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.

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.

In 1971, President Richard Nixon ordered his White House thugs to go after Daniel Ellsberg for making public the Pentagon Papers. The Papers were quite an embarrassment to Nixon's White House. Nixon responded by beginning a campaign "against further leaks and against Ellsberg personally." Part of that campaign we know now as the Watergate burglary. Watergate eventually led to President Nixon's resignation.

Today, I feel sympathy for Nixon. Not because he wasn't a deeply disturbed and lawless Republican President…he was….but because, if he were president today, Nixon would have had the liberty to simply 'disappear' Daniel Ellsberg. Watergate would have never been necessary, and Nixon could have finished out his second term without having to resign in humiliation.

Let me explain.

Two weeks ago, President Obama threatened to veto the 2012 Defense Authorization Act if the bill constrained the presidency in any way from…"collecting intelligence, incapacitating dangerous terrorists, and protecting the American people"…..in whatever way the Commander in Chief determined.

Now, Obama has withdrawn his veto threat.

The counterterrorism section of the bill….

…states that the entire world, including American soil, is a battlefield in the war on terror. It expands the U.S. military’s authority to arrest and indefinitely detain anyone, even citizens, suspected of aiding terrorists.

The Defense Authorization Bill will finally legalize the illegal practices we have been practicing as a nation for over 10 years now. Indefinite detention without due process, even for U.S. citizens…..a "world war" where no corner of the earth is immune from U.S. military attack or invasion, and an expansion of the totally bogus "war on terror" broadening it to include "supporters" of "terrorism"…..and allowing the president to decide what that all means.

For those who generally support President Obama's presidency, as I do, make no mistake……it was President Obama, himself, who fought to include U.S. citizens in his indefinite detention without due process powers. It is President Obama who wanted to include U.S. citizens as possible Gitmo permanent detainees. It is President Obama who fought to include suspected U.S. citizens as potential defendants in military trials.

Listen carefully to what Carl Levin (D-MI) said from the Senate floor….

It was the "White House" who demanded the removal of language in Section 1031 of the bill which would exclude U.S. citizens from indefinite detention without civilian trials. It was President Obama, the same man who repeatedly denounced Bush/Cheney lawlessness before being elected president, who is now responsible for "legalizing" and even expanding that same lawlessness.

Signing this Defense Authorization Bill will be Obama's lowest moment as president and will surely set the stage for a future president to become a full-fledged military dictator, untethered from the clear legal restrictions outlined in the Constitution. Yet another example of how America is giving up on it's 200+ year democracy.

And so today, The Reverend has a bit of sympathy for former President Richard Nixon. You see, if Nixon could have only claimed the powers that President Obama is claiming today, he could have simply declared Daniel Ellsberg and editors of the New York Times as "enemy combatants", or "terrorists". Nixon could have had whomever his political enemies of the 70's were….picked up by military police and sent to Guantanamo or indefinitely detained without trial in some foreign hellhole of a prison…maybe even assassinated.

Watergate would have never happened and Nixon would have never had to resign the presidency…..if only he had boldly demanded the presidential powers which Obama claims today. After all, wasn't the Soviet enemy much more of a threat to the Homeland than box-cutter-wielding, stateless, Islamic extremists?

To Republicans who rejoice in my criticisms of a Democratic president….I would point out the support you gave Bush/Cheney in defending their limitless claims of power in illegally waging their contrived and bogus "war on terror." To Democratic voters who support President Obama….I would challenge any excuses offered up in defense of what is very obviously an unconstitutional power grab by this president.

And finally…..I ask all readers to give some thought to a potential Newt Gingrich presidency. A Gingrich presidency with almost limitless unilateral power to round up, incarcerate without charge or trial, and detain indefinitely in Guantanamo prison…U.S. citizens who a President Gingrich, alone, would declare to be "enemies of the state."

Oddly, all this doesn't look like "liberty" and "freedom" to me…..but one thing is for sure….Nixon would have loved it.

Agreement between congressional Republicans and Democrats, authentic bipartisanship, is rarely witnessed today. But there is one part of U.S. policy where the D's and the R's completely agree. Endless war and indefinite detention…even of U.S citizens. Yesterday the Senate passed a $662 billion defense bill 93-7. Nothing passes the Senate by such a wide margin any more. The Senate action is a clear illustration of what our Leadership holds dear. Unquestioned bipartisan approval to fund America's Worldwide Empire…..and to continue, indefinitely, our worldwide "war" against a tactic.

American Leadership stands united on one thing and one thing only….waging endless war against radicalized Islam. "The Long War." A doubling of defense spending has not been enough to bring the unsophisticated and stateless extremists to justice. Ten years of killing, ten years of bombing, ten years of expanding the Empire into many middle eastern nations has not been enough for our Leaders. We must press on to finally destroy the tactic of killing one's self in order to kill and terrify others. An accomplishment that is entirely impossible to attain.

Inside the lengthy defense spending bill, in section 1031, Congress has laid out new detention of detainee guidelines which include indefinite incarceration of U.S. citizens without the muss and fuss of constitutional guarantees against depriving U.S. citizens of due process. Guantanamo is not just for foreigners anymore…..

Sen.(Rand) Paul: “My question would be under the provisions would it be possible that an American citizen then could be declared an enemy combatant and sent to Guantanamo Bay and detained indefinitely.”

Sen. McCain: “I think that as long as that individual, no matter who they are, if they pose a threat to the security of the United States of America, should not be allowed to continue that threat.”

Here’s what Sen. (Lindsey) Graham said in the Senate on Nov. 17:

“1031, the statement of authority to detain, does apply to American citizens and it designates the world as the battlefield, including the homeland.”

For those who actually still believe that our government Leaders are prohibited from depriving citizens of their constitutional rights….as Ron Paul and I do….here's the Doc's take…

Rep. Ron Paul calls this bill “one of the most anti-liberty pieces of legislation of our lifetime.” He says it’s “destructive of our Constitution.”

And Ron's son…

His son Sen. Rand Paul says, “There is one thing and one thing only protecting innocent Americans from being detained at will at the hands of a too-powerful state – our constitution, and the checks we put on government power. Should we err today and remove some of the most important checks on state power in the name of fighting terrorism, well, then the terrorists have won.”

Well, Rand…the "terrorist have won". But really…hasn't that been clear for a long time now? Box cutter wielding international criminals have forced the U.S. to take once-guaranteed rights away from every American citizen. Our Leaders over the last 10 years have convinced us that sacrificing our rights is part and parcel of the way we'll "defeat the enemy."

The Pauls, especially Ron, have given the neo-cons in his party and in the Democratic Party a fit. He's a thorn in the side of Empire Expanding Neo-Cons because he keeps bringing up that "goddamn piece of paper" which used to be the American contract, the American charter. But as yesterday's vote proves, our Leaders no longer view the Constitution as binding.

If the Senate bill is reconciled in the House and signed by Obama (he has threatened a veto, probably won't)….any U.S. citizen, on U.S. soil, who the President deems an enemy combatant, and only on his say so….can be taken into custody and transferred to Guantanamo prison and possibly never heard from again. And that's if the President at the time doesn't order that citizen's assassination first. No trial, no charges, no lawyers, no due process…..nothing. Indefinite detention of a U.S. citizen and without any thread of due process as guaranteed under the "goddamn piece of paper."

So while the Village continues to stoke the bogus argument every day that Obama and the Democrats are orchestrating a huge government takeover of all things involving economics…..Democrats and Republicans are working together to…well…orchestrate a huge government takeover of our Constitutional rights.

If TEA Party supporters were as diligent at protecting citizens from the threat of indefinite detention without due process…as they are about protecting citizens from the threat of taking responsibility for their own health insurance…..maybe the TEAs, the ACLU and OWS could have stood together to fend off yesterday's huge governmental power grab.

Recently, Israel did something America does not do….negotiated with people they consider to be "terrorists"…..

Gilad Shalit, the Israeli sergeant who was held captive for five years by the Palestinian terrorist group Hamas, was released early this morning and handed over to Egyptian officals, reports said.

While there was no immediate confirmation by Israeli officals, the move appeared to be the beginning of a stunning prisoner swap in which Israel agreed to free 1,027 violent Palestinian inmates in exchange for Shalit.

Often, I have been accused of siding with the "terrorists" in the decades-long dispute between nuclear-armed Israel and, basically, unarmed Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank. Simply pointing out that Israel's U.S. equipped military murdered unarmed protesters, including a U.S citizen, on the Turk humanitarian flotilla at pointblank range…or explaining that Israeli helicopter gunships massacred some 600 Palestinian women and children in December before Obama was inaugurated……draws cries of anti-semitism and Israel-bashing from most conservatives critics.

Since 9-11, Muslims have been described repeatedly by American conservatives as medieval savages intent on eliminating all Jews…and then taking over the world. In America today, the word "terrorist" now only applies to Muslims. If a non-Muslim plots or commits a horrendous act of violence, one which is as violent as anything a Muslim jihadist has done…..American corporate media never labels that person a "terrorist."

The reason? Muslims are the "terrorists." No one else.

From the national hysteria over opening an Islamic Center a few blocks from Ground Zero, to the constant drumbeat over the non-existent imposition of "sharia" law, to the totally embarrassing "Muslim radicalization" congressional hearings held by Peter King (R-NY), to the new unconstitutional power of an American president to order the assassination of a Muslim U.S. citizen without due process…..the U.S. messaging has been clear. Muslims are savages bent on taking over the whole world while killing as many westerners as possible in the process. Muslims hate all non-Muslims with a bottomless hate. And it is this unexplainable hatred that Muslims have for western "freedom" which makes them different from all other religions or nations.

I've said all that in order to show you something which is particularly vile. Upon the release of Israeli Sergeant Shalit, this was written….

He’s free and he’s home in the bosom of his family and his country.

Celebrate, Israel, with all the joyous gratitude that fills your hearts, as we all do along with you.

Then round up his captors, the slaughtering, death-worshiping, innocent-butchering, child-sacrificing savages who dip their hands in blood and use women—those who aren’t strapping bombs to their own devils’ spawn and sending them out to meet their seventy-two virgins by taking the lives of the school-bus-riding, heart-drawing, Transformer-doodling, homework-losing children of Others—and their offspring—those who haven’t already been pimped out by their mothers to the murder god—as shields, hiding behind their burkas and cradles like the unmanned animals they are, and throw them not into your prisons, where they can bide until they’re traded by the thousands for another child of Israel, but into the sea, to float there, food for sharks, stargazers, and whatever other oceanic carnivores God has put there for the purpose.

That is what genocidal hatred looks like. As Glenn Greenwald puts it,…

"I generally avoid as unproductive Nazi comparisons in politics — especially when it comes to the Middle East – but if this isn’t a pure expression of the Nazi mindset of hatred, bigotry, dehumanization, and yearnings for genocidal extermination, then nothing is."

The shocking, or not, part of this is who wrote those vile words. They were blogged by Rachel Abrams. Who is Rachel Abrams?

Rachel Abrams is the wife of Reagan and Bush 43 neocon official Elliot Abrams, the daughter of Midge Decter and step-daughter of Norman Podhoretz, as well as a member of the Board of Directors of the “Emergency Committee for Israel,” the group founded by Bill Kristol and run by Noah Pollack to attack any American politician displaying less than absolute fealty toward Israel.

In other words…

This isn’t from some fringe Arab-hating figure but from the heart and soul of the American neocon movement.

Elliot Abrams, Bill Kristol and Norman Podhoretz are as neo-connish as neo-cons can be. Bill Kristol is the modern father-figure for neo-conservatism….a philosophy which brought us the criminal attack of Iraq….a philosophy which is leading the U.S. into attacking Iran….a philosophy which hinders any two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian dispute…a philosophy which sets forward the proposition that America in the 21st century should exploit the ending of the Cold War by controlling the middle east, through whatever unilateral military means we determine.

However, as you can see from Mrs. Abrams blog post…..savage, vile, genocidal hatred towards Muslims also motivates these neo-cons.

Naturally though, it is only the world's Muslims who hate so bitterly and fiendishly….because Muslims, you know, are the "terrorists."

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.

In an American era when what voters want has absolutely no meaning,…carries no weight whatsoever….almost anything can happen.

Our overlords have just agreed to permit Congress to appoint a 12 member Patsy Committee to take the blame for cutting Social Security and Medicare. No new taxes, of course, will be considered……and no tax loophole closings either….because if taxes were raised on the rich or loopholes closed for the rich…then America would not be free. Islamic extremists hate us don'tcha know…..because of our freedoms…..so, increasing taxes on the rich would, in fact, be appeasing our enemies. See how that all works?

Overlords will be overlords….and so with tax increases off the table before the table is set up….foolish and Slinky-spined Democrats think that the $1 trillion annual defense budget..you know..might have a bit of fat in it. Perhaps the Mighty Patriots of Extortion will accept a few cuts in the bloated and rotted Defense Department. If non-economic terrorists on the Super Duper Committee of Twelve can't offer up any tax increases in the $1.5 trillion mandated cut to spending they are supposed to agree on for fear of being tagged with the new name al-America….maybe, just maybe….they will see their way clear to trimming the Defense budget.

Or maybe not….

LIEBERMAN: I want to indicate today to my colleagues that Senator Coburn and I are working again on a bipartisan proposal to secure Social Security over the long term, we hope to have that done in time. To also forward to the special committee for their consideration. So, bottom line, we can’t protect these entitlements and also have the national defense we need to protect us in a dangerous world while we’re at war with Islamist extremists who attacked us on 9/11 and will be for a long time to come.

Naturally….Lieberman is an a**hole. That's a given. But Ole' Joe is considered by the Village nutters as a moderate centrist whose take on issues is just like the "just right" bowl of porridge in the Goldilocks and the Three Bears story.

Joe's a neo-conservative who has always been very vocal about supporting the needs of Israel over the needs of the United States. Some might call that a contradiction…him being a U.S. citizen and U.S. senator, and all….but to the rotted and diseased Village, Joe is a true statesman.

But you see….according to Statesman Joe….America can't afford Social Security checks for geezers while chasing down less than two dozen Islamic radicals in northwest Pakistan. Damnest thing….but we can't do both. I guess it's really, really, really expensive to track down a couple dozen suspects.

Defense Secretary Leon E. Panetta declared Saturday that the United States was "within reach" of defeating Al Qaeda as a terrorist threat, but that doing so would require killing or capturing what he called the group's 10 to 20 remaining leaders.

"10 to 20 remaining leaders". Mighty Joe proudly states that we'll be at war against these Islamic extremists for "a long time to come." That must be because our mighty military machine is the most powerful and efficient killing machine in all of history….or maybe not.

So what we have after all the Tea Party "no taxes" and the neo-cons 'oh my god, we can't cut defense spending because there's 20 bad guys still alive'…..is making American seniors' lives more miserable by cutting "entitlements."

And that's exactly what we'll get. Medicare and Social Security are all that will be "on the table" for the Galactically Important Super Congress of 12 Stooges to consider as they seek to fulfill their mandate to cut another $1.5 trillion from federal spending during the worst recession American has been in since the 1930's.

Again….Joe Lieberman says that we "can't" protect entitlements and still be able to kill those 20 bad Islamic guys. Can't do both. Can't afford to do both. It's one or the other. Either the American geezers take a hit….or the 20 Islamic bad guys will take over America and most of the free world.

A reasonable person might think…."what Lieberman is saying sounds like a crock of bullsh*t." But a reasonable person would be mistaken. Lieberman is a Mighty Serious Statesman from the Three Amigo Serious Statesman Group. Whenever there's even a whiff of a threat to Mother Israel, the Villagers wheel Ole' Joe out to shake his fists at another Muslim nation…..so he just has to be taken Seriously.

So, if you are looking for the Catfood Commission 2….I mean, the Super Congress of the Serious….to be, you know, balanced, or fair as it wheels the slasher knife on government spending……DON'T.

Obama wants to "reform" entitlements. Republicans want to privatize entitlements. Villagers, like Joe Lieberman, want to slash entitlements in order to maintain low tax rates on his rich associates and still be able to increase spending for the Mighty Battle Ahead of Us….to eliminate 20 Islamic thugs.

Which "want", do you think, will win out?

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.

I was interested in my blog bud's recent post chastising Indiana Supreme Court members for ruling that citizens in Indiana "have no right to resist unlawful police entry into their homes."

In a 3-2 decision, Justice Steven David writing for the court said if a police officer wants to enter a home for any reason or no reason at all, a homeowner cannot do anything to block the officer's entry.

"We believe … a right to resist an unlawful police entry into a home is against public policy and is incompatible with modern Fourth Amendment jurisprudence," David said.

Da King was incensed that the 4th amendment to the Constitution was being trampled by these Indiana Supremes…..many angels danced on heads of pins in the ensuing discussion in the comment thread.

Yesterday, the Major League Supreme Court issued a new ruling basically putting an exclamation mark to the end of the 4th amendment.

The Supreme Court on Monday gave police more leeway to break into homes or apartments in search of illegal drugs when they suspect the evidence might be destroyed.

The justices said officers who smell marijuana and loudly knock on the door may break in if they hear sounds that suggest the residents are scurrying to hide the drugs.

Stripsearch Supreme, Sammy Alito wrote the majority 8-1 opinion and had this to say….

Residents who "attempt to destroy evidence have only themselves to blame" when police burst in, Justice Samuel Alito said for an 8-1 majority.

Basically the only progressive jurist left, Ruth Ginsburg, said in the lone dissent….

"The court today arms the police with a way routinely to dishonor the Fourth Amendment's warrant requirement in drug cases," Ginsburg wrote. "In lieu of presenting their evidence to a neutral magistrate, police officers may now knock, listen, then break the door down, never mind that they had ample time to obtain a warrant."

Well….yeah Ruth. Who has time to fool with warrants when the ends justify the means in post-9-11 America? There's not a Dick Cheney second to lose. And hell…..I'm sure that trained law enforcement officers know just what evidence destruction sounds like and would, therefore, never abuse such power…..so, no worries then. After all, police are only concerned about our safety.

Much of the 4th amendment has long ago been sacrificed in the so-called war on drugs. A fictitious "war" with no end and no purpose other than to maintain a bloated law enforcement-prison industrial complex. With this latest ruling, the Supremes are simply tying up any loose ends.

At this juncture I would ask the Kiefer Sutherland-Dick Cheney question……'if there's a one percent chance that the rustling sound I'm hearing inside that house could be "terrorists" destroying documents….or WMD….or even maybe some hashish….AND if there's even the slightest chance that the people making that rustling sound inside that house have information about an imminent threat to American lives….anywhere…..wouldn't you want police officers to just bust the door down to keep us safe?'

Immediately after 9-11….Americans responded with a resounding 'Hell, yes.'

There's no sense in looking back and second guessing now.

When the fictitious war on terror was announced by the, as yet, unindicted war criminals, Bush and Cheney….Americans had their 4th amendment rights rescinded. It was no longer safe for Americans to not have their federal overlords spying on all their communications. After all, the Constitution is not a suicide pact. Sometimes safety must come before fidelity to a "goddamn piece of paper", as the Decider put it.

In particular, neo-con Americans felt so unsafe after 9-11 that when W's illegal-wiretapping-of-all-electronic-communications program was leaked they wanted to arrest the New York Times writers who spilled the beans….still do. Our Protectors were so concerned about our safety that it wasn't safe for us even to know how safe they were keeping us…..too risky.

Anyone who is troubled or experiencing mild forms of second guessing over the means by which our Protectors, you know, protect us…..and are just now wondering about 4th amendment protections……and what happened to those protections…..I insist that you read the latest from The New Yorker's Jane Mayer, "The Secret Sharer." It is most definitely a must read.

If you are a person who says you are concerned at all about Big Gub'mint taking away your rights….and particularly if you are one whose libertarian feathers were ruffled recently over erosion of 4th amendment rights…..then you need a good, hard-hitting, refresher course on how we arrived at where we are today.

Where we are….is exactly where neo-con worry warts and pearl clutching libertarians wanted to take us.