London Bombings... an inside job?

Trying to catch up on my blogging which has been seriously neglected in the last month or so, several recent events have caught the world's attention and an alternative veiwpoint deserves mention.

London has now suffered another terrorist attack that the media immediately blamed on Al-Qaeda. Many different bloggers have taken up the task to show numerous inconsistencies with the official government version of events, and point to a great deal of evidence that suggests the London bombings were likely orchestrated and carried out by high level government inteligence agencies; namely MI-6, Mossad and/or the CIA, and that the five Muslim "suicide bombers" were patsies being set up to take the fall.

For one of the best commentaries and in-depth analyses of the real perpetrators behind the 7/7 bombings see last weeks Signs of the Times pages, starting on July 7,2005 and culminating with a downloadable podcast discussion with the editors of that informative page.

Relic

Here we go again....

SOTT

Yesterday we spoke of the slow, drip, drip, drip of the Chinese water torture. It was the calm before the storm.

The "inevitable" has finally happened, the attack that has been expected against London has occurred. Were you surprised?

After all they have been setting us up for this since September 11, 2001, with the PR machine going into overdrive since Blair jumped into Bush's lap the summer prior to the invasion of Iraq. And who are they going to pin it on? Our favourite CIA asset, Osama bin Laden...

Show your Independence on the 4th; Burn a Flag

By Mike Whitney
July 03, 2005

"This 4th of July, I ask you to find a way to thank the men and women defending our freedom, by flying the flag"
- George W. Bush, Fort Bragg address 6-28-05

"If the flag needs protection at all, it needs protection from members of Congress who value the symbol more than the freedoms that the flag represents."
- Jerrold Nadler, (D-New York)

"Some folks are born made to wave the flag, ooh, they're red, white and blue. And when the band plays "Hail To The Chief", oh, they point the cannon at you, Lord"
- John Fogerty, "Fortunate Son"

"ICH" - - It's odd that Congress would pass a bill banning flag burning on the same week that reports confirmed the US military used napalm in Iraq. Apparently, it's alright to incinerate Iraqis, but not okay to burn a 5'x7' piece of tri-colored cloth.

For the Republican faithful, the action was just another cynical demonstration of feigned patriotism meant to divert attention from an increasingly bloody war. Only a handful of these uber-nationalists ever served a day in uniform so they try to limit their loyalty to meaningless displays of political buffoonery. No one believes for a minute that any one of these stuffed-shirts would ever venture into an angry crowd to save Old Glory from the torch. They'd rather pontificate from the safety of the House, where their high-flown rhetoric can be mistaken for courage.

If the Congressman were sincere in their regard for the Bill of Rights they'd honor the basic tenets of the 1st amendment; (that) "Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech;" a clear defense of unpopular forms of expression, like flag burning. Instead, they choose to ignore the principle behind the icon and flaunt their ignorance like a badge of honor.

The Supreme Court got it right in a 1989 ruling that settled the issue of flag burning: "If there is a bedrock principle underlying the First Amendment, it is that the government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea itself offensive or disagreeable. Punishing desecration of the flag dilutes the very freedom that makes this emblem so revered, and worth revering."

The Court decided that flag burning was "symbolic speech" and was protected under the 1st amendment. The act, however offensive, belongs in the same category as "virulent ethnic and religious epithets, vulgar repudiations of the draft, and scurrilous caricatures".

Unfortunately, the Congress is so subsumed in the prevailing culture of chauvinism and religious zealotry that our founding principles have been tossed on the slag heap and replaced with a hard-right ideology and empty proclamations of devotion. As the polls indicate, Congress has devolved into little more than a staging ground for the regular emission hot gas from windy politicos.

The flag burning issue is mainly a way for puerile congressman to entertain themselves while the matters of state are conducted by an iron-fisted White House. Never the less, freedom of expression is central to our constitutionally protected civil liberties and should be taken seriously. And, besides, maybe it takes a smoldering flag or two to wake up a somnolent nation.

"The flag", Einstein wrote, "is proof that man is still a herd animal". We gather around these tribal symbols to identify ourselves with the gaggle of humanity, excluding "the other" as a vital threat to our survival. Entire industries (Public relations) evolve in order to harness this fear of external threats and exploit it for their own purposes. The Bush Administration has been particularly astute at marshalling the dormant energy of terror and putting it to use in carrying out its radical agenda. As America's center has shifted, so too its symbols have been transformed by the policies. Now, an American flag on the lapel of a sports-coat immediately pigeon-hole's one as a hard-right ideologue or a "Ditto-head". Similarly, an American flag bumper sticker identifies one as a Bush-supporter as surely as a "yellow ribbon" car-magnet. In other words, the flag has lost its original meaning and no longer includes the values of all the people. It is entirely the province of Christian fundamentalists, neocons, super-nationalists, and war-mongers.

Let's face it; the flag is Bush and Bush is the flag.

Democrats vehemently refute this, but it is true nonetheless. The principles that may have imbued the flag with some real meaning have long since disappeared. Five years of Bush have transformed a perfectly decent bit of weaving into a menacing symbol of brute force and intolerance. The question isn't whether someone has the right to burn the flag but, rather, who really cares if they do?

No reasonably decent individual would ever defend a banner that waves over torture-camps like Guantanamo or Abu Ghraib. So, why should we take the provincial attitude that the flag is still sacrosanct?

It's not. It has morphed into the mottled image of its corporate owners; a ruddy, savage emblem of marching armies, windowless jail cells, and sneering, well-groomed men in blue suits.

The flag has become a stage-prop for executive speechifying; a tawdry backdrop for Bush's war-oratory. It's become companion for fatuous politicians who think that valor can rub off through proximity or osmosis. It's morphed into a blood-splattered pennant waved in front of high-school boys; drawing them to the killing fields in Iraq and Afghanistan; a bloody shroud that cloaks the national idol of aggressive war. It's become a beacon of dwindling freedom; hanging limply behind the concertina-wire and cement abutments at the White House fortress.

This isn't your flag anymore, or mine. Perhaps, we should just burn it and preserve the memory.

The stars-and-stripes no longer fly over "purple mountains majesty or fruited plains", but over the warlord dominated drug-colony in Afghanistan and the battered Green-Zone ramparts in occupied Iraq.

The flag has fallen from its once lofty perch and merged with the sludge of corporate profiteering, calculated sadism and pre-emptive war. No dousing of gasoline could ever compare to the disgrace brought on by Bush's laser-guided munitions, messianic proselytizing, and orgy of carnage.

In such times, flag burning becomes the ultimate form of non-violent dissent; a commanding symbol of individual defiance and protest. It registers the absolute contempt of the citizen for the policies of the state and provides a venue for a lawful and appropriate demonstration of personal outrage.

It is senseless to carry on about personal liberty if the citizen is not free to take an unpopular point of view and rail against the government. Free speech needs to be protected particularly if it IS "offensive". Flag burning is the benchmark for measuring the extent of our personal freedom. We shouldn't deny ourselves that right for the sake of political correctness.

Any attempt by the Congress to prevent this form of expression will only generate greater distain for the authority of the state. Let Congress stick to its own business and leave the 1st amendment alone.

Why not enjoy the "last throes" of the Republic? Express yourself while you can; defend your personal liberty; burn a flag on Independence Day.

Mike Whitney lives in Washington state. He can be reached at: fergiewhitney@msn.com

Copyright: Mike Whitney. All rights reserved. You may republish under the following conditions: An active link to the original publication must be provided. You must not alter, edit or remove any text within the article, including this copyright notice.

Sacrificing Our Kids for Their War

SOTT Commentary

Foreign wars need cannon fodder, the youth of a country to go out and give and take the bullets and bombs in the name of policy established by leaders who are safe at home. In the case of the invasion and occupation of Iraq, an illegal war carried out under false pretences against an "enemy" that was no threat to the invaders, the leaders, many of whom were of draftable age during the war in Vietnam, managed to avoid the military altogether or active service in that war. They are referred to as the Chickenhawks: people who talk a belligerent game but who are unwilling to put their own lives on the line for their beliefs. Let the sons and daughters of the less fortunate die and be maimed.

The current US Commander-in-Chief went AWOL from his cushy post as a pilot with the Texas National Guard when he avoided the medical exam that would have shown traces of his cocaine habit in his blood. Now he struts his stuff in custom-made military garb to quicken the drug-primed hearts of military studs like Jeff Gannon.

We are talking hypocrisy and corruption on a massive scale. It is so unbelievable for most people that when you bring it up, they look at you as if you were putting money on the Vikings winning the Superbowl.

But wars need soldiers to give their lives or their arms and legs, eyes or minds. With 140,000 troops in Iraq, thousands more in Afghanistan, and plans to overthrow Iran and Syria, army recruiters have quotas to fill. In spite of the filtered coverage of the occupation of Iraq shown to Americans, enlistment is down. For four months in a row, the quotas have not been met.

What's an empire to do?

The first is to elect war-mongerers who can set the right example:

Chickenhawk Headquarters

The New Hampshire Gazette

Name: George W. Bush (R-TX)
Born: 1946
Employer: The U.S. Taxpayer
Conflict Avoided: Vietnam
Notes: You know when a guy walks away from a National Guard obligation during wartime and gets away with it, he must come from "a good family." Not that his daddy had anything to do with his getting a Guard slot in the first place - oh, no ...

Name: Richard "Dick" Cheney (R-WY)
Born: 1942
Employer: The U.S. Taxpayer
Conflict Avoided: Vietnam
Notes: Says he had "other priorities." You bet he had other priorities. Imagine how early in life you must begin scheming to get away with what this guy has. He was too busy thinking about Halliburton to go fight Charlie.

Name: I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby
Born: 1950±
Employer: The U.S. Taxpayer
Conflict Avoided: Vietnam
Notes: I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby is Dick Cheney’s Chief of Staff. He’s had a string of no-doubt well-paying government jobs in State and Defense. He’s also practiced law. In fact, he was Marc Rich’s lawyer for years. Yes — the Marc Rich whose pardon from President Clinton was excoriated by so many high and mighty Republicans. Maybe if Scooter had been a better lawyer, his client wouldn’t have needed that pardon. Speaking of legal questions, “Scooter” is alleged by some to have traded energy stocks while helping his buddy Dick Cheney cook up a new energy policy in secret. He’s also suspected of having inserted the bogus “Niger yellowcake” reference into the President’s State of the Union address. As if all that weren’t enough, he’s also a top suspect in the outing of CIA operative Valeria Plame. Clearly “Scooter” is a ballsy kind of guy, so it’s a complete mystery to us why, when he graduated from Phillips Andover in 1968, he didn’t enlist in the Marines or go Airborne instead of going to Yale.

Name: Karl Rove
Born: 1950
Employer: Baal
Conflict Avoided: Vietnam
Notes: This little cherub was born on Christmas Day, 1950. Karl “Bush’s Brain” Rove ran George W.’s campaign, right down to the tiny detail of deciding Bush was going to run. The hardest part was convincing a horde of Republican skeptics that it could be done.

He is said to have said of his boss, he’s "the kind of candidate and officeholder political hacks like me wait a lifetime to be associated with."

Now Karl’s Senior White House advisor. If he really is “Bush’s Brain,” and if the fondest wishes of former US Ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV come true, one fine day Karl will be “frogmarched out of the White House in mandcuffs.”

Will history record that event as “Bush’s Lobotomy?”

Name: Donald "The Don" Rumsfeld
Born: 1932
Employer: The U.S. Taxpayer
Conflict Avoided: Korea
Notes: When the shooting started in Korea Rummy here was either 18, or about to turn 18. Not to worry for him, though — he spent the war at Princeton, wearing a ROTC uniform. Once the war was over he flew jets for the Navy for a few years. Defenders of Rumsfeld will say he’s no chickenhawk — he served, and it’s not his fault the war ended before he got his commission. To which others answer, “plenty of farmers and mechanics and kids just out of high school served. Anyone as full of whatever that stuffing in him is, could have tried out for a battlefield commission.”

Name: Paul Wolfowitz
Born: 1943
Employer: The U.S. Taxpayer
Conflict Avoided: Vietnam
Notes: Deputy Secretary for Defense - yet another Bush administration man in the Pentagon who has no idea what it's like to wear a uniform. He got a BA at Cornell in 1965. Maybe if we'd had a guy as bright as he thinks he is in Vietnam, it would have turned out differently.

Child Abuse

Chris Floyd – Moscow Times June 24, 2005

When the public liars sat down together – in Crawford, in the Pentagon, in the Oval Office, at 10 Downing Street – and very deliberately, very guilefully and very knowingly devised their act of mass murder in Iraq, it is unlikely they gave any thought to the most vulnerable targets of their war crime: the children. So in considering this aspect of the bloodbath, we should give the liars the benefit of the doubt. Let's not make them more monstrous than they are. Let's stick to the facts.

Let us say -- as the incontrovertible facts compel us to say -- that they were willing to kill tens of thousands of innocent people in an action they knew to be illegal, reckless, ill-planned and unsupported by evidence; that they knew their public statements about the plans for war were lies; that they started the war with a vicious bombing campaign months before obtaining even a fig leaf of approval from their respective legislatures, a clear and treasonous violation of their own national laws; that long before their blitzkrieg rolled across the border, they were already divvying up the loot of conquest: the oil rights, the "privatizations," the crony contracts.

In short, let us say that, yes, they are killers, liars, thieves and incompetent fools. But let's not imagine that as they settled their safe and cosseted backsides into the fine upholstery of their elegantly appointed war rooms, they gleefully regaled each other with visions of the exquisite tortures they would soon inflict upon the children of Iraq.

Let's not imagine George W. Bush nudging Tony Blair in the ribs as they masticated their pork together, saying, "Cholera, eh? Typhoid fever. Malnutrition! By God, we can grind these Iraqi children lower than the slum rats of Haiti!" Let's not picture Dick Cheney chiding Donald Rumsfeld over the steak tartare: "Damn it, Don, if there's a single pregnant Iraqi woman left without hepatitis before we're through, heads are going to roll! I want the wombs of those Arab cows swimming in lethal viruses. Lethal, do you hear me?"

Of course it wasn't like that. Such suppositions do these honored national leaders a grave injustice. No doubt their discourse was elevated, focused on lofty matters of state and strategy, on the practicalities of logistics and presentation. If anyone there spoke of the "human factor" -- the actual reality of bleeding flesh, of death, wounds, disease and rot -- it would only have been as part of the political calculations: What level of casualties would the American people accept, how do we keep the dead and maimed out of the public eye? It was all about numbers, processes, abstractions. Nothing to disturb the moral imagination, nothing to put them off the hearty meals and tasty snacks discreetly laid before them by the servants.

So when leading international agencies -- including the World Bank, now headed by one of the chief liars, Paul Wolfowitz -- find that Iraq's children are dwindling and dying twice as fast under the coalition's benevolent care than under the despotism of Saddam Hussein, we should not conclude that this was the liars' conscious intention. Yes, it's true that Iraq's child malnutrition rate is now worse than the broken nations of Uganda or Haiti, as the Japan Times reports. Yes, cholera and typhoid are cutting swaths through the population, with especial virulence in the "stable" areas of the Shiite south. Yes, epidemics of hepatitis are killing pregnant women. Yes, antibiotics are scarce, leaving children, the old and the weak to die of common infections -- that is, when they can get treated at all in a health system ravaged by the liars' war and its atrocious aftermath. (Such as the destruction of Fallujah, for example, when coalition forces deliberately destroyed the city's health clinics and imprisoned doctors to prevent news of civilian casualties from leaking to the press, as the Pentagon's own "information specialists" told The New York Times.)

And yes, it's true that Iraq -- once a modern and prosperous nation -- has suffered "one of the most dramatic declines in human welfare in recent history" during the occupation, as the UN says. But again, this was not part of the liars' deliberate design. The torment of children was outside the parameters of their "metrics of success." It was not a factor one way or the other.

In fact, let's go even further and declare forthrightly that if the liars could have established a client regime and a permanent military presence in Iraq without harming the hair of a single child, they would have done so. If they could have transferred more than $300 billion from the public treasury to the pockets of their family members and business partners without having to concoct a brutal and baseless war of aggression, they would have done so. If they could have legitimized their radical, rapacious domestic agenda without engineering the slaughter of innocent people in order to assume the politically expedient role of "wartime leaders," they would have done so.

But they couldn't. So like all murderers, they did whatever they had to do to get what they wanted, regardless of the consequences for others. Like all terrorists, they rationalized their atrocities with noble rhetoric, citing the unassailable righteousness of their cause as justification for the unspeakable evil they were unleashing. And like all abusers of innocent children, they covered up their baser motives with self-serving lies.