillary also decided to take on her host, Turkey. She lauded Muslim Turkey as a model for the future development of Arab Spring states but then whacked its government for imprisoning journalists. Whoever was briefing her from her staff or from the Embassy evidently neglected to describe how Turkey has a wide open and fairly raucous press that often is very critical of the government. Most of the 60 detained journalists are reported to have close and continuing ties with separatist groups, including the terrorist Kurdish Workers Party (PKK). Others are believed to be linked to right-wing extremists who have been advocating a military coup to overthrow the civilian government. Turkish sources make clear that there is little doubt that the authorities have quite likely overreacted and used sometimes flimsy evidence to concoct their cases against at least some of the journalists, but the political engagement of many of those arrested might suggest that there is more to the story than meets the eye.

I will confess right here that I have a particular fondness for Turkey, having lived and worked there, and I continue to have many close Turkish friends. Turks are particularly stubborn and extremely loyal, but my recent trips to the country have revealed that they are also utterly fed up with United States policies in the region. The Turkish media is full of the latest missteps by Washington, with particular emphasis on how the entire Near East has been destabilized through U.S. military action and the “war on terror.” Even shopkeepers are caught up in the outrage. On my last visit I was harangued for 30 minutes on U.S. policy by a rug merchant whom I have known for 30 years, a man who has visited the United States and who has many American friends. Even though I agreed with nearly everything he said, he insisted on explaining things in some detail “in his own words,” a prolonged tale of Washington’s arrogance and ignorance.

The U.S. media fans the flames and reciprocates by frequently reporting on Washington’s disenchantment with Turkey and the direction it is moving in, but they are really only expressing their own biases, which are generally measured through their consideration of what Israel appears to want. Recently, two American senators have indicated that they will work to derail any planned NATO missile defense deployment in Turkey unless Ankara agrees to share all information with Israel. Perhaps someone should point out to Sens. Jon Kyl and Mark Kirk that Israel is not a member of NATO and is not in any formal alliance, with the United States or anyone else. Which means that the United States would be compelling NATO to participate in the defense of Israel without any apparent reciprocity on the part of Tel Aviv.

In the middle of all the finger pointing, the United States seems to have lost sight of its own national interest. It is true that Turkey did not support the invasion of Iraq, but it was the right decision not to do so. If a few more countries had also said “no,” perhaps the United States would not have killed a couple of hundred thousand people and wasted more than $1 trillion dollars while accomplishing absolutely nothing.

It is also true that Turkey has condemned Israeli policies and its occupation of the Palestinian territories, but most of the world would consider that a perfectly legitimate viewpoint. Turkey is also derided for becoming more religious even though most of its people have always been devout, and the open expression of belief is also part of its becoming more democratic. In addition, the mainstream media frequently claims that Ankara is soft on Iran sanctions and aligning culturally and politically with its eastern neighbors. Critics forget that Turkey’s attempts to become part of the European Union have been consistently rejected while the country itself is geographically mostly in Asia and sharing borders and trade relationships with quite a lot of the rest of it, including Iran.

To my mind, Turkey is far too nice to Hillary and to Washington. Rather than be lectured, Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan might suggest that Clinton go away and find another bone to chew. If the Middle East is in a catastrophic state, it is precisely because of Washington’s meddling and its perennial tilt toward Israel. Erdogan might note that Turkey’s economy is booming because it takes pains to remain on good terms with everyone, and he might reasonably ask why Washington cannot recognize its own failure to put its house in order. How many congressmen are suggesting that the costs of empire be cut to help pass a federal government budget? Only a handful, while to virtually everyone else in the world watching the spectacle of American impotence on display, the mailed fist and the angry frown of Hillary Clinton are what the United States represents.

What is going on in Syria is another poster child for what is wrong. I have no particular insight into what is occurring in Syria except for my belief that the United States government quite likely knows little about what is taking place and is probably wildly wrong about what the dissidents represent and what they would be likely to do if they were to seize power. There might be a few Patrick Henrys among them ready to go all out for the cause, but I doubt there is a Thomas Jefferson who can pick up the pieces and put Humpty Dumpty back together. Would a destabilized Syria be a precondition for an Israeli attack supported by Washington? You heard it here first.

In the case of Syria, the United States has made plain right from the get-go that it is supporting dissidents through training and provision of technology and infrastructure to enable them to communicate and organize. On July 7, U.S. Ambassador Robert Ford traveled with full ambassadorial entourage to the city of Hama, believed to be a hotbed of resistance to the government. He did so to express his support for the rebels. When he returned to Damascus, an angry crowd, no doubt egged on by the regime, attacked and entered the U.S. Embassy and was eventually driven out of the building by the Marine guards. At the end of it all, it was difficult to discern what the ambassador’s trip was intended to do apart from increase tension. It did produce a tit-for-tat that benefited neither Washington nor Damascus, nor, insofar as can be determined, the rebels or reformers, depending on how one regards them.

The examples of Libya, Syria, and Turkey reveal that the United States persists in thinking that it can lead the world by intimidation rather than by example. One hesitates to construct an analogy, but if the ambassador of an unfriendly country, Venezuela perhaps, were to publicly announce that his country would support separatists in the United States with training and communications equipment and, furthermore, that he would travel to attend an anti-government rally in Texas or Alaska, it would certainly cause considerable heartburn, and I can well imagine President Barack Obama taking aggressive steps to stop the activity. The United States is ever the proverbial pot calling the kettle black, acting out in ways that it denies to others. Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama are no strangers to the word “hypocrisy” in their dealings all around the world. Yes, it is certainly true that people are protesting and dying in Syria, but it is not our quarrel. It is something that the Syrians themselves will have to sort out.

But perhaps there is a more fundamental question. Who is Hillary Clinton to pronounce on the legitimacy of any foreign government? Victoria Nuland’s condemnation of Syria cites “beating, imprisoning, torturing, and slaughtering,” but doesn’t Washington do all of that and more? Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo, CIA secret prisons, and Predator drone strikes surely tell the tale. No other government claims that it has the right to kill its own citizens anywhere in the world based on secret evidence. Isn’t it time for Washington to recognize that it has become a rogue state and for Hillary to come home, sit down, and stop talking?

See original@

Philip Giraldi, Executive Director of CNI, is a former CIA counter-terrorism specialist and military intelligence officer who served 18 years in Turkey, Italy, Germany, and Spain. He was Chief of Base in Barcelona from 1989 to 1992, and designated as the Agency’s senior officer for Olympic Games support. Dr. Giraldi holds an MA and PhD from the University of London. He speaks Spanish, Italian, German, and Turkish.

Read more





]]> 0
A Great Book About the Great Games — Kevin Barrett Fri, 22 Jul 2011 03:54:03 +0000 Debbie Walberg’s exemplary honesty extends to his discussion of the role of Jewish financiers in the creation of the British-American empires, in which the real power resides with bankers, not governments, and the way those same financial powers have established the “postmodern imperialism” of Great Game III


by Kevin Barrett,


Eric Walberg’s Postmodern Imperialism: Geopolitics and the Great Games is the best introduction to geopolitics that I have seen. Walberg begins by citing such classic theoreticians as Mackinder, Haushofer and Ratzel in his description of how the imperial center drains the resources of its periphery, and how the earth’s geography has dictated a struggle between Eurasian land powers (Russia, China, Germany, Islamdom ) and maritime rimlands (US, Britain, Japan) in which the latter are generally the aggressors — though you wouldn’t know that from their propaganda, which is probably all you ever see if you live in the West.

Walberg traces the evolution of Great Game I (pre-Russian revolution) into Great Game II (the Cold War era) and finally Great Game III (today’s US-British-Israeli war for world conquest). Unlike the functional psychopaths who dominate in Political Science departments and policy-making positions, Walberg never loses sight of the almost unimaginable depravity of the whole enterprise, and the tidal wave of human suffering in which imperialism has nearly drowned the world.

What makes Walberg’s book a real stand-out — and what probably made it unpublishable by the major corporate houses — is his honest analysis of the way the hardline Likudnik Zionists have seized power and dominated Great Game III. Though Walberg does not come right out and say that 9/11 was staged by the Mossad as a Zionist coup d’état, that is the unstated implication of the picture he paints, in which Zionist interests in destabilization and sheer mindless destruction of their Islamic enemies have trumped US interests in stabilizing and exploiting the Islamic rimlands. He hints at this in his introduction when he describes watching 9/11 on TV from Tashkent: “My immediate reaction was that their (the Twin Towers’) collapse simply could not be the work of a band of poorly-trained Muslims orchestrated by someone in a cave in neighboring Afghanistan. Subsequent study has confirmed to me that the events of 2001 had far more to do with US imperialism –and Israel–than Islam.” (p. 16)

Walberg’s exemplary honesty extends to his discussion of the role of Jewish financiers in the creation of the British-American empires, in which the real power resides with bankers, not governments, and the way those same financial powers have established the “postmodern imperialism” of Great Game III: “The importance of the financial world and its use as parapolitics to the game strategy in Great Game III…like the importance of the Rothschilds to the strategies of Great Games I and II, cannot be overestimated. The Protocols of the Elders of Zion was initially viewed and continues to be seen by many as the program of an emancipated nineteenth century Jewish financial elite using Freemasonry as a vehicle to achieve world power. The worth of the Protocols is not assessed here. It is enough to trace the development of the politics of Zionism from attributable sources and to observe the moves it gives rise to.” (p. 178). While the usual suspects will undoubted call him names, I think Walberg considerably understates the case. If, in fact, the Protocols were real, the actual, documented psychopathic viciousness and mendacity of Zionism would make their authors seem relatively benign by comparison.

Along the way, Walberg bravely voices the obvious but taboo answer to the question: Why in the world did the British, the world’s greatest empire, give away Palestine to the Zionists? What was the quid-pro-quo?


The answer, as everyone knows but as very few are brave enough to say out loud, is as follows:

“The promise of a Jewish state in Palestine was a direct result of Zionist lobbying of both the British and Germans as World War I dragged on. Jewish bankers were financing both sides in World War I. Rothschild and the Jewish Conjoint Foreign Committee (JCFC) lobbied the British government intensely during World War I to push for a commitment to a post-war Jewish state. As British fortunes ebbed, the JCFC assured Lord Robert Cecil that American Zionists would lobby for US entry into the war if the British were to promise a Jewish state in Palestine after the war.”

In other words, the Zionists were responsible for the slaughter of the 117,465 Americans killed, and the 205,690 Americans wounded, in that utterly meaningless (for the US) war. Compared to the Zionist slaughter of Americans in World War I, the 1967 USS Liberty incident (34 killed, 170 wounded) and the Israeli-Zionist attacks on New York and Washington on 9/11/2001 (2,977 killed immediately, untold thousands wounded and killed by toxic dust, and more than 7,500 dead in the 9/11 wars) were small stuff.

Another potentially controversial bit of truth-telling is Walberg’s discussion of the does-the-tail-wag-the-dog debates (p. 214 – 219). His conclusion is that yes, the Israeli tail does wag the American imperial dog, and more and more people are figuring this out. Walberg cites Anatole Lieven’s argument that Israel offered the US strategic advantages during the Cold War, but has since become “a very serious strategic liability…This is not a case of the tail wagging the dog, but of the tail wagging the unfortunate dog around the room and banging its head against the ceiling.” (p.218).

One of my favorite publishers, Margo Baldwin of Chelsea Green, told me during our radio interview that the biggest taboo in American publishing is criticism of Israel. I hope that the brave folks at Clarity Press continue to bust that taboo, and that Walberg’s brilliant Postmodern Imperialism follows the path blazed by James Petras’s The Power of Israel in the United States (which has now gone through seven printings) to become an underground bestseller.

About the Author: Dr. Kevin Barrett, a Ph.D. Arabist-Islamologist, is one of America’s best-known critics of the War on Terror. Dr. Barrett has appeared many times on Fox, CNN, PBS and other broadcast outlets, and has inspired feature stories and op-eds in the New York Times, the Christian Science Monitor, the Chicago Tribune, and other leading publications. Dr. Barrett has taught at colleges and universities in San Francisco, Paris, and Wisconsin, where he ran for Congress in 2008. He currently works as a nonprofit organizer, author, and talk radio host. His website is

]]> 2
More Trouble in Murdoch World Thu, 21 Jul 2011 12:56:59 +0000 Debbie So, Murdoch is taking a more proactive approach to stop the bleeding. But will it work? postulates Mike Whitney

Foreword by Debbie Menon / My Catbird Seat

The Mainstream Press and TV misinformation services in general are doing their best to create the image or the public concept that this is a simple scandal of “hacking” into private and personal affairs, prying, so to speak. It was NOT!

It was a criminal act of  warrantless wiretapping telephones in order to get information, an illegal activity punishable by a prison sentence and, in this instance, involving a Newspaper, possible loss of the newspapers license to publish, as well as imprisonment of those involved or accessories to the facts.

We must not let the public begin to believe that what Rupert’s gang at News of the World did was “hacking,” which most people regard as a harmless computer prank by kids.  It was “wiretapping” of telephones, which is a felony offense in most countries, and most definitely so in the UK.

I notice there is no one named to the Investigatory Panel who has a degree or background in the legal Profession who might make a distinction between unsociable  snooping, or  “Hacking,” and illegal criminal activity, “Wiretapping.”

I also note that in none of the discussion in MSM is the possibility of “wiretapping,” or the actual word employed. We should not let the public forget this, or be misled by the MSM!

Mr. Cameron is simply another small part of the cover-up.

Stu Littlewood puts it nicely “…. and Murdoch Is Not The Only Maggot In The Rotten Apple ” in the barrel, but the entire rest of the barrel are also just as rotten, every last one of them. What anyone can say about Murdoch holds as true or even truer for the rest of the mainstream media, BBC, CNN et al who if Murdoch is targeted and put on the sinking ship will have to scurry for cover.

“Rupert Murdoch is the last of a dying breed: An old-fashioned press baron, a tough businessman with ink running through his veins, a hefty checkbook, and a hunger for the next big story. ” — reports CNN

Rubbish!  Old-fashioned Press Baron ? He is nothing more than another run of the mill piratical power broker who has amassed a great media empire as a tool to meddle and peddle his Ares, influence and blackmail.  There is a vast difference between a Baron and a Brigand.

He and his kind have killed all of the old “Press Barons,” who were not much better.

See: Rupert Murdoch Has Gamed American Politics Every Bit as Thoroughly as Britain’s

UK leaders say Rupert Murdoch’s empire has “entered the criminal underworld”

Yeah, he is behind and deeply involved in a lot of criminal activity… but you can bet he has legal cover which gives him absolute denial, and you will find his finger prints on nothing.

He obviously has an entire army full of Becky Brook’s to take the heat and the rap, and he will throw them under buses wherever and whenever necessary. And, he can do valuable work for some very important and even more powerful people than he is, which makes him a valuable asset in certain quarters. He has friends. He has money.  Money equals POWER.

With a good wife, like Wendy, a man might be reformed.  But, with a shrewd and ambitious wife, like her, it is more likely that she would simply feed and fan his fires or greed and ambition onward and downward to greater and greater depths of suppression, success and excesses of exploitation and power.

“As the phone hacking investigation widens, the effort to revise media ownership rules is bound to gain pace. But Murdoch can’t be bothered about things like that now. He’s got more important matters to attend to, like putting out the fire that’s threatening to consume more of his properties. What he’s focused on is crisis management and “getting ahead of the curve” so he’s not dragged around by events like he has been up-to now. That’s why he’s launched an impressive Mea Culpa campaign wherein two of his chief lieutenants have resigned (on Friday), Murdoch has personally (and publicly) apologized to the family of Millie Dowler, and News Corp. has published two full-page ads in many of their Saturday and Sunday newspapers stating in bold print: “WE ARE SORRY”. …. “We are sorry for the serious wrongdoing that occurred…..We are deeply sorry for the hurt suffered by the individuals affected.” (etc) signed Rupert Murdoch.

“Mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa.”

“So, Murdoch is taking a more proactive approach to stop the bleeding. But will it work?”  postulates  Mike Whitney:

Rupert Murdoch’s troubles keep piling up

by Mike Whitney

On Friday, Labor leader Ed Miliband called for a break-up of the Murdoch empire saying, “I think he has too much power over British public life…..We’ve got to look at the situation whereby one person can own more than 20 percent of the newspaper market….I think it’s unhealthy.”

Miliband has a good grasp of public sentiment, which is why his personal approval ratings have soared in the last few weeks. His comments reflect a fundamental change in attitudes about media ownership following revelations about Millie Dowler, the 13-year old murder victim whose phone messages were hacked by investigators employed by Murdoch. The public now understands that the concentration of media has led to terrible abuses that need to be corrected. As the phone hacking investigation widens, the effort to revise media ownership rules is bound to gain pace.

But Murdoch can’t be bothered about things like that now. He’s got more important matters to attend to, like putting out the fire that’s threatening to consume more of his properties. What he’s focused on is crisis management and “getting ahead of the curve” so he’s not dragged around by events like he has been up-to now. That’s why he’s launched an impressive Mea Culpa campaign wherein two of his chief lieutenants have resigned (on Friday), Murdoch has personally (and publicly) apologized to the family of Millie Dowler, and News Corp. has published two full-page ads in many of their Saturday and Sunday newspapers stating in bold print: “WE ARE SORRY”. …. “We are sorry for the serious wrongdoing that occurred…..We are deeply sorry for the hurt suffered by the individuals affected.” (etc) signed Rupert Murdoch.

“Mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa.”

So, Murdoch is taking a more proactive approach to stop the bleeding. But will it work?  His first big test will be on July 19, when he and his son James appear before the Select Committee in Parliament to answer questions related to the phone hacking controversy. We expect the usually-abrasive Murdoch to be on his best behavior doing whatever is required to put the flap behind him.

But the crisis won’t end with these preliminary hearings. In fact, there’s little Murdoch can do to stop the drip, drip, drip of new revelations. Already there’s talk of “break ins” and “phone tapping”, although, so far, the claims have not been substantiated. What is certain, though, is that Murdoch Inc. is going to be under a microscope for a long time to come. And, that’s going to be very bad for advertising revenues and stock prices.

So what will the investigation uncover?

Well, first of all, there’s the question of criminal wrongdoing. Is there proof? This is from Reuters:

“News International chief executive Rebekah Brooks was warned by police in 2002 about serious malpractice and possible illegal activities by reporters at a newspaper she edited, former British Prime Minister Gordon Brown said on Wednesday….

“As early as 2002 senior police officers at Scotland Yard met the now chief executive of News International and informed her of serious malpractice on the part of her newspaper staff and criminals undertaking surveillance on their behalf,” Brown told parliament on Wednesday.” (“Police told News Corps Brooks of malpractice: Brown, Reuters)

Okay, so who knew the phone hacking was going on and how high up the chain of command does it go? All the way to Murdoch?

If so, then was phone hacking company policy? These questions have to be answered.

Here’s a tidbit from the Hindustan Times:

“….a steady stream of revelations over the last few years suggest that reporters at the News of the World illegally hacked into the phones of upto 4,000 people, checking on their voice-mails and perhaps, listening to their conversations. The list of those whose phones were hacked (often by private detectives working on behalf of the paper) included politicians, sports stars, actors, other journalists and anybody else who happened to be in the news at the time…..

If it is wrong to hack or tap phones or carry transcripts of the private conversations (as the current mood of outrage suggests) then let’s also accept that this is a fairly common and widespread practice. Reporters often tap phones or secretly tape conversations. Newspapers hack into computers and obtain access to bank data and personal financial information. They carry taped conversations without verifying their accuracy or testing the tapes for evidence of tampering….

In Britain, there is also a little discussed kind of journalism called the ‘dark arts’ in which journos hire actors to impersonate people on the phone to obtain information or pretend to be somebody else to con people into talking to them….” (“When the whip comes down on tabloids”, Hindustan Times)

So, Murdoch is just the tip of the iceberg?

Apparently so. But if that’s the case, then isn’t time the public found out how widespread these intrusions into their privacy really are? And don’t people have the right to know whether the media is gathering information legally or not? That seems pretty basic.

There’s an interesting article in The Nation titled “Has Roger Ailes Hacked American Phones for Fox News?” by Leslie Savan that brings these questions more into focus. Here’s an excerpt:

Dan Cooper was one of the people who helped create the Fox News channel with Roger Ailes, and was fired in 1996. In 2008, Cooper wrote on his website that David Brock (now head of Media Matters) had used him as an anonymous, on-background-only source for an Ailes profile he was writing for New York magazine. Before the piece was published, on November 17, 1997, Cooper claims that his talent agent, Richard Leibner, told him he had received a call from Ailes, who identified Cooper as a source, and insisted that Leibner drop him as a client–or any client reels Leibner sent Fox would pile up in a corner and gather dust. Cooper continued:

“I made the connections. Ailes knew I had given Brock the interview. Certainly Brock didn’t tell him. Of course. Fox News had gotten Brock’s telephone records from the phone company, and my phone number was on the list.

Roger Ailes with Rupert M

Deep in the bowels of 1211 Avenue of the Americas, News Corporation’s New York headquarters, was what Roger called the Brain Room. Most people thought it was simply the research department of Fox News. But unlike virtually everybody else, because I had to design and build the Brain Room, I knew it also housed a counterintelligence and black ops office. So accessing phone records was easy pie.” (“Has Roger Ailes Hacked American Phones for Fox News?” Leslie Savan, The Nation)

If Savan is right, then the other major media are probably involved in similar activities. But doesn’t that suggest that media is not really a “watchdog of power” at all, but rather a threat to the public interest? After all, no one knows how this information is being used. It could be that ownership is using the information to blackmail politicians or to eliminate political enemies. Is that why so many congressmen have decided not to run for another term in the 2012 elections, because someone in the media has dirt on them that would turn them into the next Anthony Wiener or John Edwards?

Lastly, here’s a blurb from another article in The Nation titled “Sky Falls on Rupert Murdoch”:

“…widening revelations of the phone-hacking scandal show, News Corporation is not an ordinary commercial enterprise. Through his journalists and gossip columnists and the network of former and current police officers and law enforcement officials on his payroll, Rupert Murdoch has been operating what amounts to a private intelligence service. And the threat of personal exposure—on the front page of the Sun or Page Six in the Post—gives News Corporation a kind of leverage over inquisitive regulators or troublesome politicians wielded by no other company on earth.

English already has the expression “para-state” to describe the kind of shadowy forces that operate beneath and behind legitimate authority. Is it really unreasonable to suggest that in News Corporation, Fox, News International, Sky and the rest of Murdoch’s empire, we are witnessing the exposure of the para-corporation?” (“Sky Falls on Rupert Murdoch”, D.D. Guttenplan, The Nation)

Repeat: “Rupert Murdoch has been operating what amounts to a private intelligence service.”


The firestorm in the UK is not really about phone hacking at all. It’s about Corporate fiefdoms and unelected oligarchs who control the flow of information and use that power to their own advantage. The longer the investigation goes on, the better for everyone. Transparency is the best disinfectant.

Mike Whitney graduated from St. Michael’s College in English Lit in 1975.  Currently, he is Program Director of the Snohomish County Democrats but, he admits that his interest in politics only began with the appointment of GW Bush as President. Like many other regular Americans, he has understood from the very beginning the global aspirations of the Cabal that presently occupies 1600 Pennsylvania Ave and the threat they pose to the world. It is a threat that is as real and as far reaching as any we have seen since the rise of Fascism in 1930s Germany (The author’s description of himself). He lives in Washington state. He can be reached at

Source :Information Clearing House and “The Nation

Related video


]]> 4
Murdoch Is Not The Only Maggot In The Rotten Apple Wed, 20 Jul 2011 03:09:18 +0000 Debbie Public enemy Number One is the pro-Israel lobby


by Stuart Littlewood / My Catbird Seat


Having disposed of the Murdoch menace – for the moment anyway – it’s time for the British public to turn the spotlight on the other villains our craven politicians pay homage to.

Public enemy Number One is the pro-Israel lobby. An organization called the Conservative Friends of Israel states it has “twin aims of supporting Israel and promoting Conservatism. With close to 2000 activists as members – alongside 80% of Conservative MPs – CFI is active at every level of the Party”.

And the rot goes all the way to the top, with Conservative prime minister David Cameron endorsing it enthusiastically: “I am proud not just to be a Conservative, but a Conservative Friend of Israel; and I am proud of the key role CFI plays within our Party.”

Back in 2006 The Jewish Chronicle ran a report on the backers bankrolling Cameron’s bid for the party leadership. It was sent to the Committee on Standards in Public Life as an example of how the pro-Israel lobby infiltrates government and undermines the very principles the standards watchdog was established to uphold. But Zionist tentacles reach further than you think. The Committee ignored it.

At the time Cameron, a self-proclaimed Zionist, pledged: “If I become Prime Minister, Israel has a friend who will never turn his back on her…”

The Liberal Democrats allow a similar lobby group to flourish within their ranks. Its stated aim is to “maximise support for the State of Israel within the Liberal Democrats and Parliament”. Labour also has a virulent Israel supporters club that broadcasts Tel Aviv’s propaganda and, when in power, appoints Israel lobby stooges to key ministerial and other positions.

Britain, as everyone knows, has carved an unfortunate niche for itself as America’s poodle. But not enough people ask the key question: whose poodle is America? American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) has the private parts of US Congress in such a vice-like grip that the Zionist regime’s interests come first in Washington. For example, the US House of Representatives felt obliged to endorse, by 390 votes to 5, Israel’s assault on Gaza in the winter of 2008/9, a massacre that killed over 1,400 (mostly Palestinian civilians including a large number of women and children), wounded and maimed thousands more, left tens of thousands homeless and horrified the rest of the world.

It is amazing how many people with dual passports stalk the corridors of power in Washington. And we all saw the orchestrated adulation with which the Israeli premier was received the other week.

Israel’s propaganda machine of course denies it. Nevertheless the US House of Representatives felt obliged to endorse, by 390 votes to 5, Israel’s murderous assault on Gaza in the winter of 2008/9, an atrocity that killed over 1,400 (mostly Palestinian civilians including a large number of women and children), wounded and maimed thousands more, left tens of thousands homeless and horrified the rest of the world.

The knock-on effect in the UK is inecitable. We too are so embroiled in the Zionists’ perpetual strife with the Islamic world that we’ve been sucked into the same cesspit. Britain is now one of the most hated nations on earth thanks to our cosy association with US-Israeli ambitions in the Middle East.

Meet the ‘Israel-firsters’

Israel was founded on terror, land theft, ethnic cleansing and extreme brutality. Why would the British Establishment wish to snuggle up to it? Why did Liam Fox, now Defence Secretary, famously say: “We must remember that in the battle for the values that we stand for, for democracy against theocracy, for democratic liberal values against repression – Israel’s enemies are our enemies and this is a battle in which we all stand together or we will all fall divided.”

As if that wasn’t absurd enough William Hague, now foreign secretary, came out with this in 2008: “The unbroken thread of Conservative Party support for Israel that has run for nearly a century from the Balfour Declaration to the present day will continue. Although it will no doubt often be tested in the years ahead, it will remain constant, unbroken, and undiminished by the passage of time.”

Undimished by the passage of crime, too. Tzipi Livni was Israeli foreign minister at the time of Operation Cast Lead and largely responsible for the unimaginable terror and destruction unleashed on Gaza’s civilians. Livni’s office issued a statement saying she was proud of Operation Cast Lead and, lacking all remorse, she later declared: “I would today take the same decisions.” Obviously she is on several wanted lists. When a warrant for her arrest was issued in London she went whining to our then foreign secretary David Miliband, who apologized. When the Conservative coalition came in and Hague took over the Foreign Office who can forget how Hague rushed to prove his loyalty by promising that our universal jurisdiction laws would be changed to protect Israel’s suspected war criminals? It was “an appalling situation where a politician like Mrs Livni could be threatened with arrest on coming to the UK” he said.

David Cameron, for his part, told Conservative Friends of Israel: “The ties between this party and Israel are unbreakable. And in me, you have a Prime Minister whose belief in Israel is indestructible.”

And he recently told a Jewish audience: “I want to be clear, we will always support Israel… when Iran flouts its international obligations Britain is and will remain at the forefront of the international community in ratcheting up the pressure with tough sanctions. We will not stand by and allow Iran to cast a nuclear shadow over Israel or the wider region.”

Considering it is Israel which casts the nuclear shadow, menaces the region and flouts international laws and conventions, that remark was beyond ridiculous. Cameron, like Fox, seems determined to make Israel’s enemies Britain’s enemies when we have no quarrel with any of them.

Who gave him permission to spout such dangerous drivel in our name?

Hague too loves ratcheting up the violence. While still deeply embroiled in an unwinnable Afghan campaign he started bombing the hell out of Libya months ago – with no end in sight – and is now sending more British aircraft into “theatre” to intensify the carnage, seemingly oblivious to the fact that back home in Britain we are struggling to make ends meet with a monumental economic and financial deficit around our necks.

Who’s he doing all this bloodshed for? Certainly not for us.

Lacking military experience these Israel-firsters, liked Blair and others before them, show an unhealthy lust for death and destruction. They are what I believe our American cousins call ‘chicken-hawks’ – talking tough but taking care never to risk their own worthless skins.

Lawlessness rules, OK?

Another ardent admirer of the Zionist regime is James Arbuthnot, the Parliamentary chairman of the Conservative Friends of Israel. He told Parliament: “Everyone in this House should have an interest in Israel, because it is a country that embodies the values that we should stand for. Israel [has] become a bastion of the rule of law…”

Israel’s prime minister Netanyahu heads their Likud party, which is the embodiment of greed, racist ambition, lawlessness and callous disregard for other people’s rights. In any other country it would be banned and its leaders locked up. Yet Netanyahu is welcomed like a hero in the US and given 29 standing ovations by Congress.

Likud intends to make the seizure of Jerusalem permanent and establish Israel’s capital there. It will “act with vigor” to ensure Jewish sovereignty in East Jerusalem (which still officially belongs to the Palestinians as does the Old City). The illegal settlements are “the realization of Zionist values and a clear expression of the unassailable right of the Jewish people to the Land of Israel”. They will be strengthened and expanded. As for the Palestinians, they can run their lives in a framework of self-rule “but not as an independent and sovereign state”.

Are these the values Arbuthnot is suggesting we adopt?

Kadima, the party of Livni, Olmert and Barak, is little better and has also pledged to preserve the larger settlement blocs and steal Jerusalem.

As for Arbuthnot’s claim that Israel is a bastion of the rule of law, a UN fact-finding mission, dealing with the assault on the Mavi Marmara last year, declared that “no case can be made for the legality of the interception”.

But here’s Arbuthnot again, arguing the case for Israel… “Given that the flotilla was designed to be provocative and to end in violence, we should not blame Israel for the violence against which it failed to guard itself; the blame lies with those who went on to the flotilla expressly seeking martyrdom.”

The Mission considered that Israel’s naval blockade of Gaza amounted to collective punishment and thus was illegal and contrary to Article 33 of the Fourth Geneva Convention. The interception of the Mavi Marmara on the high seas was “clearly unlawful” and could not be justified even under Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations (the right of self-defence).

The Centre for Constitutional Rights agrees that the blockade “cannot be reconciled with the principles of international law, including international humanitarian law”. Center for Constitutional Rights Legal Analysis September 2010.pdf

If the blockade is illegal, why is it allowed to continue? Because subservient Israel-firsters in London, Washington and other capitals won’t act. Lawlessness rules, OK?

Arbuthnot, by the way, is also chairman of Britain’s Defence Select Committee. Worrying, isn’t it?

Conflict of interests

The British government’s policy of shielding and cosseting Israel’s extremists makes all of us complicit in that regime’s crimes. How does this perverse devotion to a foreign power square with the Seven Principles of Public Life, especially the one about Integrity, which the government is supposed to uphold? The Principle of Integrity lays down that holders of public office should not place themselves under any financial or other obligation to outside individuals or organisations that might seek to influence them in the performance of their official duties.

Do MPs and ministers not understand this simple imperative? If the Israel lobby has no influence, as some have claimed, how do our leaders explain away the 80 percent of Conservative MPs who are Friends of Israel? How do they explain the appointment of a Foreign Secretary who has been a Friend of Israel since boyhood and a minister in charge of Middle East affairs who is a former officer of the Conservative Friends of Israel?

There are rules about conflict of interests. Why aren’t they followed? Do we ever hear an MP or minister, when taking part in a Middle East debate, say “Mr Speaker, I wish the House to know that I am a staunch member of Friends of Israel and Jewish money paid for my election campaign”?

In his infatuation with Israel Mr Hague even stoops to provide cover for its mega-crimes. At the height of the murderous Gaza blitz, Hague announced to Parliament: “The immediate trigger for this crisis… was the barrage of hundreds of rocket attacks against Israel on the expiry of the ceasefire or truce.”

The truce with Hamas didn’t “expire”. It was violated after five months by Israeli forces in order to provoke Hamas and provide an excuse for the long-planned assault. Israel had also failed to deliver its side of the ceasefire bargain, which was to lift the blockade.

Our Middle East minister, Alistair Burt, is another comedian. He recently announced that Britain would not recognise a Palestinian state unless it emerged from a peace deal with Israel. London, he said, could “not recognise a state that does not have a capital, and doesn’t have borders”.

Hadn’t he heard? Palestine’s borders are the pre-1967 armistice lines as defined in UN resolutions and recognised by the international community. Where does Burt suppose Israel’s borders are? Is Israel where Israel is supposed to be, within internationally defined borders? No, it isn’t. Israel keeps its borders fluid, all the time grabbing a bit more land here and confiscating a bit more there. Yet London recognises Israel.

Burt, Hague, Cameron, Fox, Arbuthnot… there are many more like them. How can we be sure where their allegiance lies? Whom do they really work for?

I’ll leave the last word on Israel’s evil machinations to Sir Gerald Kaufman, the straight-talking Jewish MP. He said in a Commons debate in January 2008: “Is it not a fact that only international action can bring to an end the humanitarian disaster caused by collective punishment imposed by the gang of amoral thugs who comprise the Israeli Government and violate not only international law but the historic Jewish conscience?”

Sir Gerald’s family suffered horribly during the Holocaust and his sick grandmother was shot dead in her bed by a German soldier. “They’re not simply war criminals, they’re fools”, he said of the Israelis when Operation Cast Lead was launched. “My grandmother did not die to provide cover for Israeli soldiers murdering Palestinian grandmothers in Gaza.”

Cameron’s judgement, already wobbly, has finally been shot to pieces by his cosiness with Murdoch’s ‘mafia’, and he should be clearing his desk. Add to that his dangerous obsession with racist Israel which drags us into unnecessary wars against countries that pose no threat, and sacrifices our lads in uniform in an unjust cause, and it’s clear that he must go.

Our elected MPs belong to us, the British voters. Not to some gang of foreign thugs. We must mobilise to make sure they clearly understand this. And we must work to take back our parliament.

Stuart Littlewood is author of the book Radio Free Palestine, which tells the plight of the Palestinians under occupation. For further information please visit : He is a frequent contributor to My Catbird Seat



Read more




]]> 2
Who is Rupert Murdoch? VIDEO Tue, 19 Jul 2011 04:53:42 +0000 Debbie “Through espionage, blackmail and bribery, his organizations have been controlling politicians”

Presentation of Veterans Today’s “Murdoch Notes”

by Gordon Duff

Produced by Heretic Productions, Malmsbury, Wiltshire, UK

(Thanks to Edward Rynearson and Michael Chester for bringing this piece to our attention.)

Gordon Duff is a Marine Vietnam veteran.  A 100% disabled vet.  He has been a featured commentator on TV and radio including Al Jazeera and his articles have been carried by news services around the world. He has been a UN Diplomat, defense contractor and is a widely published expert on military and defense issues.  Duff is Senior Editor at one of  the most widely read Veterans Online publications Veterans Today

A Murdoch Note — Gordon Duff Updated

 ‘Murdoch behind 9 11, Iraq, Afghan wars and financial meltdown’

Related posts

]]> 8
9/11 and Israel:Face to Face with Dr Alan Sabrosky Sun, 17 Jul 2011 18:31:10 +0000 Debbie Tying Israel Irrevocably to 9/11

by Gordon Duff, Senior Editor — Veterans Today

This week, *Alan Sabrosky, Managing Editor at Veterans Today, was interviewed on 9/11 and Israel’s involvement and their influence in American affairs.

Alan, I call him that, a fellow editor, fellow Marine and good friend, does what few do when discussing issues of such extreme controversy.  Alan sticks to the facts, takes the facts to logical conclusions and stops there. The case made is a case that will stand up in a court of law, a case not contrived for entertainment, for propaganda or for an emotional “fix,” feeding hate, prejudice or the desire by some for conspiracies to fill the void of a life bereft of meaning.

Every American of any political leaning or ethnicity can and should, out of patriotism and out of sanity, watch this interview.

Alan Sabrosky is “serious as a heart attack.”

Susan Modaress interviews Dr. Alan Sabrosky on her Press TV show Autograph

Runtime is 20 minutes.


Beyond this, the past decade has bombarded the American public and the world with wildly conflicting conspiracy theories and phony science, the worst of it from the American government itself.

What can I say as a postscript or commentary to the interview?  Liberal, Conservative, Jew, Gentile, what Alan Sabrosky says is simply the truth.  He has the credentials and the character to know the truth.

The message:

Believing the government and mainstream media’s version of 9/11 and allowing Israeli “dual citizens” to serve in government or electing and appointing officials whose relationship with Israel is detrimental to the security of the United States is inconsistent with citizen responsibility for any American.

Related Interview:

Declassified: Massive Israeli manipulation of US media exposed

See original post here

Related articles by Alan:

*Alan Sabrosky (Ph.D., University of Michigan) is a writer and consultant specializing in national and international security affairs. In December 1988, he received the Superior Civilian Service Award after more than five years of service at the U.S. Army War College as Director of Studies, Strategic Studies Institute, and holder of the General of the Army Douglas MacArthur Chair of Research. He is listed in WHO’S WHO IN THE EAST (23rd ed.). A Marine Corps Vietnam veteran and a 1986 graduate of the U.S. Army War College, Dr. Sabrosky’s teaching and research appointments have included the United States Military Academy, the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), Middlebury College and Catholic University; while in government service, he held concurrent adjunct professorships at Georgetown University and the Johns Hopkins University School of Advanced International Studies (SAIS). Dr. Sabrosky has lectured widely on defense and foreign affairs in the United States and abroad. You can email Dr. Alan Sabrosky at:

Gordon Duff is a Marine Vietnam veteran.  A 100% disabled vet.  He has been a featured commentator on TV and radio including Al Jazeera and his articles have been carried by news services around the world. He has been a UN Diplomat, defense contractor and is a widely published expert on military and defense issues.  Duff is Senior Editor at one of  the most widely read Veterans Online publications Veterans Today 


]]> 1
Palestinian Statehood : A First Step Toward Sovereignty? Sun, 17 Jul 2011 09:03:02 +0000 Debbie Sovereignty and a New Reality: Palestinian Statehood at the United Nations

By Jessica Gabriel / CNI

Ambassador Areikat also spoke to the question of why the PLO is only now bringing this request to the UN – stating that US President Barack Obama’s speech at the UN General Assembly in September 2010 served as a point of encouragement for the action.

With little fanfare and understated ease, the Ambassador of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) to the United States spoke in Washington, DC on Tuesday.  The event, entitled “Sovereignty and a New Reality: Palestinian Statehood at the United Nations”, took place at the Palestine Center, a part of the Jerusalem Fund.

Amb. Maen Areikat

The panel also included Professor John B. Quigley, a law professor at Ohio State University.  Together, he and Ambassador Maen R. Areikat spoke to the request for Palestinian statehood that is expected to be brought to the United Nations in September.

Professor Quigley took the podium first, outlining the legal framework of a request for membership in the UN.  This included a description of the possible scenarios that could occur, including a request made to the Secretary General that then goes through the Security Council and then the General Assembly.

Professor John Quigley

Quigley took care to mention that the drafting process of the UN Charter indicates that the General Assembly has to consider the Security Council recommendation but could possibly act of its own accord.  Therefore, any decision on membership would be made by the General Assembly.  This would create a space in which the Palestinians may find a little breathing room from the pressures of the US veto power.

Furthermore, Quigley clarified the meaning of the term ‘state’ itself, specifically noting that when an entity is accepted by other states as a state, then it is a state.  He acknowledged that Palestine does, in that sense, already constitute a state, based on recognition by Brazil, Argentina, and Uruguay.

Ambassador Areikat focused on the political implications of UN membership.  Areikat stressed that in this act, the Palestinians are not looking for recognition or a unilateral decision – rather, they are simply seeking admission to and legitimacy in the international arena.

“The cost of the occupation is being subsidized by the international community,” Areikat said.  However, he emphasized that this move on the part of the Palestinians is “not delegitimizing Israel, but legitimizing Palestine.”

The question and answer portion of the event revealed further details, including an affirmation of the PLO concession to return to 1967 borders, as well as a response to the notion of dissolving the PA if UN membership goes through.  “It has provided Palestinians with a foundation for statehood,” Areikat mused, recognizing that the absence of the PA would create a political and security vacuum and uncertainty as to who would fill that vacuum.

Areikat also spoke to the question of why the PLO is only now bringing this request to the UN – stating that US President Barack Obama’s speech at the UN General Assembly in September 2010 served as a point of encouragement for the action.

As some may recall, the following is an excerpt of what President Obama said in that speech: “We should reach for what’s best within ourselves.  If we do, when we come back here next year, we can have an agreement that will lead to a new member of the United Nations – an independent, sovereign state of Palestine, living in peace with Israel.”

President Obama’s words and the very recent admission of South Sudan into the UN have both set the stage for this moment.  Needless to say, as the end of July deadline for the submission of the request approaches, the eyes of the Palestinians – and the world – will be watching.

For details and video coverage of the event, see:

VIDEO: Sovereignty and a New Reality: Vote for Palestinian

This lecture examines the September Palestinian Statehood vote at the United Nations and the implications its result will have on Palestine, israel and the Arab world.

]]> 0
US Congress Lied To About Israel-Palestine Conflict Sun, 17 Jul 2011 07:12:02 +0000 Debbie When the truth is so easy to discover

by Stuart Littlewood / My Catbird Seat

There is only one thing worse than being lied to, Congress. And that’s acting on a lie.

Hamas prime minister, Ismail Haniyeh, within days of being elected, offered long-term peace if Israel recognised Palestine as an independent state on 1967 borders.

Here in the UK we have so many craven politicians paying homage to the likes of Murdoch and playing stooge to the pro-Israel lobby that there’s little time to take much interest in US politics. So I apologise to American friends for briefly intruding on their grief; but somebody has sent me a copy of a letter from a US Congresswoman Colleen Hanabusa, to one of her constituents.

It says:

“As the only democracy in the region, I believe that the United States has a special relationship with Israel… During my time in the House of Representatives, I will support our funding our ally and help to forward Israel’s efforts to keep their citizens safe, which currently stands at $2.8 billion in general foreign aid, and another $280 million for a missile defense system…

“Our foreign aid to Palestine is intended to create a virtuous cycle of stability and prosperity in the West Bank that inclines Palestinians towards peaceful coexistence with Israel and prepares them for self-governance. Continued failure to reach a two-state solution, combined with lack of consensus on any of the alternatives, may also mean that the status quo in the West Bank and Gaza could continue indefinitely. In addition, with the West Bank and Gaza currently controlled by Hamas, an entity listed as a terrorist organization by U.S. State Department and many other world governments, this may ultimately impact future aid our nation will provide.

“Most recently, I became a co-sponsor of House Resolution 268, which reaffirms our support for a negotiated solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict resulting in two states. This resolution also opposition to a unilateral declaration of a Palestinian state, as well as outlined consequences for Palestinian efforts to circumvent direct negotiations. This bill passed in the House on July 7, 2011 by a vote of 407 – 6…”

Resolution 268 actually states that “Palestinian efforts to gain recognition of a state outside direct negotiations demonstrates absence of a good faith commitment to peace negotiations”. It threatens withholding US foreign aid to the Palestinian National Authority if it presses ahead with an application for statehood in the United Nations in September. It also calls for the Palestinian unity government to “publicly and formally forswear terrorism, accept Israel’s right to exist, and reaffirm previous agreements made with the Government of Israel.”

Senator Ben Cardin, who initiated the resolution, announced: “The Senate has delivered a clear message to the international community that United Nations recognition of a Palestinian state at this time does not further the peace process.”

Israel is the only democracy in the region? The West Bank and Gaza are controlled by Hamas? An application to the UN for Palestinian statehood is “circumventing” the peace process? Rep Colleen Hanabusa’s letter shows that she is poorly briefed. There is nothing on her website to suggest that she has a special interest in foreign affairs, let alone the Middle East. So why does this nice lady lawmaker from Hawaii suddenly find herself co-sponsoring a resolution that’s designed to scupper the hopes for freedom of another people halfway round the world, who have suffered betrayal and brutal military occupation for 63 years?

Disinformation is a recurring feature of US foreign policy discourse, and I’m reminded of the twisted comments of Alejandro Wolff, US Deputy Permanent Representative to the UN, when he faced journalists’ questions at the Security Council on that infamous day, 3 January 2009, when Israel’s tanks rolled into Gaza to deal further death and destruction to a community that had already been air-blitzed for 8 days and suffered siege and blockade for nearly 30 months before that.

Reporter: Mr. Ambassador, you made no mention, sir, of any Israeli violation of those agreements that you’ve referred to, particularly in the opening of the crossings. And then there is a major development today, which is Israel’s land attack and that’s threatening to kill hundreds of civilians. Doesn’t this deserve some request for Israel… to stop its ground military attacks, sir?

Ambassador Wolff: Well, again, we’re not going to equate the actions of Israel, a member state of the United Nations, with the actions of the terrorist group Hamas. There is no equivalence there. This Council has spoken on many times about the concerns we had about Hamas’s military attacks on Israel. The charter of this organization [the UN] respects the right of every member state to exercise its self-defense, and Israel’s self-defense is not negotiable…. The plight of the Palestinian people in Gaza is directly attributable to Hamas.

Reporter: But Hamas represents the people, because they voted, over 70 percent of them, for Hamas in the last election.

Ambassador Wolff: Hamas usurped the legitimate authority of the Palestinian Authority in Gaza.

Even US ambassadors should know that Hamas was and still is the legitimate authority. Hamas was democratically elected in 2006 in a contest judged by international observers to be clean. The result didn’t suit Israel or its protector America so, together with the UK and the EU, they set about trashing Palestine’s embryonic democracy. Losers Fatah, a corrupt faction rejected by the people for that reason, was recruited and funded to do the dirty work, for which they were well suited. As John Pilger has pointed out, when Hamas foiled a CIA-inspired coup in 2007 the event was reported in the western media as ‘Hamas’s seizure of power’.

Hamas simply took the action necessary to establish its democratic authority against Fatah’s US-funded militia. Which angered the US and Israel even more.

For Mrs Hanabusa’s information, thanks to America’s meddling Fatah controls the West Bank but has no democratic legitimacy while Hamas is holed up in Gaza. And Israel is far from being the full-blown western style democracy that many think.

“No equivalence” between Israel and terrorist Hamas?

The US uses a perfectly good form of words to brand, outlaw and crush any organization, individual or country it doesn’t like. Under Executive Order 13224 (“Blocking Property and prohibiting Transactions with Persons who commit, threaten to commit, or support Terrorism”), Section 3, the term “terrorism” means an activity that —

(i) involves a violent act or an act dangerous to human life, property, or infrastructure; and (ii) appears to be intended

(a) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;

(b) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or

(c) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, kidnapping, or hostage-taking.”

The order was signed 23 September 2001 by George W Bush. Its definition of terrorism fits the conduct of the United States and its bosom-buddy Israel like a glove, the irony of which seems totally lost on Congress.

Let us also look at Netanyahu’s definition since he runs Israel’s current government. His book Terrorism: How the West Can Win defines terror as the “deliberate and systematic murder, maiming and menacing of the innocent to inspire fear for political ends”.

In an interview with Jennifer Byrne in February 2002, he said: “Terrorism is defined by one thing and one thing alone, the nature of the act. It is the deliberate systematic assault on civilians that defines terrorism.”

It’s like he’s signing his own arrest warrant.

If terror is unjustifiable, then it is unjustifiable across the board. The Palestinians had no history of violence until their lands were threatened then partitioned and overrun by a brutal intruder whose greed is never satisfied. Demands for Palestinians to cease their terror campaign (if you buy the idea that resistance = terror) must be linked to demands for Israel to do the same.

As for the resistance movement Hamas, its charter is objectionable and the leadership are foolish not to have re-written it in tune with modern diplomacy. Nevertheless the Hamas prime minister, Ismail Haniyeh, within days of being elected, offered long-term peace if Israel recognized Palestine as an independent state on 1967 borders. Previously the PLO had unwisely “recognized” Israel without any reciprocal recognition of a Palestinian state. The Oslo Accords were supposed to end the Occupation and give Palestine independence. “What we’ve got instead are more settlements, more occupation, more roadblocks, more poverty and more repression,” he said.

Omar Abdul Razek, Hamas’s finance minister, when interviewed by Aljazeera in May 2006, asked: “Which Israel would you want me to recognize? Is it Israel from the Nile to the Euphrates? Israel with the occupied Golan Heights? Israel with East Jerusalem? Israel with the settlements? I challenge you to tell me where Israel’s borders lie.”

Interviewer: “… the 1967 borders.”

Razek: “Does Israel recognize the 1967 borders? Can you tell me of one Israeli government that ever voiced willingness to withdraw to the 1967 borders?”

So the question remains: why should Hamas or any other Palestinian party renounce violence against a foreign power that violently occupies their homeland, bulldozes their homes at gun-point, uproots their beautiful olive groves, sets up hundreds of armed checkpoints to disrupt normal life, batters down villagers’ front doors in the dead of night, builds an illegal ‘separation’ wall to annex their territory, divide families, steal their water and isolate their communities, and blockades exports and imports to cause economic ruin… and now plans to steal Gaza’s offshore gas?

Palestinians too have a right to defend themselves, and their self-defence, like Israel’s, is non-negotiable.

As for recognizing Israel right to exist, no Palestinian is likely to do that while under Israel’s jackboot. Nor should they be expected to. It would simply serve to legitimize the occupation, which is what Israel wants above all and what Israel wants Israel must get, even if the US has to make a complete fool of itself.

The terror that stalks the Holy Land

American and Israeli politicians love quoting the number of garden-shed rockets launched from Gaza towards Sderot. But can they say how many (US-supplied) bombs, shells and rockets have been delivered by F-16s, helicopter gun-ships, tanks, drones and navy vessels into the tightly-packed humanity of Gaza?

But at least we have an idea of the death-toll over the last 10 years. B’Tselem, the Israeli Information Centre for Human Rights, keeps a close check.

In the period between the start of the second Intifada (September 2000) up to Operation Cast Lead (26 December 2008) 4,836 Palestinians were killed by Israelis in the Occupied Territories, including 951 children. 235 of these were targeted killings (i.e. assassinations) while 2,186 were killed during targeted killings although they were not taking part in hostilities. 581 Israelis, including 84 children, were killed by Palestinians in Israel.

During Operation Cast Lead (27 December 2008 to 18 January 2009) 1,396 Palestinians including 345 children were killed by Israelis. In Gaza itself they killed 344 children, 110 women and 117 elderly people. Only 4 Israelis were killed by Palestinians in this period, no children.

Since Operation Cast Lead and up to the end of May 2011 Israelis killed 197 Palestinians in the Occupied Territories, including 26 children. 5 were targeted killings during which 65 non-participants were killed. In the same period 3 Israelis were killed by Palestinians in Israel including 1 child.

I make that 6,429 to the Israelis and 589 to the Palestinians – a kill rate of 11 to 1. When it comes to snuffing out children Israel is even more proficient with a kill-rate of over 14 to 1.

And it’s not just the dead. The Cast Lead assault on Gaza is reported to have injured and maimed some 5,450. Israel also destroyed or damaged 58,000 homes, 280 schools, 1,500 factories and water and sewage installations. And it used prohibited weapons like depleted uranium and white phosphorus shells.

Assassination has been official Israeli policy since 1999. Their preferred method is the air-strike, which is often messy as demonstrated in 2002 when Israeli F-16 warplanes bombed the house of Sheikh Salah Shehadeh, the military commander of Hamas, in Gaza City killing not just him but at least 11 other Palestinians including seven children, and wounding 120 others.

I’m told resistance ‘terrorists’ like Hamas account for less than a thousand victims a year worldwide, while ‘good guy’ state terrorists slaughter civilians by the hundreds of thousands… some say millions.

The long list of Israeli attacks on Palestinian civilians – attacks that cannot be justified on grounds of defence or security and are so disproportionate as to constitute grave violations of human rights – puts Israel near the top of the state terrorist league. The demolition of thousands of Palestinian homes in the West Bank for “administrative” and planning reasons, the wholesale destruction of businesses and infrastructure, the impoverishment and displacement of Palestinians through land expropriation and closure, the abductions and imprisonments, the assassinations, and especially that 22-day blitzkrieg on the civilian population of Gaza who had nowhere to run… all this add up to mega-terrorism on the part of America’s “special friend”, according to their own definitions.

Negotiations? “We have spoken to Israel for more than 18 years and the result has been zero.”

Ismail Haniyeh and Fr. Manuel Musallam

Finally, what is this nonsense about Palestinians lacking good faith and somehow “isolating Israel” by applying for UN recognition rather than wasting more time on fruitless negotiations? Israel obtained its statehood by accepting the borders of the UN’s 1947 partition, which was agreed without even consulting the Palestinians whose land was being carved up. The Jews didn’t stop to “negotiate”. Well before the ink was dry Jewish terror groups had ethnically cleansed and driven off hundreds of thousands of Palestinian Arabs from their lands and villages so that the new state’s already generous boundaries were immediately expanded (example, Najd now Sderot). The land-grab had started and Israel’s borders have been ‘fluid’ ever since.

Why are US lawmakers now trying to thwart the Palestinians’ dream of their own independent state? No-one is demanding the 1947 borders. They are willing to accept the 1967 armistice lines recognized in numerous UN resolutions and generally accepted by the international community. Even Hamas has agreed. So what is the problem?

The problem is that the Israeli occupation should have collapsed long ago under the weight of its illegality, but Israel shows no willingness to return the stolen lands or relinquish enough control for a viable Palestinian state.

Netanyahu heads Israel’s Likud party, which is the embodiment of greed, racist ambition, lawlessness and callous disregard for other people’s rights. In any other country it would be banned and its leaders locked up. Yet he is welcomed like a hero in the US and given 29 standing ovations by Congress.

Likud intends to make the seizure of Jerusalem permanent and establish Israel’s capital there. It will “act with vigor” to ensure Jewish sovereignty in East Jerusalem (which still officially belongs to the Palestinians as does the Old City). The illegal settlements are “the realization of Zionist values and a clear expression of the unassailable right of the Jewish people to the Land of Israel”. They will be strengthened and expanded. As for the Palestinians, they can run their lives in a framework of self-rule “but not as an independent and sovereign state”.

So we can see where he’s coming from.

Kadima, the party of Livni, Olmert and Barak, is little better and has also pledged to preserve the larger settlement blocs and steal Jerusalem.

In the 1947 UN partition Jerusalem was designated an international city under independent administration to avoid all this aggravation.

Rather than force compliance with international law and UN resolutions the international community, led by the US, has let matters slide by insisting on a solution based on lop-sided power negotiations in which the Palestinians are at a serious disadvantage. During this dragged-out failed process Israel has been allowed to strengthen its occupation by establishing more and more ‘facts on the ground’, and its violations of human rights and international law have escalated with impunity. And that is what this dirty game is all about – Israel needs more time to make its occupation permanent.

Funny how we never hear the US talking about law and justice. It’s always “negotiations” or “talks”, buying time for Israel.

What the situation is crying out for is justice, and it’s all set down in UN resolutions, international law and humanitarian law. Once both sides are in compliance negotiations can commence… if there’s anything left to negotiate.

Fr Manuel Musallam, for many years the Latin Catholic priest in Gaza, recently told members of the Irish government: “We have spoken to Israel for more than 18 years and the result has been zero. We have signed agreements here and there at various times and then when there is a change in the Government of Israel we have to start again from the beginning. We ask for our life and to be given back our Jerusalem, to be given our state and for enough water to drink. We want to be given more opportunity to reach Jerusalem. I have not seen Jerusalem since 1990.”

Indeed, when I met Fr Manuel four years ago he had been effectively trapped in Gaza for 9 years unable to visit his family a few miles away in the West Bank. Had he set foot outside Gaza the Israelis would not have allowed him back in to re-join his flock. So he stayed put until he retired. This is just a tiny part of the ugly reality that America supports and applauds.

If Mrs Hanabusa and the rest of Congress were in the Palestinians’ shoes would they bog themselves down yet again in discredited negotiations with a gun to their heads?

Or would they apply to the UN for long overdue enforcement of its resolutions and international law?

There is only one thing worse than being lied to, Congress. And that’s acting on a lie.

Stuart Littlewood is author of the book Radio Free Palestine, which tells the plight of the Palestinians under occupation. For further information please visit : He is a frequent contributor to My Catbird Seat

Read more

Criticize Israel and Lose Your Career: Interview with Alison Weir

ALISON WEIR : Tempers Flare Post CNI Press Briefing

]]> 1
A Murdoch Note — Gordon Duff Updated Thu, 14 Jul 2011 06:45:21 +0000 Debbie

Who is Rupert Murdoch?

A Word Or Two on What Isn’t Being Said

By Gordon Duff, Senior Editor, Veterans Today

Today the British papers not owned by Rupert Murdoch “rumored” that he might be jailed.  Americans, even Brits, have little or no idea  what is at risk here.  There is simply no one who can report it when the individual who, not only controls the world’s largest news organization turns out to be, well, what?

Who is Rupert Murdoch?

Media mogul Rupert Murdoch has played a significant role in the elections of three U.S. presidents, as well as some of the events that have happened during their administrations including the 9/11 terrorist attacks, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the economic meltdown,  Gordon Duff, senior editor and writer for Veterans Today told Press TV.

What he is not is an Australian “right wing” billionaire.  Murdoch, though born in Australia is an Israeli citizen and Jewish.  Why is this important?

Murdoch is now admitted to have controlled the political systems in Britain and America for two decades.  He has had the power to choose national leaders, make policy, pass laws at will.  Where did the power come from?

We now know it came from spying, blackmail, bribery and propaganda.

What is his agenda?  Ah, there’s the rub.

Was it about selling newspapers using scandals or spying in the name of Israel to push Britain and the United States into wars for Israel?  There is a simple answer.

Murdoch’s primary motivation isn’t even that he is “for Israel.”  Murdoch is, perhaps, the most influential Israeli, more powerful than Netanyahu.  The problem with that is that his beliefs are what we call “ultra-nationalist.”

This makes him a threat.  Ultra-nationalists are known to support wars, plan terrorist acts, manipulate populations into strife and racism, foster fear and panic, even financial ruin.

What are we describing here?

If you aren’t totally brain dead, you realize I am describing Sean Hannity, Bill O’Reilly, Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh and Fox News.

Murdoch owns Fox News and so much else you may not have a time to look at the list.  If he doesn’t own it he doesn’t want it.

Fox is a network and Murdoch, owning so many newspapers across America and being a foreigner shouldn’t be able to control such a thing.  How did he do it?

Reagan “appointed” Murdoch an American citizen.  Murdoch promised to have Fox News support Republicans and say whatever was needed, no matter how false, how stupid or, as we  have seen now for decades, how genuinely evil.

What he really did, however, was use Fox as a base to allow Israel to run spy operations.

These went two ways:

1.  Israel got lots of military technology and secrets they could sell to America’s enemies for money.  This is good “Murdoch” business sense, as we all see now.

2.  Murdoch helped Israel gain control of congress.  They literally run the United States.  The tools?  As in Britain, bribery and blackmail, police, military and congress.

No surprises for anyone.

Murdoch has, in fact, engineered the last 20 plus years of American history, picking politicians, throwing elections, establishing policies.  Were the decisions his own?

I don’t think so.  I think Murdoch represents a group, mostly financial, making up the Rothschild family, the Federal Reserve Banks and organized crime.

There is an Israeli or Jewish aspect to some of this but not in the sense of being “pro” or “anti” Semitic.  The Murdoch empire, married to the “lily white” “no Jews allowed” Republican Party simply put their own very powerful spin on the good old “New World Order,” pushing it into drug running, arms and human trafficking, manipulated international currencies and debt on a massive scale, ran America and the European Union into economic collapse, worked with oil companies to set up price fixing schemes…

This is what Murdoch and his friends have done, all the while pointing their fingers at Osama bin Laden and the evil “liberals.”

They divided Britain, starting at first as “conservatives” and then changed to “liberals.”  What they did in Britain is undermine legal government, destroy the nation and the public’s trust in the government, Blair, Cameron, it doesn’t matter, Murdoch chose both and ran and runs both like hand puppets as he did with Bush and his friends.

The ideas are simple.  Bilk the countries out of every last cent, use a portion to bribe or blackmail politicians, buy police and get even more money.

Then you lie to the people, give them enemies to hate, arrange wars for them to fight and stand back and watch them destroy themselves.

Are there people really this evil?

Yes there are, Murdoch, the gang at his companies, the gang at Fox News, the folks in the US called “neocons,” the Israeli lobby in the US, the ADL, AIPAC and the Likudist faction in Israel run by Netanyahu.

These folks hate the United States.

A similar group hate Britain.  Australia has their own, he runs that place entirely, right into the ground.  He also runs Germany, Canada, he runs much of what was once the “free world.”

Am I describing Satan?

Pretty much.

His strongest advocates, those who have stood with his thieves and liars against all that is decent, all that is good, all that is right is the Evangelical and “Zionist” communities in the United States.  They were and are the “fertile ground” for his message of hate and deceit.

Who does Murdoch claim to hate?

Muslims for sure, they are all bad.  Everything he touches in his hundreds of publications and TV shows or the phony news his gang of cutthroats create, hate of Muslims is always on top.  This pleases his Israeli friends.  If things keep going as they are, he may need to hide out there and Israel will always protect him, maybe plow down a few Palestinian homes to give him a grand estate.  After all, Muslims are an easy target, living in petty dictatorships run by thieves who we have now learned have always run to Washington and Tel Aviv for orders.

Take out a second.  Think the word “Palestinian.”  Do you also think “terrorist?”  Do you see a child being killed by an Israeli helicopter or innocent people killed by a TV villain, almost invariably played by Jewish actors, perhaps a sick “inside joke” of Murdoch’s.

Even the “revolutionary types” did the same.  The Islamic people of the world have been played, exploited and crushed since 1919.  History will show it carefully planned and financed by a certain European banking family, one that 6 years earlier had established an illegal banking system in the US.

Learn about the real Balfour Declaration and how it was gotten through blackmail, learn who wrote it and to whom it was sent.

The story reads exactly like the things that are coming out in Britain day after day.

Murdoch tells his followers to hate “smart people.”  There has to be fear of the educated, the “elites.”  You can’t have rampant racism and blind ignorance until you destroy public trust in the natural leaders, until you destroy real culture and replace it with mechanized music, scandal mongering, dirty sex and endless conspiracies.

Murdoch is the real king of conspiracy theories.

Look at the endless list of wild accusations that came from Fox alone.  Then look at the others, the accusations, the wild and insane things that were written into history but likely planned by Murdoch.

9/11 probably had Murdoch’s hand in it as did the London bombings on 7/7.

There could be no great conspiracy without control of the news.

Now we find the news itself controlled the governments and may well have written the scripts to the wars, the rigged elections, the acts of terror and the misdirection that sent America into a decade of cruel and useless bloodletting after terror groups that never existed in the first place.

Now, today, as our British cousins are reeling in the revelations that their government for decades has not been their own, a diseased hybrid of crazy old man, Israeli spies and the paid stooges that the people thought were serving them….

And it goes on in America, full blast, Murdoch and his creatures, planning the future of America.

One of his creatures is Boehner.

Another is Palin.

Then there is Gingrich.

There was the entire Bush administration.

But, to get to the dark heart of evil, first you look at Fox News.

Gordon Duff is a Marine Vietnam veteran.  A 100% disabled vet.  He has been a featured commentator on TV and radio including Al Jazeera and his articles have been carried by news services around the world. He has been a UN Diplomat, defense contractor and is a widely published expert on military and defense issues.  Duff is Senior Editor at one of  the most widely read Veterans Online publications Veterans Today

Related posts


]]> 15
Staring into the abyss of a new Dark Age Tue, 12 Jul 2011 19:47:41 +0000 Debbie Battle of Britain 2 is about to begin

by Stuart Littlewood / My Catbird Seat

Churchill, in his Battle of Britain speech 71 years ago, said: “If we can stand up to him [Hitler], all Europe may be free and the life of the world may move forward into broad, sunlit uplands. But if we fail, then the whole world, including the United States, including all that we have known and cared for, will sink into the abyss of a new Dark Age, made more sinister, and perhaps more protracted, by the lights of perverted science…”

Today those “broad, sunlit uplands” of Churchill’s are again shrouded in storm-clouds. Zionist infiltrators have succeeded where Hitler failed. The difference now is that the enemy’s invasion forces are not massing across the Channel. They are already here in our midst and we are indeed on the brink of a new Dark Age, as the ruthless conspiracy masterminded by foreign interests expands its influence by stealth and by subversion and by intimidation.

America is sliding into the abyss fast as US Congressmen repeatedly parade their abject subservience to the powerful pro-Israel lobby, AIPAC. Who will forget the pathetic spectacle of 29 standing ovations they accorded the swaggering, lying, crazed Israeli prime minister Netanyahu while he delivered his poison?

The question now is whether we in the UK can stand up to the encroaching menace and save “all that we have known and cared for”, when we have so completely lost our moral bearings.

We duck our solemn responsibilities under the Geneva Conventions and give Zionist war criminals a safe haven immune from arrest.

We allow fanatics, such as Conservative Friends of Israel, to organize and promote the interests of the criminal Israeli regime at the very heart of Westminster government.

We allow MPs to place themselves under the influence of foreign interest groups and to abuse the principles that are supposed to underpin standards in public life.

We allow Jews to be hugely over-represented in our Parliament and to dominate key areas of our administration, including those related to security. If Muslims were over-represented to the same extent they’d have 200 seats and action would be taken.

We spend large amounts of treasure and send our troops to murder foreign civilians and die in foreign lands simply to support US-Israeli greed, destroying our own good name in the process.

We allow civil society’s hard-earned savings to bail out Zionist bankers in distress and fund endless wars and the corporate and personal profits of those who promote wars.

Civil society’s fury

Last week we watched with satisfaction as media mogul and Zionist flag-waver Rupert Murdoch’s stranglehold on the political scene in Britain came unglued after revelations of hacking into a murdered schoolgirl’s voicemail and other dirty tricks. But it wasn’t the Establishment or the police that taught Murdoch a much-needed lesson: it was a disgusted civil society whose anger eventually brought down the weight of the law and Parliament on the offenders’ heads.

Politicians, from prime ministers down, wet their pants at the thought of how much damage Murdoch’s gutter-sniping newspapers could do to them if they didn’t bow and scrape to the over-mighty NewsCorp. The News of the World, we were told so many times, had the power to make of break political careers.

That was only true, of course, if the politicians in question were weak and susceptible to pressure – and those are not the sort of politicians we want anyway. Blair and Cameron were at Murdoch’s beck and call and socialised with his odious executives, including the scary Rebekah Brooks. Neither had the balls to curb the illegal practices

It finally came down to this. Who were our spineless politicians more scared of – the furious public or ‘Dirty Digger’ Murdoch? Clearly the British people need to show their outrage more often.

When we reach the age of 60 we cringe at how arrogant and ignorant we were at 40. So why saddle ourselves with a gullible 44 year-old prime minister, which is how old Blair was when he entered 10 Downing Street? Cameron was only 43.

Blair at first impressed by being a Flash Harry but in reality was so young, stupid and unprincipled that he became an acute embarrassment, bringing shame on Britain. Cameron is similarly ‘flash’ and continually has to make desperate U-turns to reverse half-baked policies.

Like Blair he’s a warmonger eager to make an impression on the back of someone else’s blood and shredded body parts. Prime minister Cameron recently launched an extraordinary attack on “moaning” military chiefs who had dared to openly question the length of the war in Libya. In a public slap-down he told top brass: “You do the fighting and I’ll do the talking.” He added: ‘I’m absolutely confident that we can keep this pressure up. We can maintain this mission for as long as necessary. Time is on our side.” Arrogant pup, they probably thought.

Indeed. Those were the ill-considered words of a leader whose country is financially broke… and went broke while Cameron and his Conservative buddies were the official opposition charged with the duty of holding the governments of Blair and Brown to account.

So how bad is it, really?

It’s this bad. Britain’s foreign policy remains perfectly aligned with the demands of Israel and its protector, the United States. Long-time friends and admirers of the Israeli regime, such as William Hague and Alistair Burt, are hand-picked to make sure we do not stray from the pro-Israel path no matter how diabolically criminal that regime’s conduct or how offensive the agenda of these Israeli-firsters to ordinary decent British citizens.

Even prime minister Cameron has pledged: “In me, you have a Prime Minister whose belief in Israel is indestructible… I want to be clear, we will always support Israel…” One’s blood runs cold. Is Cameron paid and sworn to represent a foreign military power? It’s not such a silly question as it sounds.

The Foreign Office still refuses to say whether it will protect British subjects and other peaceful nationals from the threat of lethal force by Israel in its attempt to maintain an illegal blockade on Gaza. Instead our ministers effectively endorse the blockade by advising against all travel to the Gaza Strip.

As for Iran the UK has banned more than 80 Iranians from visiting, including scientists and engineers connected with the Iranian nuclear programme, government ministers, members of the judiciary, prison officials and others “who have committed serious human rights abuses”.  Says foreign secretary Hague: “The message to the Iranian government from the UK and its partners is clear: it needs to change its behaviour before it will be treated as a normal member of the international community.”

Has Hague banned any Israelis linked to war crimes, human rights abuses and nuclear arms proliferation? Perish the thought. They are not required to “change their behaviour” in the least. They are welcomed with open arms.

Our politicians, in the main, are already Zionist stooges like their American counterparts. Our enforcement agencies are so weakened or dysfunctional and some leading figures are so out of control and doing so much damage that there may soon be no way of reining them in. We are losing control fast and we’ll find it difficult to take back our country without organizing serious insurrection.

Churchill, a Zionist sympathizer of the old-fashioned kind, confronted many dire threats but could not have foreseen, in his day, how the tentacles of Zionism would envelop the civilized world. But there’s no excuse for today’s leaders when the truth is so brazenly ugly. That they embrace it and even change our laws to accommodate it, underlines their utter unsuitability for high office.

We stood up to Hitler. Is no-one incorruptible enough to stand against the Zionist menace?

Stuart Littlewood is author of the book Radio Free Palestine, which tells the plight of the Palestinians under occupation. For further information please visit : He is a frequent contributor to My Catbird Seat

Read more

Will the British Government protect British subjects from Israel’s threats?

]]> 10