In 2002 when neo-cons within the U.S. military and inside the Bush White House worked hard to deceive Congress and the American people into cheering for an unprovoked attack against the non-threatening nation of Iraq, steady and repetitive neo-connish messaging cleared the pathway to aggressive war.

Not only was Saddam Hussein's Iraq not a threat to the U.S. in 2002-2003….after a decade of harsh sanctions mainly affecting non-military Iraqis….but Hussein's military capabilities had never returned to pre-Iraq War I levels. The con by the…umm….neo-cons was to convince Americans who didn't know any better, and were still filled with vengeful hate from 9-11, that Iraq and Saddam Hussein were about to devastate the east coast of the U.S., as well as Israel and Europe…or all three simultaneously.

In 21st century America, it's all about the messaging. Veracity has nothing to do with any of it.

The Iraq Sequel.

Director of National Intelligence James Clapper acknowledged that sanctions so far had not caused Iran's leaders to change their pursuit of nuclear capabilities.

But he said some Iranian officials appear more willing to conduct an attack in the United States if they feel threatened, citing last year's alleged Iranian plot to kill the Saudi ambassador to Washington.

"The 2011 plot to assassinate the Saudi ambassador to the United States shows that some Iranian officials – probably including Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei – have changed their calculus and are now more willing to conduct an attack in the United States in response to real or perceived U.S. actions that threaten the regime," Clapper said in his Senate testimony.

"We are also concerned about Iranian plotting against U.S. or allied interests overseas," he said.

Insert 2002 Bushie claim here. "Smoking gun-mushroom cloud", "grave and gathering danger", "there's no doubt Saddam is reconstituting blah, blah effing blah"…..you know how it works, or should by now. But Americans in the beginning of the 21st century have become a caricature of a "short attention span theater" skit…..can't recall what happened last week, let alone what happened almost a decade ago.

And so the deceptive and duplicitous neo-con message machine cranks up again. This time in order to dupe U.S. citizens into accepting yet another military assault on yet another middle eastern sovereign nation.

How it's done.

In October of 2011, U.S. officials launched a new propaganda message against Iran claiming that Iran planned an assassination attempt of the Saudi ambassador to the U.S. Why Iran would risk nuclear annihilation at the hands of the U.S. and/or Israel over some cockamamie Mexican drug cartel/Quds Force story of clusterf*ckness…..was never explained.

Alireza Nader, an Iran analyst at the Rand Corporation, found it "difficult" to believe that Khamenei or Suleimani would order such an attack that "would put all of Iran's objectives and strategies at risk".

Reza Sayyah from CNN questioned the plausibility of the claim by asking, "Did an elite branch of Iran's military handpick a divorced, 56-year-old Iranian-American used-car salesman from Texas to hire a hitman from a Mexican drug cartel to assassinate the ambassador to Saudi Arabia by blowing up a bomb in a crowded restaurant in Washington?"

Sure it's ridiculous…but then Saddam Hussein plotting to spray anthrax down on the eastern seaboard of the U.S….was a ridiculous notion as well…and yet that deceptive and ridiculous story reached the homes of millions of post-9-11, still-feeling-vengeful Americans.

See how DNI Chief James Clapper carefully constructs his misleading message meant to gin up support for a U.S. attack of Iran?

"The 2011 plot to assassinate the Saudi ambassador to the United States shows that some Iranian officials – probably including Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei – have changed their calculus and are now more willing to conduct an attack in the United States in response to real or perceived U.S. actions that threaten the regime,"

Using the laughable, really, claim that a used car salesman from Texas, allegedly hiring a Mexican drug-cartel hitman, was about to assassinate the Saudi ambassador to the U.S…..and that the highest leaders in Iran were behind the laughable story….using that as his springboard of disinformation, Clapper then implies that Iranian leaders are…"probably", "more willing"…to do what?

"conduct an attack in the U.S."

See? Just like Saddam was about to do in 2002.

Of course, when disinformation…like Saddam spraying anthrax over New York using small prop planes…. doesn't carry quite the deceptive punch neo-cons are looking for…any DNI can always fall back on the old American standby….

"We're doing a lot with the Israelis, working together with them. And of course for them, this is, as they have characterized, is an existential threat," Clapper said.

I wonder if Iran considers the 200 nuclear-tipped warheads the Israeli government has pointed in their direction to be, you know, "an existential threat"?

The WTF-ness of this latest propaganda salvo ginning up support for an eventual military attack against Iran is found in this Clapper comment….

"We assess Iran is keeping open the option to develop nuclear weapons, in part by developing various nuclear capabilities that better position it to produce such weapons, should it choose to do so," he said in written testimony. "We do not know, however, if Iran will eventually decide to build nuclear weapons."

Iran does not have a nuclear weapon right now and Clapper admits that he and his smart guys don't know if Iran will "eventually decide" to make one or not, but those wily Iranian leaders are, you know, keeping their "options" open…..so who knows, right?

All I can conclude about this clumsy, juvenile attempt to rah-rah the nation into another act of pre-emptive military aggression….is that the militaristic neo-cons who work so hard to deceive us into slaughtering more Muslims…..are in need of better script writers.

There has been quite a bit of noise surrounding the U.S. Marines urinating-on-Taliban-corpses story. Most of the noise has been of the polite disapproval type. You know, 'I support our soldiers killing the terrorists over there, but those brave boys shouldn't be making videos of themselves desecrating dead bodies….that's just not right.'

The typical "condemnations" were issued by all the proper government folks. Kings of Leon Panetta and Hillary Clinton both condemned the urinary actions by our fighting-for-freedom Marines and did what these proper government folks always do….announced that there would be an investigation.

Defense Secretary, Kings of Leon Panetta didn't just condemn the urination patrol….

“I condemn it in the strongest possible terms.” Panetta has ordered an investigation into the matter.

"in the strongest possible terms." Well, that makes all the difference in the world then.

Nothing much will come of any "investigation" into this incident…..and that is the exact reason there will be an investigation….so that nothing much will be done about this embarrassing situation.

Or is it an embarrassing situation? At least one CNN contributor thought it was a situation to be very proud of….

Dana Loesch: OK, stop this right here. Stop this right here.

Can someone explain to me if there's supposed to be a scandal that someone pees on the corpse of a Taliban fighter? Someone who was — as part of an organization murdered over 3,000 Americans? I'd drop trou and do it, too. That's me, though. I want a million cool points for these guys. Is that harsh to say?

Come on, people. This is a war.

The one thing which has changed about the American people since 9-11 is our willingness to embrace the inhumane treatment of those we call our enemies. Our first offshore gulag, Guantanamo, is still proudly open for business, indefinite detention of whomever the president claims is an enemy combatant is now the law in the free country of the U.S., government's warrantless eavesdropping on all U.S. citizens electronic communications continues every single day, the numerous incidents of U.S. military personnel conducting criminal acts of savagery, and the bipartisan enthusiasm for launching hellfire missiles from robotic drones down onto Muslim "militants", including infant, child and mother "militants" in 7 different countries.

Anyone embarrassed by any or all of those realities? Any celebrity Leaders rushing to microphones to declare any or all of those realities "inconsistent with our values?" Of course not. Why not? Because those realities accurately reflect our post 9-11 values. And that explains why Leaders like the conservative darling, Allen West (R-FL) can say to those who might question the urination circle jerk on Taliban corpses…."unless you have been shot at by the Taliban, shut your mouth, war is hell"……he is only patriotically giving voice to the new American reality.

That new reality claims that America, alone, is entitled to do anything we want, to anyone we want, in any country we want to do it in. Anyone who complains about this new reality, whether it's complaining about U.S. soldiers executing, at pointblank range, an entire family including an infant, mother and grandmother, and then calling in an airstrike to cover their savagery….or it's complaining about U.S. soldiers stalking, and then raping an underage Muslim girl and then killing her and her family…or it's moaning and bitching over funtime videos of fellow U.S. freedom fighters urinating on the corpses of Taliban members…..anyone who complains about any of it is automatically acting unpatriotic just by complaining.

Other Leaders, say, like Sec. of State Hillary Clinton, do what they do best in a post 9-11 American values period…..feign outrage at U.S. Marines circle-urinating on Taliban corpses….by reminding us that such circle-urination, or at least taking videos of said fun, is very much "inconsistent with our values". Which "values" is Hillary referring to, ya' think?. Would urinating on Taliban corpses be inconsistent with our Guantanamo "values?" How about the hundreds and hundreds of Muslim women and children we have blown or burnt up since 9-11? How is urinating on dead Taliban bodies inconsistent with the "values" represented in slaughtering Muslim women and children in multiple countries?

You might think that Endless War in Muslim countries, where Muslim women and children are routinely killed by U.S. actions….you might think that offshore gulags where detainees have been rotting without due process for almost a decade….would prevent people like Hillary Clinton from bringing up anything about American "values"….if only for the sake of self-embarrassment at the obvious dissonance. But you would be mistaken. In post 9-11 America we are also post-hypocrisy, post-shame.

America is a lesser nation post 9-11. We have accepted new values. In this, Bin Laden, though dead, has won out. An insignificant Muslim man has been responsible for changing America for the worse, perhaps permanently. That's how weak America really is. It's a weakness of character, leadership and integrity. We've become a narcissistic nation in love with our own perceived-values reflection. We have become so un-self aware that we refuse to even consider the fact that the rest of the world sees post 9-11 America as an imperialistic, aggressor nation which has lost it's sense of decency and justice, yet continues to sermonize them on the so-called superiority of "American values".

Our nation's new values are the values of savages and tyrants. They are the values of the cowardly and the weak. They are the values of a nation which has fully endorsed the doctrine of "might means right."

What's worse, even though I'm typing this on Martin Luther King Jr Day, a day that celebrates hope, I don't see anything changing for the better anytime soon.

Many times I've heard Village spokespeople rhetorically ask…why did we go into Iraq? Why the Iraq war? These Village talking heads know the answer to that question, but in typical Village fashion, cannot explain it to the unwashed masses because then people like Bill Kristol, Don Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney, Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle and the rest of the PNAC (Project for the New American Century) gang….all respected Villagers themselves…would be embarrassed, put on the spot, perhaps even arrested. Village members simply can't be treated that way.

So Village media personnel act as if the reason the U.S. attacked the non-threatening nation of Iraq is still a mystery….something better left to future historians. Sure, Villagers will tell us that WMD were not found there, lots of people died, Saddam was killed and so forth….but corporate media, to this very day, still refuses to explain the real reason why we invaded Iraq.

Perhaps corporate media Villagers missed this from General Wesley Clark in 2007…..

After recounting how a Pentagon source had told him weeks after 9/11 of the Pentagon’s plan to attack Iraq notwithstanding its non-involvement in 9/11, this is how Clark described the aspirations of the “coup” being plotted by Dick Cheney, Don Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz and what he called “a half dozen other collaborators from the Project for the New American Century”:

Six weeks later, I saw the same officer, and asked: “Why haven’t we attacked Iraq? Are we still going to attack Iraq?”

He said: “Sir, it’s worse than that. He said – he pulled up a piece of paper off his desk – he said: “I just got this memo from the Secretary of Defense’s office. It says we’re going to attack and destroy the governments in 7 countries in five years – we’re going to start with Iraq, and then we’re going to move to Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Iran.”

Clark went on to relate a conversation he had with Paul Wolfowitz in 1991….

Clark said the aim of this plot was this: “They wanted us to destabilize the Middle East, turn it upside down, make it under our control.” He then recounted a conversation he had had ten years earlier with Paul Wolfowitz — back in 1991 — in which the then-number-3-Pentagon-official, after criticizing Bush 41 for not toppling Saddam, told Clark: “But one thing we did learn [from the Persian Gulf War] is that we can use our military in the region – in the Middle East – and the Soviets won’t stop us. And we’ve got about 5 or 10 years to clean up those old Soviet regimes – Syria, Iran [sic], Iraq – before the next great superpower comes on to challenge us.”

The answer to the question, why did we attack and occupy Iraq beginning in 2003?…is found in the long wishlist of a handful of hyper-hawks who make up the membership of PNAC, and apparently, much of the leadership of our military-industrial complex.

The following people signed on to PNAC's "statement of principles" in the 90's…..recognize any of the names?

Elliott Abrams
Gary Bauer
William J. Bennett
John Ellis "Jeb" Bush
Richard B. Cheney
Eliot A. Cohen
Midge Decter
Paula Dobriansky
Steve Forbes
Aaron Friedberg
Francis Fukuyama
Frank Gaffney
Fred C. Ikle

Donald Kagan
Zalmay Khalilzad
I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby
Norman Podhoretz
J. Danforth Quayle
Peter W. Rodman
Stephen P. Rosen
Henry S. Rowen
Donald Rumsfeld
Vin Weber
George Weigel
Paul Wolfowitz

After 9-11, with so many PNAC members working for the Bush administration, it doesn't take a Mensa member to figure out what happened. PNAC members took 9-11 as the opportunity they had been praying for….a "new Pearl Harbor event"….and the rest, as they say, is history.

The obvious problem with all of this is that no one bothered to explain to the American people why the PNAC'ers inside the Bush administration were leading us into what they were leading us into. Instead, the Bushies made stuff up to scare us with….WMD, al-Qaeda affiliation, etc. And the reason is obvious. The American people were rightfully exercised over 9-11…..but would the American people agree to accept a "long war" of middle east conquest and domination meant to pre-empt any future enemies from controlling the shipping lanes and valuable resources under the sands of the middle east?

The Bushies decided to make stuff up rather than explain what the PNAC Brotherhood was really up to. They calculated that they would have a better chance of getting what they wanted by tricking the American people and Congress using fear and lies…..and it worked.

This all helps in explaining recent comments by John McCain, Lindsey Graham and Joe Lieberman over President Obama's removal of U.S. military forces inside Iraq. To the neo-cons who understand and embrace the principles of U.S. Empire as outlined by PNAC….leaving Iraq is, like W. said, "the only reason we could lose Iraq is if we leave"

The purpose of invading Iraq was to initiate the PNAC middle east policy of endless war. It was to begin with Iraq and spread, as Wolfowitz clearly told Wesley Clark, to at least 7 countries there. According to the PNAC outline, the U.S. was to dismantle regimes, set up U.S. military bases and proceed to project U.S. power throughout the region.

Neo-conservatives still dominate our foreign policy and defense departments. And now they have set their sights on Iran.

It should be transparent to anyone who has been paying attention….but I'll say it anyway…. the United States is descending further into an authoritarian militarized country which features separate and distinct forms of justice for the haves…and the have-nots.

The haves….have unfettered and unquestioned rights. Their money is, in actuality, free speech. Their corporations pay cost-of-doing-business fines but are never held accountable and never admit to doing anything wrong….ever. Even though what the haves pay elected officials to do for them does not reflect the will of the American people, compromised elected officials do their utmost, anyway, to fulfill the wishes of the haves. The haves coax the politicians that work for them to pass more legislation which will further enrich them.

The have-nots, increasingly, are marginalized and denied their rights. Right before our eyes, the haves have convinced elected officials that a terrible economic crisis period is the right time for politicians on both sides to take stuff from the have-nots in order for the haves to benefit from even lower tax rates.

In all of this….corporate media have advanced the cause of the haves over the have-nots. This is understandable because corporate media is run by the haves, paid by other haves, for the sake of all of America's haves. In the soon-to-come, waste-of-time argument coming up over unemployment and payroll tax cut extensions….pay attention to how our 4th estate frames the "debate." No doubt, the haves will be pleased.

What media workers don't quite grasp in their urgency to please their haves-masters….is that the haves will turn on them just as they have turned on the 99% have-nots.

New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg recently helped to illustrates my premise when he ordered storm troopers to roll up the Occupy Wall Street encampment at Zucotti Park.

During the more than six hours we spent at the raid last night, The Observer was unable to get closer than two blocks away from the protest. We assumed this was due to our lack of an official NYPD press badge, however, we also saw credentialed reporters from CNBC, CBS, the Wall Street Journal, NBC, The New York Times, Reuters and a Japanese TV station get blocked at the barricades.

It really would not be surprising in the future to see Have-Mayors, like Bloomberg, establish a new "embed" policy for the press….similar to the "embed" charade during the Iraq invasion and occupation. One of the ways that the haves control our democratic process, or what's left of it, is to control the information to which the have-nots have access.

And so it was that Bloomberg ordered the press away from any eyewitnessing of the Zucotti camp roll up by the Mayor's storm troopers.

Bloomberg went on to give his justification for denying the press access to his para-military invasion of the protester camp….

“The Police Department routinely keeps members of the press off to the side when they are in the middle of a police action. It’s to prevent a situation from getting worse and to protect the members of the press,” Mayor Bloomberg said, adding, “We have to provide protection and we’ve done exactly that.”

Just "routine." Denying access to the press, the Authoritarian Have Mayor of New York explains, is simply standard operating procedure. Sure, the press has rights…..but the Have Mayor gets to decide when and how those rights can be exercised…and for how long.

The kicker to me is Bloomberg's explanation that in refusing press access to the storm trooper roll up, he was only acting for the purpose of "protect(ing) the members of the press." Bloomberg, apparently, acting as the Have-Daddy of New York City, must unilaterally deny the press access rights to keep the press safe.

Whatever rights you thought you enjoyed in America are now subject to our Have-Leaders determination of whether we are "safe" or not. You see, rights are fine and all….but when a situation is just "unsafe", then, Billionaire Leaders must insist on limiting or denying those rights for the greater good of "safety."

Allow me to expand. Americans electronic communications have always been guaranteed 4th amendment protections against unlawful search and seizure by the government. But no longer. Why? Because it is no longer "safe".

The right to due process? Another right granted by the Constitution which our Leaders have determined we can no longer safely respect. Sure, the Constitution says that every American citizen has the right to a trial by jury when charged with a crime…..but the President can no longer guarantee "safety" if he doesn't have the right to order the assassination of a U.S. citizen without….umm….due process.

Treaties against the use of torture? Virtuous, perhaps, but no longer meaningful to Authoritarian Leaders who must deny rights to keep us all "safe."

As the great "shining city on the hill" sinks into the authoritarian sunset, it will be because safety (fear) wins out over bedrock constitutional rights. After all, if it is the job of our Authoritarian Leaders to keep us "safe"…..what pesky constitutional guarantees can be allowed to get in the way?

President Obama's biggest disappointment, at least to progressives, has been his, I guess, "rebirth", as a neo-conservative.

During Obama's campaign for the presidency, he made political hay out of George and Dick's offshore gulags, torture of detainees, unprovoked military attacks and occupations of countries posing no threat to America, eavesdropping on Americans without warrants, secrecy, and much more. Rightfully so. The Bush years were marked by an expansion of presidential powers in violation of the Constitution….and the worst part is, the Bushies got away with all of it…thus setting a precedent.

But now Obama has made the Bushie doctrine, his doctrine. Now, the lawlessness of the neo-con Bush regime has been made into a bipartisan, and probably permanent, national doctrine.

Obama has continued the neo-conservative and lawless foreign policies of his predecessors. What's more, Obama has expanded those lawless powers….with his shiny new lawlessness theory that the President has the power to order the assassination of U.S. citizens on only his say so.

Indeed, all the ususal-suspect neo-cons,….Bill Kristol, Charles Krauthammer, Dick Cheney, many others….have heaped high praise on Obama the Neo-con….especially because Obama ordered the assassination of the U.S. citizen, Awlaki. It's worthy of remark that the only policy with which neo-con renegades from the Bush administration agree with Obama is on Obama's embrace of neo-con lawlessness.

That said….and with the understanding that American neo-cons have long ago targeted Iran for takeover…..it's interesting to see the Obama administration, including Obama and Hillary Clinton, hellbent to make something huge out of the recent allegations of an assassination plot by two Iranians against the Saudi ambassador to the U.S.

(AG Eric) Holder called the bomb plot a flagrant violation of U.S. and international law. And Preet Bharara, the U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York, said, "We will not let other countries use our soil as their battleground."

Behold the double standard. Or is it simply a total lack of self-awareness?

Since 9-11-2001, the United States government has declared that the entire globe is a "battlefield" where U.S. military forces have the perfect right to wage war just about any way they see fit. In other words, at the same time that DOJ officials are claiming that "other countries" cannot be permitted to "use our soil as a battleground"….U.S. officials have claimed the unique right among all nations…to "use the soil" of any country as our "battlefield."

Chalk it up to "American exceptionalism"….or blindness….or whatever. The point becomes: do as we say, not as we do.

Two weeks ago, the United States assassinated one of its enemies in Yemen, on Yemeni soil. If the U.S. believes it has the right to assassinate enemies like Anwar Awlaki anywhere in the world in the name of a "war on terror" that has no geographical limitation, how can it then argue that other nations don't have a similar right to track down their enemies and kill them wherever they're found?

Other than simply chanting very loudly…U.S.A., U.S.A., U.S.A…..in order to drown out those objecting to such an obvious double standard….the U.S. really cannot argue convincingly that we, of all nations, are the only ones who are allowed to use the soil of foreign countries to conduct military adventures against our "enemies."

Why is it that the U.S., alone, should have the power to wage war against alleged enemies anywhere we choose to wage that war…..yet other nations shouldn't also have that power?

The L.A. Times editor finishes with a huge understatement…

The world is unlikely to accept that the United States has a right to behave as it wishes without accountability all around the globe and that other nations do not.

Ya' think?

If you really want to find out what this alleged Iranian plot to off a Saudi ambassador is about….read Glenn Greenwald's excellent take. Here's a description by folks who knew the alleged plotter which describes him as hapless….just like many of the others whom U.S. officials have coaxed into staging a plot against the U.S., and then later, announced how safe those officials had kept us by breaking up a domestic plot they, themselves, nurtured into existence.

But the ass-kicker of the day on this story goes to President Obama,…

“There’s a great similarity between how Iran operates and how North Korea operates, a willingness on their part to break international rules, to flout international norms, to not live up to their own commitments. And each time they do that, the United States will join with its partners and allies in making sure that they pay a price,” Obama said.

If the similarity between how N. Korea and Iran operate is….."a willingness…to break international rules, to flout international norms…"….then, the United States of America operates in a similar fashion to N. Korea and Iran.

What else could violating the Convention against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment or Punishment(s) be called? I mean other than operating similarly to Iran or N. Korea?

How about Guantonomo? Our offshore, secret, prisons? Isn't there a "great similarity" between the U.S. and N.Korea and Iran concerning gulags?

How about the American violation of international norms prohibiting attacking a sovereign nation (Iraq) which poses no threat to the U.S? Hell, Iran doesn't even do stuff like that….only the U.S.

Obama may think he is standing strong by talking all Cheney-like over this most recent ginned-up emergency. But the rest of the world's occupants who heard Obama's words yesterday recognize the gargantuan double standard and lack of self-awareness contained in his words.

I give credit to the Akron Beacon Journal for including this story in today's paper.

With an all volunteer military and a compromised and corrupt national media, Americans don't often hear the truth about our numerous military adventures in foreign lands. I guess it's just easier that way. If Americans were kept informed about our many wars, there probably wouldn't be enough time to cover Christine O'Donnell's and Sarah Palin's on again, off again, invitation to speak at yet another gathering of the extremely unpopular Tea Party nihilists.

Again, thanks to WikiLeaks, and no thanks to those seasoned corporate workers often called "journalists", there is additional information on how our military marauders have been conducting wars in our name. Not many will give a damn, one way or the other, of course…..hey, it's football season again….but I think the WikiLeaks information helps to explain why it is that those medieval tribalists and Muslims in Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia and whereverthehellelse……..you know, hate us and would want to hurt us.

Here is how you are being represented by the U.S. military…

US forces had committed a heinous war crime during a house raid in Iraq in 2006, wherein one man, four women, four children, and one infant were summarily executed, a State Department diplomatic cable released last week by WikiLeaks revealed.

The cable excerpts a letter written by Philip Alston, Special Rapporteur on Extrajudicial, Summary, or Arbitrary Executions, addressed to then Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice.

American troops had approached the home of Faiz Harrat Al-Majma’ee, a farmer living in central Iraq, to conduct a house raid in search of insurgents in March 2006.

“It would appear that when the MNF (Multinational Forces) approached the house,” Alston wrote, “shots were fired from it and a confrontation ensued.” Afterwards, “troops entered the house, handcuffed all residents and executed all of them.” Mr. Faiz Hratt Khalaf, (aged 28), his wife Sumay’ya Abdul Razzaq Khuther (aged 24), their three children Hawra’a (aged 5) Aisha ( aged 3) and Husam (5 months old), Faiz’s mother Ms. Turkiya Majeed Ali (aged 74), Faiz’s sister (name unknown), Faiz’s nieces Asma’a Yousif Ma’arouf (aged 5 years), and Usama Yousif Ma’arouf (aged 3 years), and a visiting relative Ms. Iqtisad Hameed Mehdi (age 23) were killed during the raid.

Alston’s letter reveals that a US airstrike was launched on the house presumably to destroy the evidence, but that “autopsies carried out at the Tikrit Hospital’s morgue revealed that all corpses were shot in the head and handcuffed.”

Think about it. Shooting little children in the head at pointblank range…one of them 5 months old. Our military "representatives" coldbloodedly murdered tiny children and then called in airstrikes to coverup the evil that they had done. American exceptionalism? You decide.

And for those who might think that this incident was simply a one-off….

The details revealed in the cable offer a valuable insight into how many of these house raids turn out. The raids, often carried out in the middle of the night, have become one of the primary strategies of the US war in Afghanistan, with tens of thousands orchestrated just in the last year.

Is there any question why "they" hate us? Is there any question about why some youthful Afghanis, or Iraqis, or Pakistanis would want to do damage to the United States? What would you want to do to foreign occupiers who pointed guns at the heads of 5 year olds, 3 year olds, and 5 month olds….and calmly pulled the trigger?

Sick enough to your stomach yet?

Oh, but Reverend, that incident was way back in 2006….we don't do stuff like that anymore….

In one notable and comparable incident in February 2010, US Special Operations Forces surrounded a house in a village in the Paktia Province in Afghanistan. Two civilian men exited the home to ask why they had been surrounded and were shot and killed. US forces then shot and killed three female relatives (a pregnant mother of ten children, a pregnant mother of six children, and a teenager).

Instead of calling in an airstrike to hide the evidence, US troops, realizing their mistake, lied and tampered with the evidence at the scene. The initial claim, which was corroborated by the Pentagon, was that the two men were insurgents who had “engaged” the troops, and the three murdered women were simply found by US soldiers, in what they described as an apparent honor killing. Investigations into the incident eventually forced the Pentagon to retract its initial story and issue an apology.

Coldbloodedly murdering 2 pregnant Afghani women and a teenager might be what American presidents consider keeping us safe. I consider them executions of the most horrific kind.

"They" hate us because we occupy their lands and execute their tiny children, pointblank. They hate us because we shoot rockets down on their bridal parties, incinerating all participants in what was to be a joyous occasion. They hate us because we insist on setting up permanent military bases in their countries in order to project more killing power throughout the middle eastern region.

We kill people. That's what America does. We don't spend 6 times more than China on "defense", and more than all other countries combined…..for nothing. And because, as we go about killing people, we execute pregnant women, incinerate entire bridal parties, and pointblank, blow off the heads of 5 month olds…..I'm here to tell you….THAT'S why they hate us.

Don't look now but we are in the middle of another Iraq moment. Though it happened over 8 years ago now, I remember it as if it were yesterday. Corporate media, working hand in hand with the Bush White House members, waged a campaign of propaganda against the American people, convincing a wide majority that Saddam Hussein had something to do with 9-11. The overarching message from a power-serving media during that period was anything but unclear: Iraq's Hussein was a direct and immediate threat to the United States and the only course of action to take was U.S. military invasion and occupation.

Not one bit of it was true. None of it. 4500 U.S. troops died and 30,000+ were wounded…all because of a complete fabrication, a falsehood. 100,000 Iraqis (at least) lost their lives as a direct result of the U.S. invasion of a non-threatening Iraq. All caused by the repetition of a lie by the unholy alliance of corporate media acting as stenographers for a deceptive administration.

Now we're in the final scenes of yet another Iraq moment. Our current moment is about war by other means. But make no mistake, powerful administration officials, working hand in hand with corrupt corporate media, have been, again, purposely lying to the American people. This time the WMD's are bond vigilantes and confidence fairies. This time the "direct threat" is the "out of control" deficit and debt. This time, programs for the most vulnerable in our society must be invaded and blown up. This time the New Deal must be removed from power because, we are being told falsely, the New Deal is a direct threat to our nation.

We have been told for going on 4 years now that the bond vigilantes were almost to the gates of our financial house…..soon to wreak havoc by bailing on U.S. Treasury bonds. The reason for the WMD bond vigilantes, we're told, is because our nation's debt and deficits are outrageous. So outrageous that investors would lose their appetite for our debt-floating Treasury bonds and we would all be buried under a thick cloud of anthrax inflation, or similar.

It's been 4 years. They still haven't arrived. The bond vigilantes, that is. The yield on the 10 year Treasury bond yesterday closed at 2.89%. Mortgage rates, which are based on the yield of the 10-year Treasury, are, after 4 years, still hovering around 4.5%. Not only have the bond vigilantes not arrived….but just the opposite has happened. There is an extremely big appetite among investors for our debt instruments. Investors are buying bonds, not selling.

But to listen to the politicians and the media who serve their every desire…..those vigilantes, just like Saddam's WMD, are just around the next bend.

If it hasn't been the bond vigilantes….it's been the confidence fairies. Last December we were told, falsely, by Serious Professionals, that very rich and important movers and shakers were "uncertain" about the future under the socialist Obama. Too many "uncertainties" out there about tax rates and Obama's evil plan to extend health coverage to all Americans. Those "uncertainties" were preventing those movers and shakers from expanding their capitalistic kingdoms or hiring any new American workers. They just didn't have the "confidence" necessary to…well…move and shake our recessionary economy in spite of the fact that they were sitting, collectively, on a trillion and a half in cash.

But the Very Serious people kept telling us that if that "confidence" was restored….translation: continuing tax breaks for the richest and regulation stripping for the conglomerates….then and only then, could our overlords feel comfortable enough to once again begin shaking their entrepreneurial booties.

It's all a big fat lie. All of it. And just like with Iraq, Americans cannot resist the daily Orwellian onslaught of deception.

The truth is this:

First: The federal government needs to be borrowing more right now to put into direct job creation. Borrowing more….not cutting. The marketplace is suffering for lack of demand. The rich are not willing, or able, to increase demand and the American people are suffering under 9.2% unemployment. In addition, government borrowing rates will never be this low.

Instead of borrowing more, we're about to have an austerity package of deep cuts to government spending put in place by the Serious.

Second: Social Security, which does not and has not added to the nation's debt or deficit problem, is up on the chopping block by all the Very Serious Professionals. There is no evidence, whatsoever, of economy-destroying debt-weapons within Social Security….but no matter….the Serious just know those weapons are hiding inside Social Security, somewhere. The SS program is good until 2037 and even then, without any changes, could pay between 80% and 90% of it's obligations. No mushroom cloud, no smoking gun….nothing.

And so, predictably, Social Security is on the table for chopping. Serious Bipartisan Blowhards want to trim $18,000 from a Social Security beneficiary's average lifetime by changing the pricing index used to calculate cost-of-living adjustments. Remember….just like with the bond vigilantes and confidence fairies, there's no evidence that Social Security is part of the debt and deficit problem….but no matter….it's getting invaded anyway. And at a time when we shouldn't be trimming Social Security checks…we should be increasing them.

Lastly….in spite of the fact that the Bush administration had the worst new job creation numbers in modern history AND the lowest income and capital gains tax rates….Serious Professionals from both sides insist, falsely, that cutting taxes even more will be the answer to our jobless recovery. Throughout our history, most of our high-growth-and-high-employment periods were marked by our highest income tax rates on the wealthiest.

But instead….we are being constantly bombarded with the deceptive lies that lower taxes will get us out of our unemployment mess.

Just as we did with Iraq…..we are about to do the wrong thing with our economy. We were lied to back in the run-up to invading Iraq….and we're being lied to now. Just like with Iraq, powerful people stand to benefit. But it's our country which will suffer in the long run.

It seems that Bloomberg took a new poll….

A majority of Americans say job growth would best be revived with prescriptions favored by the (Republican) party: cuts in government spending and taxes, the Bloomberg Poll shows. Even 40 percent of Democrats share that view.

….

Though Americans rate unemployment and the economy as a greater concern than the deficit and government spending, the issues are now closely connected. Sixty-five percent of respondents say they believe the size of the federal deficit is “a major reason” the jobless rate hasn’t dropped significantly.

….

Republican criticism of the federal budget growth has gained traction with the public. Fifty-five percent of poll respondents say cuts in spending and taxes would be more likely to bring down unemployment than would maintaining or increasing government spending, as Obama did in his 2009 stimulus package.

What this Bloomberg poll demonstrates….at least to me….is that repeating falsehoods over and over is a successful way for propagandists….deception artists…..to get Americans to believe a lie.

In September, 2003…..70% of Americans believed that Saddam Hussein was personally involved in the 9-11 attacks. He wasn't. And there was no evidence that he was. Yet, corporate media…..anxious to do the bidding of the Bush administration at the time…..spun out the administration's lies repeatedly over a 2+ year period until 70% of average Americans believed in the lie.

The same thing has happened since the collapse of America's economy and the election of Democratic President Barack Obama. Wall Street banksters gamed a deregulated, "on your honor", system…..risking our nation's economic future in a risky gambling game consisting of huge bets on mortgage derivatives and credit default swaps. Those Wall Street gamblers crapped out…..and now average American workers and families are paying for it.

The Tea Party, conveniently, organized and rolled out their nonsensical conservative movement before the smoke had cleared from Wall Street's implosion. The Tea Party instantly became the darling of corporate media….they became joined at the hip, as it were….the media spouting the Tea Party "message" each and every day for months and months on end. What was that message? Government debt had become such an emergency problem that it just had to be addressed…now….and new taxes would not be tolerated.

Every day, every night….corporate media spouted the claims of the Teabaggers as gospel….deficits and debt were elevated to a prominent place in all discussions, despite the fact that the same corporate media was entirely silent during the doubling-of-the-debt years of a Republican president.

The goal of the propagandists, paid for by our richest citizens, was to prevent increasing taxes in the wake of the Wall Street disaster. A corollary goal was to fight and fend off any new regulatory structure on the Wall Street crooks' casino operations.

"Cutting government spending" became the new war cry…..the new "Saddam was in on 9-11" lie. Now, a majority of Americans, according to Bloomberg, just as they did in 2003, have accepted the lie as truth.

Cutting government spending in the middle of a lack-of-demand recession, a recession with interest rates at historic lows…..is the opposite of what Americans should be embracing. Cutting government spending….taking more demand out of the economy, laying off more workers…..will only make our economic woes greater.

Cutting taxes…especially on the rich….will do nothing to create jobs and revive our economy. Deep historic tax cuts during the last administration did not catapult our national economy into the high-growth lane. But after hearing the same falsehood over and over on teevee, on radio and in print…..Americans logical thought processes have been neutralized…..the new Big Lie accepted.

The size of the deficit has nothing, whatsoever, to do with our jobless rate. No conservative has been able to present a convincing causal case between high deficits and high unemployment…..yet 65% of Americans now believe that the deficit is hindering job creation.

55% now think that cutting government spending and cutting taxes would bring down unemployment numbers…..when doing so would actually extend and possibly worsen the recession.

Convincing Americans to believe in lies is the full time job of corporate media. There's method to the lie-repeating madness. Readers may think that such a conspiracy to deceive could not possibly be successful in such a free country like the U.S……but I would ask those readers to consider the 100,000 dead Iraqis and the 4500 dead U.S. soldiers who are now dead because U.S government leaders, working hand in glove with corporate media, convinced the American public to believe in a lie.

Now they've done it again.

Following up on what I said yesterday about CNN's GOP presidential candidates' "debate"…..

I guess it's official. Mitt Romney "emerges (as) an emboldened frontrunner from debate"….says PBS. CNN Politics announced, "Romney emerges as New Hampshire front-runner." "GOP debate solidifies Romney's frontrunner status" claims US News.

I'm sure that Mitt Romney is a nice man and all….but he is a terrible candidate. "I am a phony" is written in block letters across his forehead for all to see. He has amassed more flip flops than any average shoe store and his smarminess gets more sickening the more one is exposed to it. During the 2008 campaign I labeled Romney the "plastic man"….because of his unique ability to form his opinions according to who's listening.

Let's say for the sake of discussion that Mitt Romney is the GOP presidential candidate next fall. Let's also assume that the current GOP plan to wreck the economy to defeat Obama's re-election is successful…and Romney, perhaps with a Tea Party darling as his vice-president…..wins the election. Come January 20, 2013, under this scenario, Romney becomes the nation's Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces of the United States.

Here's how a President Mitt Romney would fulfill his responsibility of being CIC…..

JOHN BROWN, VOTER: Osama bin Laden is dead. We've been in Afghanistan for ten years. Isn't it time to bring our combat troops home from Afghanistan?

KING: Governor Romney, take the lead on that one. ROMNEY: It's time for us to bring our troops home as soon as we possibly can, consistent with the word that comes to our generals that we can hand the country over to the Taliban military in a way that they're able to defend themselves. Excuse me, the Afghan military to defend themselves from the Taliban. That's an important distinction……

KING: Congressman Paul?

ROMNEY: Let me — let me continue. That is I think we've learned some important lessons in our experience in Afghanistan. I want those troops to come home based upon not politics, not based upon economics, but instead based upon the conditions on the ground determined by the generals.

But I also think we've learned that our troops shouldn't go off and try and fight a war of independence for another nation. Only the Afghanis can win Afghanistan's independence from the Taliban. Thank you.

KING: Congressman Paul, do you agree with that decision?

PAUL: Not quite. I served five years in the military. I've had a little experience. I've spent a little time over in the Pakistan/Afghanistan area, as well as Iran. But I wouldn't wait for my generals. I'm the commander in chief.

I make the decisions. I tell the generals what to do. I'd bring them home as quickly as possible. And I would get them out of Iraq as well. And I wouldn't start a war in Libya. I'd quit bombing Yemen. And I'd quit bombing Pakistan.

There has been an odd avoidance by American presidents of late to actually carry out the Commander in Chief duties. During the glory days of the occupational war in Iraq, we often heard George W. Bush defer to the "generals" when it came to answering questions about when our war of occupation might end. The same is true of President Obama. Obama's decision to twice escalate the Afghanistan occupational war was based on the "generals." John McCain, strong supporter of all American occupational wars, often claimed during his push to defend W's Iraq occupational war "surge"…..that the "surge" was what the "generals" recommended….it was the "generals" idea.

Mitt Romney agrees. If elected president, Romney will defer to the "generals"…as if America is a military dictatorship. Sure, Romney gave a political answer Monday night….not wanting to clearly answer any question about when HE would end the Afghanistan occupation…..but Ron Paul didn't let that bother him, did he?

"I wouldn't wait for the generals. I'm the Commander in Chief", Paul backhanded Romney, and rightfully so. The United States does not need another president who outsources his military decisions to generals. We need a president who responds to the will of the people, a president who will make those decisions for the generals, not the other way around. The President of the United States is the designated CIC for a reason…..and that reason is to prevent our nation from becoming a military dictatorship. Today, with the bloatedness of the military-industrial complex as it is….it's more important than ever for the U.S. to have an independent and decisive CIC in the Oval Office.

My fear with Mitt Romney is that the "generals" of a very neo-conservative, permanent war-minded, military will continue to dictate war….with Iran next in line. Romney, obviously a plasticized appeaser, would simply mold his presidential positions to fit the "generals" wishes…much as W. formed his military positions by accommodating General Petraeus.

Quite frankly, the U.S. can't afford such dereliction of CIC duties by another president. The Empire must be reeled in, like Ron Paul suggests, and Romney is obviously not the man to do it.

On March 18th I put together a post concerning why the Obama administration started a war in Libya. Contrary to the "liberal" NY Times at the time, who said that Obama started dropping bombs in Libya because "the political imperative" was such that the U.S. couldn't simply watch "from the sidelines while a notorious dictator violently crushed a democratic rebellion"…..The Reverend suggested, with evidence, that U.S. leadership was starting yet another war over oil.

Naturally, less informed readers of this lowly blog accused me of being a wild-eyed conspiracy theorist. My friend, King….responded this way…

"Didn't Libya have oil before the last couple weeks too ? You're raving, Reverend."

"This post is typical. The Reverend will be selling 'Go Gaddafi" t-shirts in the lobby for $19.95 after the show.

If we may exit the Reverend's conspiracy world for a moment and enter the real world, Gaddafi is bombing the rebels and has ordered his forces as follows -"You all go out and cleanse the city of Benghazi"."

What was amusing to me at the time was the fact that my friend, the anti-Obamaite, Da King, apparently had bought into Obama's justification for attacking the sovereign country of Libya.

Obama in March….

“We cannot stand idly by when a tyrant tells his people there will be no mercy.”

Of course we stand idly by when tyrants use violence against their own people. Bahrain, Syria, Yemen……there are many places where America does just that…..stands idly by while foreign leaders abuse their citizens. To the U.S., the safety of foreign civilians is not quite as important as something else…..and that is, the liberation of oil reserves that western industrialized nations depend upon.

With that background…..it is imperative for readers to digest this new Washington Post article on Libya, the U.S. and oil.

A few excerpts….

In 2004, President George W. Bush unexpectedly lifted economic sanctions on Libya in return for its renunciation of nuclear weapons and terrorism. There was a burst of optimism among American oil executives eager to return to the Libyan oil fields they had been forced to abandon two decades earlier.

…..

In late February 2008, (ConocoPhillips chief executive Jim) Mulva was “summoned to Sirte for a half-hour ‘browbeating’ ” from Gaddafi, according to a U.S. State Department cable made available by WikiLeaks. Gaddafi “threatened to dramatically reduce Libya’s oil production and/or expel . . . U.S. oil and gas companies,” the cable said.

….oil industry executives say companies such as ConocoPhillips and Marathon have each invested about $700 million over the past six years.

…..

When Gaddafi made his deal with Bush in 2004, he had hoped that returning foreign oil companies would help boost Libya’s output, which had dipped below 2 million barrels a day after reaching 3 million in the early 1970s.

….

“Oil companies were extremely excited to move into a territory that had been neglected for 20 years,” said Geoff D. Porter, a political risk and security consultant specializing in North Africa and the Sahara. He said experts believed that only 30 percent of Libya had been explored and that there was “much more oil to be discovered.”

But then, Gaddafi became dissatisfied…..he felt like his countries' resources were being unjustly exploited by western capitalists…..

By November 2007, a State Department cable noted “growing evidence of Libyan resource nationalism.” It noted that in his 2006 speech marking the founding of his regime, Gaddafi said: “Oil companies are controlled by foreigners who have made millions from them. Now, Libyans must take their place to profit from this money.” His son made similar remarks in 2007.

"Libyan resource nationalism". Silly Libya leaders, thinking that the oil under the ground in their own country…..belonged to them.

Here's proof positive that our State Department is nothing more than an international adjunct of U.S. multi-national corporations….

“Those who dominate Libya’s political and economic leadership are pursuing increasingly nationalistic policies in the energy sector that could jeopardize efficient exploitation of Libya’s extensive oil and gas reserves,” the cable concluded.

In 2008 a Libyan oil minister, Shokri Ghanem "warned an Exxon Mobil executive that Libya might 'significantly curtail' it's oil production to 'penalize the U.S.'"

By early this year, oil production in Libya dropped to 1.5 million barrels per day…..

The big oil companies, several of which had drilled dry holes, felt that Libya was not making the best exploration prospects available. One major company privately said that it was on the verge of a discovery but that unrest cut short the project.

The U.S. attack on Libya is very obviously Obama's Iraq. Like Bush before him, Obama purposely misled the American people into believing that our military needed to start dropping "freedom bombs" on oil-rich Libya to protect innocent Libyans from a brutal dictator, you know, like Saddam.

When the truth is, just like with Iraq, the U.S. military is dropping "freedom bombs" in Libya because of Libya's oil reserves. The U.S. military's top priority is no longer to defend America from enemies….not really. Our military's top priority is to liberate foreign assets and natural resources from stubborn foreign leaders who think those assets and resources belong to them.

Our military has become little more than a private security force for U.S. multi-national corporations. Americans pay for a bloated $700 billion annual Defense budget so that the interests of a few very big corporations can be served.

If you have genuine interest in understanding why America's foreign policy is what it is….the WAPO article is a must read. I recommend following the WAPO piece up by reading Glenn Greenwald's excellent commentary on this topic.