Imagine members of Hezbollah, recognized by the U.S. and Israel as a "terrorist" group, covertly entering Israel and over time assassinating a half a dozen of Israel's most distinguished science professors, one by one. James Bond movie style assassinations. Assassinations where a "terrorist" rides a motorcycle alongside a car carrying the targeted Israeli science professor and places a bomb with a magnetized base on the side of the car, and then speeds off.

If members of Hezbollah carried out such spy movie activities against Israeli science professors, is there any doubt that Israel and their lone defender in the world, the United States, would be calling those assassinations "terrorist acts?" Further, if Hezbollah extremists did such a thing wouldn't Israel and the United States be calling for reprisal the moment it happened?

According to a story out yesterday, a fourth Iranian scientist involved in Iran's nuclear program was assassinated Wednesday. The fourth. A fifth assassination attempt against the current head of Iran's atomic agency failed in November 2010.

A sixth key figure in Iran’s military program, Maj. Gen. Hassan Moghaddam, an Iranian missile expert who was charged with “ensuring self-sufficiency” in armaments, was killed in November in a huge explosion at the Bid Ganeh base outside Tehran.

Liars for hire in both Israel and the United States vehemently denied any complicity in these assassinations.

However, consider these comments by Israeli officials concerning the assassinations….

“Whoever carried out this attack, there is no doubt that it is positive, and should be seen as such,” the official said.

“I don’t know who took revenge on the Iranian scientist, but I am definitely not shedding a tear.”

On Tuesday, Israeli military chief Lt. Gen. Benny Gantz was quoted as telling the Knesset’s Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee that 2012 would be a “critical year” for Iran — in part because of “things that happen to it unnaturally.”

“Many bad things have been happening to Iran in the recent period,” said Mickey Segal, a former director of the Israeli military’s Iranian intelligence department. “Iran is in a situation where pressure on it is mounting, and the latest assassination joins the pressure that the Iranian regime is facing.”

Keep in mind here that there is still no evidence that Iran is working towards building nuclear weapons. None. Iran still claims that their pursuit is for energy purposes.

Also keep in mind that Israel, the nation who is most likely responsible for all the Iranian scientist assassinations, has somewhere between 100 and 200 nuclear weapons stockpiled. Iran has none.

In spite of there being no evidence that Iran is pursuing a nuclear weapon, rigid sanctions have been placed on the Iranian government and the Iranian people by "non-terrorist" nations. Iranian banks have been hardest hit by these sanctions. Before the U.S. attacked Iraq in 2003, Iraq had suffered under a decade of such harsh economic sanctions. Iraq didn't have nuclear bomb capabilities either….even though many, many bloodthirsty westerners made that claim.

What about the question of whether or not Israel should be considered a "sponsor of terror" or a "terrorist nation" for conducting targeted assassinations against select Iranian nuclear scientists? Is Israel in a declared war with Iran? If not, what should assassinating five important scientists inside Iran be called? Freedom fighting? Self-defense?

Ever since George W. Bush floated his "axis of evil" nonsense, including Iran in the trio of nations marked for invasion and/or regime change, it has only been a matter of when the U.S. and Israel, and any other weak European nations the U.S. can blackmail into helping them, will launch their attack into Tehran.

What seems odd to me is that all of this is considered part and parcel of some fictitious "war on terror."

So I ask….based on the five successful Israeli terrorist assassination attacks against Iranian nuclear scientists….carried out inside Iran……who is the "terrorist nation" or "nations?"

Who was the terrorist nation when Israeli commandos assassinated unarmed, humanitarian volunteers on Turkish flotillas? Who was the terrorist nation when Bebe ordered the slaughter of Gazans in late 2008?

And now, who is the terrorist nation…the state sponsor of terror…in the assassinations of five Iranian nuclear scientists?

Not a trick question.

California…for college campus police, pepper spray must be considered "courage in a can." This paunchy University of California at Davis campus cop likes his "courage in a can" as can be seen in the casualness by which he strolls along spraying the eyes of non-violent American protesters. He's very brave because he has his courage right there in his hand. Later, these college campus rent-a-cops pulled the protesters apart and sprayed some more "courage" down the throats of a couple protesters. So brave,….these out-of-shape, courage-in-a-can wielders. So quick to grab for their cans of courage.

I sure am glad we don't live in a country where freedoms are denied, aren't you?

Seattle…on first seeing this picture, I wanted to write a blog post immediately announcing that…yes, we have finally found those WMD's. But on second look….it would appear that Seattle police think it's the Chinese New Year, or something, and they are just celebrating by spraying a colorful gaseous substance in the air. Or….these Seattle cops are simply unwilling to get their hands dirty, and like California campus cops, now find their courage in a can….

Berkeley….this one is really ugly and brings back un-fond memories of how life was in the 60's. This is the video that every American needs to see right now. This is what we have to look forward to from our para-militarized police forces should the establishment need more protection from protester criticism. And just imagine how "safe" the local storm troopers will be able to keep us when they obtain missile-launching drones as new "tools" in their toolbox. I feel safer already.

What would an American pictorial of protest be without police attacking a couple of veterans. Fighting them over there, so when they come back home, we can beat them with clubs, or shoot them in the head, for exercising the freedoms they fought for over there.

Cops beating war veteran Kayvan Sabeghi in Oakland…

Scott Olsen…the guy hit in the head with a tear gas canister in Oakland. The shocking part of this clip for me was after Olsen was struck. Other protesters gathered around him because he was obviously injured badly and cops then shot MORE tear gas into that small group.

These photos, videos and more at this The Atlantic site.

Notice in all these pictures and videos how much more exceptional the U.S. is in handling peaceful
protesters…than, say, other countries. America is quite unique.

Some may say that the police and rent-a-cops in the videos and pictures were simply doing their jobs. Denying peaceful means of assembly in the U.S……..is part of the job of law enforcement. Others may argue that the protesters have it coming because….well…they're protesting.

Here's a former police officer explaining why many cops resort to pepper spraying non-threatening, peaceful protesters……

In the police academy, I was taught to pepper-spray people for non-compliance. Ie: “Put your hands behind your back or I’ll… mace you.” It’s crazy. Of course we didn’t do it this way, the way were taught. Baltimore police officers are too smart to start urban race riots based on some dumb-ass training. So what did we do to gain compliance? We grabbed people. Hands on. Like real police. And we were good at it.

Some people, perhaps those who design training programs, think policing should be a hands-off job. It can’t be and shouldn’t be. And trying to make policing too hands-off means people get Tased and maced for non-compliance. It’s not right. But this is the way many police are trained. That’s a shame. (Mind you, I have no problem using such less-lethal weapons on actual physical threats, but peaceful non-compliance is different.)

See how exceptionally free America is? Our police are trained to use courage-in-a-can when non-violent protesters do not comply with their orders. And yet, in America, our freedoms prevent government storm troopers from attacking us with noxious poisons and beating us with clubs when we are only peacefully protesting our government. We're free.

At least, that's what I've heard.

And wasn't it Toby Keith who put it so beautifully when he sang that he was "proud to be an American, because at least I know I'm free."

Sing it loud this Thanksgiving. Why are we oh-so-proud to be Americans? What are we oh-so-thankful for this Thanksgiving? Why can we puff out our chests about our great nation this holiday?

Because…."At least, we know we're free."

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 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.

Ed Markey (D-MA)…..yesterday on MSNBC….

We're in Libya because of oil. And I think both Japan and nuclear technology and Libya and this dependence that we have upon imported oil have once again highlighted the need for the United States to have a renewable energy agenda going forward…

As I said the other day…..if Libya was not the world's 9th largest oil producing nation, we would not be involving ourselves militarily there. It's the 'thing we do not speak of'…..because….well….it's just kind of embarassing. Truth often is like that. Embarassing. So we avoid speaking it, or hearing it.

During the runup to attacking Iraq….it was, again, too rude, too imprudent, to talk about Iraq's huge oil reserves. Those who dared to be rude, were accused of being maniacal conspiracy theorists in need of counseling. Instead of oil in Iraq….we attacked that sovereign nation to free the people, or to destroy non-existent WMD, or to keep Saddam from giving weapons he did not have to people he did not have anything to do with….or whatever the reason-du-jour turned out to be. But for sure…..we didn't go to Iraq because of the oil. Anyone who said so was a fool or a Frenchman.

In 1977,…..34 years ago now….President Jimmy Carter spoke the truth about our growing energy problem….

"It is a problem we will not solve in the next few years, and it is likely to get progressively worse through the rest of this century. "We must not be selfish or timid if we hope to have a decent world for our children and grandchildren.

"We simply must balance our demand for energy with our rapidly shrinking resources. By acting now, we can control our future instead of letting the future control us." Carter bluntly pointed out that: "The most important thing about these proposals is that the alternative may be a national catastrophe. Further delay can affect our strength and our power as a nation." He called the new energy policy he was proposing, "[T]he 'moral equivalent of war' — except that we will be uniting our efforts to build and not destroy."

"…Imports have doubled in the last five years. Our nation's independence of economic and political action is becoming increasingly constrained…"

"Now we have a choice," Carter said. "But if we wait, we will live in fear of embargoes. We could endanger our freedom as a sovereign nation to act in foreign affairs."

It was the speech that established the strategic petroleum reserve, birthed the modern solar power industry, led to the insulation of millions of American homes, and established America's first national energy policy.

That was 34 years ago. All we're permitted to remember about Jimmy Carter is that he was a one-term Democratic president…..who just had a lot of, you know, funny ideas.

America, obviously, cannot be taught and cannot learn. Of course, hundreds of billions of dollars have been spent over the past 34 years to prevent us from learning the truth of which Carter spoke. Reagan moved the oil barons into the White House, solar panels were removed from the White House roof…..tax subsidies flowed to oil corporations…..and then there's the wars and the foreign policy which followed.

I am convinced that America's stubborn unwillingness to confront the 800 pound barrel of oil in the room…will eventually lead to our demise.

A new, and even more reactionary and extreme conservative movement, will never consider any government spending on alternative energy policy initiatives. We're broke, they say. Not broke enough to prevent us from dropping $1 million freedom bombs on another oil-rich nation…..but just broke enough to prevent government from acting as a problem solver in any significant way.

Initiatives which Carter spoke about 34 years ago, initiatives which would carry with them the added bonus of producing jobs……can never be implemented in today's Tea Party environment. It's up to the divine and invisible moving hand of the free market to solve our decades-old problem. The market will decide, just like Ronnie said it would.

And so, instead, our tax dollars go to pay for more freedom bombs, more military intervention in the middle east, more misery and more bloodshed. What Carter warned about 34 years ago…..has now become the U.S. status quo.

It's been 34 years…..the problem with America's continued dependence on foreign sources of energy has only worsened.

America cannot learn and cannot be taught. Because of that, what we have witnessed in Iraq, what we are witnessing now in Libya….and what we'll witness in every oil-rich region of the world in the future will be wars and rumors of wars primarily instigated by U.S. officials.

Wars of "humanitarianism", wars to "prevent genocide", wars to stop dangerous WMD from getting into the hands of bad, bad people……but never the truth that they are wars for energy resources.

As with all events, there are now two wildly different narratives out there explaining what's happening in Wisconsin.

In one of these two narratives, Governer Walker's Wisconsin is buried under mountains of debt. The debt is so bad, goes this narrative, that dealing with it is a dire emergency which the new Tea Party governor has rightly, and immediately, taken on by unilaterally eliminating collective bargaining rights for unionized state employees.

The protesters in Wisconsin, however, know this….

In Wisconsin, budget season is two years long. The current budget window was opened on July 1, 2009, and will close on June 30 of this year. If for unexpected reason, the state finds itself faced with a severe deficit within a biennial window, the legislature must pass what's known a "budget repair bill" — to close the gap with spending cuts or other emergency measures.

The state has not crossed that threshold.

Right off the bat….Wisconsin had no emergency budgetary problems when Walker took office. So, he created a small one with $120 million in tax cutting. But even that didn't place Wisconsin's fiscal situation within the necessary parameters of a "budget repair bill."

Wisconsin protesters also know this….

The previous governor, Democrat Jim Doyle, passed a budget that left the state poised for a surplus this year. When Walker took office in January he chipped away at that surplus with three conservative tax expenditure bills, but not severely enough to trigger a budget repair bill. The current, small shortfall was "manufactured by Governor Walker's own insistence on making the deficit worse with the bills he passed in January," former Wisconsin Dem. Senator Pat Kreitlow said. But Walker cited that shortfall to introduce a "budget repair bill" anyhow — a fully elective move that includes his plan to end collective bargaining rights for state employees.

Clearly, Walker created this "emergency" out of whole Tea Party cloth.

Additionally, Walker has yet to introduce a budget to cover the first two years of his term…..

Walker will soon have to introduce an actual budget, which will outline spending and revenue policy for the two years between July 1, 2011 and June 30, 2013. And the state's Legislative Fiscal Bureau — the official scorekeeper — does project that he'll face a $3 billion shortfall. But Democrats faced a shortfall twice as large ahead of the previous budget cycle and managed to close the gap.

Yesterday, just like Hosni Mubarak, Scott Walker was defiant in his response. Walker admitted, however, that what he was doing was a "bold political move."

"…What we're asking for today and what we continue to be pushing for in this Capitol, is bold when it comes to politics — it's a bold political move. But any time you challenge the status quo, it's gonna be bold. But it is a very modest request of our government workers all across this state."

Notice here…..Walker is fully cognizant of what he is proposing. Even he calls it a "bold" move. But, at the same time, Walker calls taking wages and fringe benefits out of collective bargaining or binding arbitration rights…."a very modest request." Without collective bargaining rights for wages and bennies, unions would cease to be…..well…..unions. That, naturally, is Walker's goal.

Then Walker simply lies….

"Again, we don't have any money. We can't make a good faith effort to negotiate when we don't have any money. But more important than that, the fact at the state level, in the past decade, the average amount of time for a contract negotiation has taken 15 months."

Wisconsin finished 2010 with a small surplus…..which Walker quickly turned into a slight deficit. Walker's thinking(?) is front to back. Good faith efforts, if the Governor had any intention of demonstrating good faith, would involve a presentation of facts proving, or disproving, the claim that Wisconsin doesn't have any money. Almost in anticipation of his critics, Walker, then, throws in an "and anyway…negotiations take too long." He plays the "emergency" card again when there is no emergency.

But then the gibberish really gets deep……

"The bottom line is, and again as a local government official I can tell you, if you're gonna see major cuts in aid to local governments, which is exactly what's gonna come and what I've said is gonna come for some time, and what nearly every other governor across the country is doing, the only way I can ensure to the public in this state is that those cuts aren't gonna lead to massive layoffs of teachers, city, county, local government workers, major cuts in core services at the local level, is if those local governments have the authority to set their pension and benefit levels the way we're outlining in this bill. If you have collective bargaining agreements in place, there's no guarantee that any of those savings will be materialized."

You may have to read that paragraph from Walker over again to get the gist of the gibberish. I had to. Walker says, without doubt, Wisconsin counties and townships will experience major aid cuts from the state….as many other states are also experiencing. Why this might be the case is hard to explain, …because Walker had a SURPLUS when he took office, and the worst of the recession is behind us.

Then the leap…..in light of those local cuts-to-come, Walker is eliminating collective bargaining rights for state employees, right now, so that, "massive" layoffs won't materialize later. Walker says he can avoid those "massive" layoffs…..even though he started the year in the black…..but only if collective bargaining rights are eliminated, other wise there's no guarantee of any "savings."

Summary: Walker's union busting plan was his plan from the moment of the midterm election. Now, like George and Dick did, WalkerBack is crudely and rudely fitting the "facts" on the ground to fit the pre-emptive union busting policy.

The most dangerous political movement in America today is not the Village darlings, the Tea Partyers. Not even close. Tea Partyers are like the cheap noisemakers many people use at midnight on New Year's Eve…..they're fun for a few minutes but have no lasting, practical value.

The most dangerous political movement in America today is the same political movement which orchestrated the fraud known as Operation Iraqi Freedom. The most dangerous political movement in America today is the one which prompted an incurious George W. Bush to call Iraq, North Korea and Iran the "axis of evil."

The most dangerous political movement in America today is the neo-conservative movement. It is a movement which continually pounds the drums of war.

Neo-conservatives hold dearly to one basic premise.

Now that the U.S. is the world's lone superpower, America should strategically position new military strongholds throughout the fossil fuel-rich nations of the middle east, uprooting political regimes as necessary. The goal of such military positioning is for the purpose of projecting our power throughout the middle east and beyond as we "protect our interests" in the region.

William Kristol of The Weekly Standard and Fox News-That-Isn't is the father of neo-conservatism. Don't ever let Kristol's soft-spokeness fool you…..he is one of the most dangerous Americans alive today. He and his warmongering sidekick, Robert Kagan, founded the Project for the New American Century (PNAC) in 1997. One year later, the neo-cons were pressuring President Bill Clinton to attack Iraq.

It wasn't until George W. Bush became president that Bill Kristol and his warmongering imperialists got their way.

The internationally illegal act of attacking a sovereign country without self-defense-cause was the WMD-lipsticked pig-in-a-poke sold to Americans in 2002-2003……but it was the efforts of neo-cons, like Kristol and Kagan, that set the stage for the Bushies to defraud the nation.

I bring this up today because the neo-cons are still at it. Just as the Village kept the unwashed masses busy fretting about a president's fibbing about consensual sex in 1998 as neo-cons were preparing to coerce an attack on Iraq……so today, the Village is ever-so-busy spreading the word about the sparkly and mesmerizing Tea Partys while neo-cons are quietly preparing to attack another sovereign nation which doesn't threaten America….Iran.

Huckleberry…..

Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina said Monday that the United States must be prepared to use military force to prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon — and added that the last-resort step should be taken with the goal of overthrowing Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

Graham, a military lawyer and a senior Republican on the Senate Armed Services Committee, became the first senator to support direct U.S. military intervention in Iran, saying it should not involve ground troops but be launched by U.S. warplanes and ships.

"If you use military force against Iran, you've opened up Pandora's box," Graham told the American Enterprise Institute in Washington. "If you allow Iran to get a nuclear weapon, you've emptied Pandora's box. I'd rather open up Pandora's box than empty it".

…..

"From my point of view, if we engage in military operations as a last resort, the United States should have in mind the goal of changing the regime," Graham said. "Not by invading (Iran), but by launching a military strike by air and sea."
Such an attack would be aimed not only at eliminating Iran's nuclear capabilities, Graham said, but at rendering Ahmadinejad's government powerless.

Lindsey Graham has a way with words, doesn't he? Notice the "goal..of regime change?" Sounds familiar, doesn't it? Huckleberry is also mostly a soft spoken man, just like Bill Kristol. And just like Kristol, it's WHAT he says that is so dangerous.

"launching a military strike by air and sea"……which means that tens of thousands, perhaps hundreds of thousands of Iranian men, women and children would be slaughtered. Millions more displaced as refugees. Slaughtered and displaced in an effort to change a regime which, some say (but without any evidence), is building a nuclear weapon. This no-evidence-WMD talk is also very familiar.

It's bad enough that the Democratic Party has a few neo-conservatives in their midst and that Barack Obama, regrettably, has endorsed a few of the doctrines of the neo-cons….but to give political power back to a modern Republican Party which knows only two things…..cutting taxes and starting wars……now that would be disastrous.

Embarassment isn't a sufficient enough word anymore…..doesn't quite capture the powerlessness one feels as one watches a nation disintegrate into a state of ignorant confusion.

On 9-11, 19 extremist Muslims hijacked planes and crashed them into buildings killing almost 3000 U.S. citizens. We were told by the president at the time that those 19 attackers did the deed because of America's "freedoms." For some unexplained-at-the-time reason, those hijackers, and the leaders who sent them, "hated our freedoms."

In Osama Bin Laden's two fatwahs of 1996 and 1998, he lays out his justifications for conducting extremist acts against America and Americans. Hating U.S. freedoms is not one of the reasons given.

Instead, Bin Laden talks about America's first war with Iraq, the presence of U.S. military forces in Saudi Arabia and other Muslim lands, the devastating sanctions against the Iraqi people during the 90's, and America's unquestioning support of Israel while Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank are basically being held hostage.

Here is Bin Laden…..

First, for over seven years the United States has been occupying the lands of Islam in the holiest of places, the Arabian Peninsula, plundering its riches, dictating to its rulers, humiliating its people, terrorizing its neighbors, and turning its bases in the Peninsula into a spearhead through which to fight the neighboring Muslim peoples.

If some people have in the past argued about the fact of the occupation, all the people of the Peninsula have now acknowledged it. The best proof of this is the Americans' continuing aggression against the Iraqi people using the Peninsula as a staging post, even though all its rulers are against their territories being used to that end, but they are helpless.

…….

….if the Americans' aims behind these wars are religious and economic, the aim is also to serve the Jews' petty state and divert attention from its occupation of Jerusalem and murder of Muslims there. The best proof of this is their eagerness to destroy Iraq, the strongest neighboring Arab state, and their endeavor to fragment all the states of the region such as Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Sudan into paper statelets and through their disunion and weakness to guarantee Israel's survival and the continuation of the brutal crusade occupation of the Peninsula.

Don't misunderstand. In posting Bin Laden's ramblings, I do not defend Bin Laden or anything he has done. Violence is never the answer, and, transparently, Bin Laden has a few religious screws missing.

At the same time, the United States population has never had clearly explained to them the answer to the question, "why do they hate us and want to kill us?"

Whether it's the blindness caused by a misguided understanding of 'American exceptionalism'…..my country, right or wrong stuff…..or whether it's the ignorance of Americans so gullible to believe whatever even a failed and disgraced president utters……whatever the reason…..we're now 9 years into some ludicrously named "war on terror" and Americans are more confused and ignorant than ever.

My point here is that extremist Muslims have been riled up against the actions and non-actions of the U.S. for a good long time. It is only the Americans who refuse to be confronted with the reasons why guys like Bin Laden seek to retaliate.

When Abu Ghraib torture pictures surfaced, we were told that America couldn't see those pictures because our troops would be endangered if they became public. Obama flip-flopped on releasing the second batch of 'America torturing' pictures for just that reason. Our leaders, once again, were being actively dishonest about explaining "why they hate us."

What looked like an attempt to cover up war crimes was explained away as "endangering the troops." Ignorant Americans stayed clueless about "why they hate us."

Now the confusion and stupidity and political manipulation has gotten so out of hand, that we find Defense Secretary Gates calling some nothingburger down in Florida….telling him that if he burns Korans on Saturday…..he will….wait for it….."endanger the troops."

Do you know who has "endangered the troops?" Our leaders. By not educating the American people about "why they hate us", by pre-emptive wars of choice, by opening and keeping open Guantanomo, by continuing renditions, "interrogations" and assassination programs, by escalating the U.S. military occupation of Afghanistan, by the 50,000 occupational troops still in Iraq, by America's continued failure to address the Palestinian problem…….by all of that plus more…..our leaders are "endangering our troops."

Yet, in our current state of ignorant confusion, we find Hillary, Gates, Obama, Petreaus and the usual-suspect Village assh*les all going ballistic over some no-name religious nut down in Florida. We're being told by all the Very Serious people that if a no-name religious nut burns a few Korans tomorrow, then, worldwide Muslims will be inflamed and then guess what? "Our troops will be endangered."

Extremist Muslims who want to kill Americans, like Bin Laden's minions, have been inflamed for a very, very long time. Extremist Muslims in Iraq, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Somalia and elsewhere don't require any more evidence to be inflamed. Bin Laden made it clear over a decade ago.

9 years out and now it's Americans who are being inflamed to hate all Muslims for stated reasons that even morons could identify as crass political posturing. It's Americans who are ignorant and gullible about why 9-11 happened. It's Americans who are being told that they must give up their rights or our "troops will be endangered."

It's Americans who are becoming self-enslaved by their own ignorance…….and it's ugly to watch.

UGLY UPDATE: Pentagon plans to destroy 10,000 books.

Or, perhaps, Fractured Political Fairy Tales. I couldn't decide on the title.

U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald prosecuted the Lewis Scooter Libby case. That was the case where Dick Cheney's office orchestrated the outing of CIA agent, Valerie Plame. Cheney's office had Ms. Plame outed at the time to scare any other potential whistleblower's in the CIA, or other intelligence outfits, away from coming forward in 2003 to explain how Cheney had ginned up the fraudulent stories about Saddam Hussein and Iraq being an imminent danger to the U.S.

Fitzgerald, it was said at the time, was a "bulldog", having successfully prosecuted organized crime.

When Patrick Fitzgerald arrested former Illinois Governor, Rod Blagojevich in December, 2008….I took issue with not only the timing of the arrest, but also with Fitzgerald's rhetoric…..

Fitzgerald described the situation by saying: “We were in the middle of a corruption crime spree and we wanted to stop it.”
…..
U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald says the corruption charges against Gov. Blagojevich represent “a truly new low,” and he says the allegations “would make Lincoln roll over in his grave.”

“This is a sad day for government,” he said at a news conference with federal prosecutors to discuss the arrest of Blagojevich. “Gov. Blagojevich has taken us to a truly new low."

Fitzgerald called Blagojevich's actions in the last several weeks as “a political corruption crime spree.”

Yesterday, Rod Blagojevich was found guilty on one count…..out of 24 counts brought against him.

One count.

Blago was found guilty of making a false statement to the FBI. Even that count is pretty weak tea. The jury was deadlocked on the other 23 charges. The judge declared a mistrial on those 23 counts. The U.S. prosecutor's office immediately announced that they would retry the case.

TPM calls the verdict a "huge defeat" for Patrick Fitzgerald. But then, Fitzgerald is the guy who permitted Karl Rove to come back and testify to the grand jury investigating the Plame case….5 times…..presumably to paper over the lies from the previous four testimonies. Fitzgerald is the guy who stated that there was a "dark cloud" hanging over the office of Vice President Dick Cheney over the Plame outing…..but bulldog or not…..Fitzgerald never went snarling after the architect of the Plame outing crime.

When Blago was arrested, I mentioned that it seemed like Fitzgerald was acting pre-emptively……before any crime was committed. George Bush and Dick Cheney convinced Americans in 2003 that pre-emptive wars…..the U.S. attacking another country BEFORE that country is an actual threat…..was the new way forward after 9-11, because
"everything had changed."

Patrick Fitzgerald, it was argued, arrested Blago pre-emptively, because Blago was about to sell the Senate seat vacated by President Obama. See…it was an emergency. Just like WMD in Iraq.

It's odd though. Old Abe was rolling in his grave because Governor Blago was in the midst of such an extensive crime spree…..so extensive and so egregious that Fitzgerald categorized it as a new low from government officials.

How egregious? How extensive?….

"We didn't even put a defense up, and the government could not prove its case," Blago said.

Fitzgerald's case against Governor Blagojevich was so overflowing with evidence of corruption and criminal scheming…..the U.S. prosecutor bemoaned that it marked a "new low" in government corruption.

Yet, when it came time to actually, you know, prosecute those "new low" crimes…..Blago didn't even have to put up a defense. That's how miserably weak Fitzgerald's case against Blago actually was.

Fitzgerald said something else back in December of 2008 when he arrested Governor Blagojevich. Something which led me at the time to speculate that Fitzgerald may have had other motives for arresting Blago when he did.

The head of the FBI office in Chicago said if Illinois isn’t the most corrupt state in the United States, it’s a strong competitor.

Reframe the timing. Barack Obama, Illinois Senator, was elected to the presidency the first week of November, 2008. Less than four weeks later, a U.S. prosecutor announced the worst elected-official-conducted crime spree in history. That official just happened to also be from Illinois….. Governor Rod Blagojevich. So bad was the crime spree by the Illinois Governor….. the same Illinois that President-elect Barack Obama hailed from…..that it marked a new low. So bad that it made Abe Lincoln, also from Illinois, roll over in his grave. So bad that the crime spree had to be pre-emptively interrupted…..or Obama's old seat would be tainted.

So bad that the Village immediately began asking the Very Serious and Professional question…..will this damage President Obama before he even takes office?

And yet…..so bad that Governor Blagojevich didn't even have to present a defense….so bad that the jury couldn't agree to convict Blago on even one of the original charges.

I still maintain today that Governor Blagojevich didn't do anything out of the ordinary for today's elected officials. Paying to play, influence peddling, bribes by other names, sweetheart deals, arm twisting, leveraging power……..is what American elected officials do.

And any U.S. Attorney, bulldog or not, who tries to tell you otherwise, is simply putting on his own little personal, political theater.

WikiLeaks has released 92,000 classified reports on America's war in Afghanistan. The reports are from January 2004 through December 2009.

While I'm certain that America's right will call for an assassination team to take out the proprietors of WikiLeaks as enemies of the empire…..the web site has actually done America a favor.

The secret documents, released on the Internet by an organization called WikiLeaks, are a daily diary of an American-led force often starved for resources and attention as it struggled against an insurgency that grew larger, better coordinated and more deadly each year.

"often starved for resources and attention"

What could possibly explain that?

The archive is a vivid reminder that the Afghan conflict until recently was a second-class war, with money, troops and attention lavished on Iraq while soldiers and Marines lamented that the Afghans they were training were not being paid.

Liberals often bashed George W. Bush for taking our nation's eye off our 9-11 enemies in Afghanistan and Pakistan, and instead, fraudulently leading our country into a war of aggression in Iraq. That bashing was deserved, according to the new material released yesterday.

After Obama took the presidency in 2009, neo-cons, like Liz and Dick Cheney, were often seen on teevee badmouthing Obama, accusing him of "dithering" over Afghanistan. However, as the WikiLeaks material now clearly demonstrates, the "ditherers" were the Terror Twins.

…..the documents sketch a war hamstrung by an Afghan government, police force and army of questionable loyalty and competence, and by a Pakistani military that appears at best uncooperative and at worst to work from the shadows as an unspoken ally of the very insurgent forces the American-led coalition is trying to defeat.

What did the Commander Guy President tell Americans about Afghanistan?

September 2002: “The Taliban’s ability to brutalize the Afghan people and to harbor and support terrorists has been virtually eliminated.”

April 2002: “With the Taliban eliminated and al-Qaida badly damaged, we have moved into the second stage of our war on terror.”

September 2004: “And as a result of the United States military, Taliban no longer is in existence. And the people of Afghanistan are now free.”

December 2004: “In Afghanistan, America and our allies, with a historically small force and a brilliant strategy, defeated the Taliban in just a few short weeks."

The truth, however, was something altogether different.

The Taliban was not eliminated…not "virtually", not at all. Moving into "the second stage of our war on terror" in 2002, as we now know, meant attacking a nation which had no connection to, or relationship with, al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or 9-11…..and which posed no threat to the United States. The people of Afghanistan are not now free, nor were they free when Bush said the words.

Because Bush ……dithered……in Afghanistan, his sought after prize being Saddam Hussein's ivory handled pistol….and Saddam's head…..the Afghanistan conflict was neglected, the hunt for Bin Laden all but forgotten, the resources needed to make a difference in Afghan-Pak relocated to fight a war of choice, a new war in Iraq that was ginned up with lies and deception.

And just like during Vietnam we find that our leaders almost always lie to the American people during "wartime"…..

Over all, the (WikiLeak-ed) documents do not contradict official accounts of the war. But in some cases the documents show that the American military made misleading public statements — attributing the downing of a helicopter to conventional weapons instead of heat-seeking missiles or giving Afghans credit for missions carried out by Special Operations commandos.

As long as American voters don't really know what's going on, (and main corporate media sure as hell isn't going to tell us…..oh, look over there, it's Sister Sarah) they can be convinced to believe most anything that their government/military leaders say. America doesn't torture. When we're talking about eavesdropping, we're talking about warrants. Saddam has WMD. You get the idea.

President Obama made a choice with Afghanistan. Obama escalated the Bush-neglected quagmire. Obama took the now-retired Gen. McChyrstal's advice on Afghanistan. It was the wrong advice.

It has been said by official U.S. military commanders, allegedly in the know, that there are only 300 al-Qaeda fighters remaining in Pakistan and Afghanistan.

The U.S. has 100,000+ armed forces in Afghanistan and even more private contractors. We spend $5-6 billion a month over there.

All because of 300 al-Qaeda fighters.

Makes no sense.