Benjamin Netanyahu Pembohong!!

Obama – Sarkozy mengakui bahwa Netanyahu adalah PEMBOHONG!!!

Berikut cuplikan beritanya (disadur dari republika.co.id).

SARKOZY : SAYA TAK TAHAN DENGAN NETANYAHU, DIA PEMBOHONG.

REPUBLIKA.CO.ID, JERUSALEM–Rupa-rupanya sosok Perdana Menteri Israel Benyamin Netanyahu bikin kesal sesama pemimpin negara. Presiden Prancis Nicolas Sarkozy dan Presiden AS Barack Obama ketahuan kesal terhadap Netanyahu.

Dalam salah satu laman Prancis, Arret Aur Images, Sarkozy dikabarkan menyebut Netanyahu sebagai pembohong. Ia mengatakan hal ini ketika bertemu dengan Obama di pertemuan G20 di Cannes, pekan lalu

“Saya tak tahan melihat Netanyahu. Dia itu pembohong,” kata Sarkozy, seperti dikutip dari Jerusalem Post, Selasa.

Obama pun tak kalah kesal. Melihat Sarkozy dongkol, Obama mengatakan, “Anda kesal, tapi saya harus berurusan dengan Netanyahu setiap hari.”

Menurut laman berita tersebut, gumaman dua pemimpin negara adidaya ini rupanya terdengar oleh telinga jurnalis yang tengah meliput G20, 3 November lalu. Mengapa bisa demikian? Ada kesalahan teknis yang membuat mereka tak sengaja mendengar percakapan rahasia via monitor itu.

Tapi sehari kemudian, apa yang dikatakan Sarkozy berbeda. Sarkozy mengutuk program nuklir Iran, dan mengatakan Prancis akan bertindak bila keamanan Israel terancam.

INILAH ISI GUNJINGAN OBAMA – SARKOZY

REPUBLIKA.CO.ID, PARIS – Presiden Perancis, Nicolas Sarkozy, Kamis lalu tak menyadari bahwa mikrofon di ruang pertemuan di KTT G20 di Cannes sedang menyala, saat ia menyebut Benjamin Netanyahu sebagai  “pembohong”

“Saya tidak tahan dengan Netanyahu, dia pembohong,” kata Sarkozy pada Presiden Amerika Serikat, Barack Obama.

Obama, yang juga tak menyadari bahwa mikrofon telah diaktifkan dan sedang dipantau oleh wartawan melalui headset, mengungkapkan hal yang sama.

“Anda muak dengan dia, bagaimana dengan saya yang harus berurusan dengan dia bahkan lebih sering daripada Anda,” jawab Obama, seperti ditulis koran Haaretz yang terbit di Israel.

Obama juga mengeluh kepada Sarkozy tentang suara Prancis yang mendukung keanggotaan Palestina di UNESCO, dan memintanya untuk memberitahu Palestina untuk menghentikan langkah sepihak mereka di PBB.

“Kita harus memberlakukan sanksi ekonomi pada Palestina,” kata Obama.

Beberapa wartawan, termasuk beberapa dari dari organisasi media besar, mendengar pembicaraan itu tetapi tidak melaporkan  pada awalnya. Para wartawan saat itu sepakat, memberitakannya akan merupakan pelanggaran atas etika jurnalistik.

Namun, satu media Prancis, Arret Sur Images, memutuskan untuk membukanya secara luas.

OBAMA AKUI BERGUNJING SOAL NETANYAHU

REPUBLIKA.CO.ID, HAWAII – Presiden Amerika Serikat Barack Obama mengakui gunjingannya dengan Presiden Prancis Nicolas Sarkozy soal Benjamin netanyahu, namun menolak untuk membahas pembicaraan mereka.

“Sehubungan dengan insiden ‘mikrofon panas’ di Perancis, aku tidak akan mengomentari percakapan yang kami lakukan,” kata Obama di Hawaii.

Menyadari bahwa mikrofon di ruang pertemuan di KTT G20 di Cannes adalah pada, Sarkozy terdengar pada 3 November menyebut Netanyahu “pembohong” dalam apa yang dia pikir merupakan pertukaran pribadi dengan Obama.

“Saya tidak tahan Netanyahu, dia pembohong,” kata Sarkozy Obama, yang juga menyadari bahwa mic telah dihidupkan dan sedang dipantau oleh wartawan melalui headset digunakan untuk terjemahan simultan.

Obama tidak benar-benar membela Netanyahu dalam percakapan itu, baik. “Kau muak dengan dia, tapi aku harus berurusan dengan dia bahkan lebih sering daripada Anda,” jawab Obama, menurut laporan kawat layanan.

Meskipun ia menolak untuk mengomentari referensi dengan Netanyahu, Obama menguraikan isi sisa percakapan dengan Sarkozy. “Percakapan utama saya dengan Presiden Sarkozy dalam pertemuan berkisar seputar kekecewaan signifikan saya bahwa Perancis telah memilih berpihak pada Palestina untuk bergabung dengan UNESCO, tahu benar bahwa di bawah hukum kita, konsekuensi bagi badan dunia itu adalah Amerika Serikat akan memotong dana bantuannya,” katanya.

“Saya konsisten membuat argumen bahwa satu-satunya cara kita akan memecahkan situasi Timur Tengah adalah jika Palestina dan Israel duduk di meja dan bernegosiasi; bahwa tidak akan berjalan dengan semestinya jika ada pihak yang potong kompas melalui PBB,” lanjut Obama.

Obama menambahkan, “Percakapan (dengan Sarkozy) sangat jujur ​​dan tegas tentang masalah itu. Dan yang konsisten dengan pernyataan baik pribadi maupun publik.”

Beberapa wartawan, termasuk beberapa dari media besar, mendengar percakapan awal antara Obama dan Sarkozy tapi awalnya tidak melaporkannya, menyetujui antara mereka sendiri bahwa jika dipublikasi akan merupakan sebuah pelanggaran kode etik jurnalistik. Pernyataan muncul Selasa di situs Prancis yang relatif tidak jelas.

Wikileaks Ungkap Pesta Rahasia di Arab

disadur dari vivanews.com

Anggota kerajaan Arab Saudi diam-diam menggelar sebuah pesta Halloween akhir tahun lalu di sebuah villa yang dijaga ketat aparat keamanan. Banyak minuman keras dan wanita dalam pesta itu.

Demikian isi memo diplomatik dari Kedutaan Besar AS di Jeddah kepada Departemen Luar Negeri di Washington yang dipublikasikan di laman WikiLeaks, yang dipantau harian The Guardian, Selasa, 7 Desember 2010.

Pesta itu digelar oleh pangeran kerajaan dari keluarga Al-Thunayan. Para diplomat mengatakan identitas sang pangeran harus dirahasiakan. Pesta itu bahkan disponsori sebuah perusahaan minuman energi asal Amerika Serikat.

“Alkohol, yang dilarang keras oleh hukum Saudi dan adat setempat, namun terlihat berlimpah ruah di bar area pesta. Bartender asal Filipina yang mereka sewa meracik cocktail punch dengan sadiqi, minuman keras lokal,” tulis memo itu. “Berdasarkan pengamatan sejumlah tamu wanita juga adalah pekerja malam.”

Konsuler Amerika Serikat di Jeddah, Martin Quinn, mengatakan, “Meskipun tidak menyaksikan langsung, penggunaan minuman yang dilarang lumrah di lingkungan sosial mereka.”

Pesta semacam itu sangat terjaga kerahasiaannya. Dengan penjagaan superketat, hanya mereka dari kalangan kerajaan dan superkaya yang bisa bergabung. Mayoritas pangeran di Arab juga umumnya memiliki bodyguard sewaan dari Nigeria atau sejumlah negara di Afrika.

Dalam sebuah pesta biasanya dihadiri lebih 150 laki-laki dan perempuan, yang mayoritas usia 20-an dan 30-an. Mereka masuk melalui penjagaan ekstra ketat. “Mirip sebuah klub malam di luar kerajaan: banyak alkohol, pasangan muda menari, seorang DJ, dan tamu berkostum pesta.”

Amerika Serikat dan Angka 13

Lihatlah bendera Amerika Serikat, lalu hitung jumlah strip merah dan putihnya. 13?

Ya, 13.

Menurut sumber resmi pemerintah USA, jumlah 13 ini melambangkan jumlah koloni Inggris di wilayah Amerika Serikat pada abad 18. Lalu, kenapa Inggris harus membuat koloni sejumlah 13? Tidak ada yang tahu.

Sekarang perhatikan lambang negara Amerika Serikat di bagian depan :

• 13 bintang di atas kepala Elang yang membentuk lambang Bintang David
• 13 perisai atau tameng
• 13 daun zaitun
• 13 anak panah dan bulu anak panah
• 13 huruf yang membentuk kalimat “E Pluribus Unum”
• 13 x 9 titik yang melingkari bintang David di atas Elang.

Yang jelas, angka 13 adalah angka Sacred Number milik kaum Kabbalah. Angka keramat, angka yang disucikan, angka yang dikorbankan. Kenapa ada istilah “Friday the 13th”? Tak lain dan tak bukan adalah karena pada hari Jumat itu, 13 Oktober 1703,  terjadi pembasmian Ksatria Templar oleh Paus Clement V dan King Philip Le Bel (Philip IV) di Perancis karena dianggap sesat dari Kristen.

Angka 13 ini ternyata hingga kini masih dipercaya sebagai angka keramat. lambang negara Amerika Serikat, jumlah kartu remi dan tarot, rumus suci geometri yang biasanya terpahat dan disembunyikan dalam berbagai arsitektur bangunan seperti halnya Monumen Washington DC dan Patung Liberty, simbolisasi logo Microsoft, simbolisasi logo McDonalds dan berbagai perusahaan multinasional AS, lembaga-lembaga pemerintah maupun swasta di AS, hingga bilangan batu permata yang ada di Cruix Gemmata, salib yang bertaburkan 13 batu mulia.

Angka 13 ini juga disimbolkan sebagai Yesus dengan 12 muridnya, Dinasti Rotschild dengan 12 Dinasti Yahudi Dunia lainnya yang berkumpul di Bavaria pada tahun 1773 (pendirian Illuminaty dengan Adam Weishaupt sebagai Grandmaster), dan sebagainya.

Lihat pula lambang Departemen Keuangan USA :

Ada 13 bintang yang membentuk piramida !

Lalu kenapa ada gambar “kunci” ? Kunci apakah gerangan? Tak lain dan tak bukan, itulah SOLOMON KEY……Kunci menuju harta karun King Solomon……

(dari berbagai sumber)

Obama’s AIPAC Speech, Rahm’s Endorsement

by Katharine Jose 10:35 AM June 4, 2008

Right after Barack Obama’s speech to AIPAC this morning ( June 4, 2008 ) he was endorsed by Rahm Emanuel, a leading member of the House.

(The Illinois congressman has largely stayed out of the election because he is a friend of Obama’s and also has close ties to the Clintons.)

Emanuel, who belongs to an Orthodox Jewish congregation in Chicago, then accompanied Obama to a meeting with AIPAC’s executive board, Mark Halperin reports.

Here is full text of Obama’s speech, as prepared for delivery:

Remarks at AIPAC Policy Conference

Senator Barack Obama

June 4, 2008

As Prepared for Delivery

It’s great to see so many friends from across the country. I want to congratulate Howard Friedman, David Victor and Howard Kohr on a successful conference, and on the completion of a new headquarters just a few blocks away.

Before I begin, I want to say that I know some provocative emails have been circulating throughout Jewish communities across the country. A few of you may have gotten them. They’re filled with tall tales and dire warnings about a certain candidate for President. And all I want to say is – let me know if you see this guy named Barack Obama, because he sounds pretty frightening.

But if anyone has been confused by these emails, I want you to know that today I’ll be speaking from my heart, and as a true friend of Israel. And I know that when I visit with AIPAC, I am among friends. Good friends. Friends who share my strong commitment to make sure that the bond between the United States and Israel is unbreakable today, tomorrow, and forever.

One of the many things that I admire about AIPAC is that you fight for this common cause from the bottom up. The lifeblood of AIPAC is here in this room – grassroots activists of all ages, from all parts of the country, who come to Washington year after year to make your voices heard. Nothing reflects the face of AIPAC more than the 1,200 students who have travelled here to make it clear to the world that the bond between Israel and the United States is rooted in more than our shared national interests – it’s rooted in the shared values and shared stories of our people. And as President, I will work with you to ensure that it this bond strengthened.

I first became familiar with the story of Israel when I was eleven years old. I learned of the long journey and steady determination of the Jewish people to preserve their identity through faith, family and culture. Year after year, century after century, Jews carried on their traditions, and their dream of a homeland, in the face of impossible odds.

The story made a powerful impression on me. I had grown up without a sense of roots. My father was black, he was from Kenya, and he left us when I was two. My mother was white, she was from Kansas, and I’d moved with her to Indonesia and then back to Hawaii. In many ways, I didn’t know where I came from. So I was drawn to the belief that you could sustain a spiritual, emotional and cultural identity. And I deeply understood the Zionist idea – that there is always a homeland at the center of our story.

I also learned about the horror of the Holocaust, and the terrible urgency it brought to the journey home to Israel. For much of my childhood, I lived with my grandparents. My grandfather had served in World War II, and so had my great uncle. He was a Kansas boy, who probably never expected to see Europe – let alone the horrors that awaited him there. And for months after he came home from Germany, he remained in a state of shock, alone with the painful memories that wouldn’t leave his head.

You see, my great uncle had been a part of the 89th Infantry Division – the first Americans to reach a Nazi concentration camp. They liberated Ohrdruf, part of Buchenwald, on an April day in 1945. The horrors of that camp go beyond our capacity to imagine. Tens of thousands died of hunger, torture, disease, or plain murder – part of the Nazi killing machine that killed 6 million people.

When the Americans marched in, they discovered huge piles of dead bodies and starving survivors. General Eisenhower ordered Germans from the nearby town to tour the camp, so they could see what was being done in their name. He ordered American troops to tour the camp, so they could see the evil they were fighting against. He invited Congressmen and journalists to bear witness. And he ordered that photographs and films be made. Explaining his actions, Eisenhower said that he wanted to produce, “first-hand evidence of these things, if ever, in the future, there develops a tendency to charge these allegations merely to propaganda.”

I saw some of those very images at Yad Vashem, and they never leave you. And those images just hint at the stories that survivors of the Shoah carried with them. Like Eisenhower, each of us bears witness to anyone and everyone who would deny these unspeakable crimes, or ever speak of repeating them. We must mean what we say when we speak the words: “never again.”

It was just a few years after the liberation of the camps that David Ben-Gurion declared the founding of the Jewish State of Israel. We know that the establishment of Israel was just and necessary, rooted in centuries of struggle, and decades of patient work. But 60 years later, we know that we cannot relent, we cannot yield, and as President I will never compromise when it comes to Israel’s security.

Not when there are still voices that deny the Holocaust. Not when there are terrorist groups and political leaders committed to Israel’s destruction. Not when there are maps across the Middle East that don’t even acknowledge Israel’s existence, and government-funded textbooks filled with hatred toward Jews. Not when there are rockets raining down on Sderot, and Israeli children have to take a deep breath and summon uncommon courage every time they board a bus or walk to school.

I have long understood Israel’s quest for peace and need for security. But never more so than during my travels there two years ago. Flying in an IDF helicopter, I saw a narrow and beautiful strip of land nestled against the Mediterranean. On the ground, I met a family who saw their house destroyed by a Katyusha Rocket. I spoke to Israeli troops who faced daily threats as they maintained security near the blue line. I talked to people who wanted nothing more simple, or elusive, than a secure future for their children.

I have been proud to be a part of a strong, bi-partisan consensus that has stood by Israel in the face of all threats. That is a commitment that both John McCain and I share, because support for Israel in this country goes beyond party. But part of our commitment must be speaking up when Israel’s security is at risk, and I don’t think any of us can be satisfied that America’s recent foreign policy has made Israel more secure.

Hamas now controls Gaza. Hizbollah has tightened its grip on southern Lebanon, and is flexing its muscles in Beirut. Because of the war in Iraq, Iran – which always posed a greater threat to Israel than Iraq – is emboldened, and poses the greatest strategic challenge to the United States and Israel in the Middle East in a generation. Iraq is unstable, and al Qaeda has stepped up its recruitment. Israel’s quest for peace with its neighbors has stalled, despite the heavy burdens borne by the Israeli people. And America is more isolated in the region, reducing our strength and jeopardizing Israel’s safety.

The question is how to move forward. There are those who would continue and intensify this failed status quo, ignoring eight years of accumulated evidence that our foreign policy is dangerously flawed. And then there are those who would lay all of the problems of the Middle East at the doorstep of Israel and its supporters, as if the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is the root of all trouble in the region. These voices blame the Middle East’s only democracy for the region’s extremism. They offer the false promise that abandoning a stalwart ally is somehow the path to strength. It is not, it never has been, and it never will be.

Our alliance is based on shared interests and shared values. Those who threaten Israel threaten us. Israel has always faced these threats on the front lines. And I will bring to the White House an unshakeable commitment to Israel’s security.

That starts with ensuring Israel’s qualitative military advantage. I will ensure that Israel can defend itself from any threat – from Gaza to Tehran. Defense cooperation between the United States and Israel is a model of success, and must be deepened. As President, I will implement a Memorandum of Understanding that provides $30 billion in assistance to Israel over the next decade – investments to Israel’s security that will not be tied to any other nation. First, we must approve the foreign aid request for 2009. Going forward, we can enhance our cooperation on missile defense. We should export military equipment to our ally Israel under the same guidelines as NATO. And I will always stand up for Israel’s right to defend itself in the United Nations and around the world.

Across the political spectrum, Israelis understand that real security can only come through lasting peace. And that is why we – as friends of Israel – must resolve to do all we can to help Israel and its neighbors to achieve it. Because a secure, lasting peace is in Israel’s national interest. It is in America’s national interest. And it is in the interest of the Palestinian people and the Arab world. As President, I will work to help Israel achieve the goal of two states, a Jewish state of Israel and a Palestinian state, living side by side in peace and security. And I won’t wait until the waning days of my presidency. I will take an active role, and make a personal commitment to do all I can to advance the cause of peace from the start of my Administration.

The long road to peace requires Palestinian partners committed to making the journey. We must isolate Hamas unless and until they renounce terrorism, recognize Israel’s right to exist, and abide by past agreements. There is no room at the negotiating table for terrorist organizations. That is why I opposed holding elections in 2006 with Hamas on the ballot. The Israelis and the Palestinian Authority warned us at the time against holding these elections. But this Administration pressed ahead, and the result is a Gaza controlled by Hamas, with rockets raining down on Israel.

The Palestinian people must understand that progress will not come through the false prophets of extremism or the corrupt use of foreign aid. The United States and the international community must stand by Palestinians who are committed to cracking down on terror and carrying the burden of peacemaking. I will strongly urge Arab governments to take steps to normalize relations with Israel, and to fulfill their responsibility to pressure extremists and provide real support for President Abbas and Prime Minister Fayyad. Egypt must cut off the smuggling of weapons into Gaza. Israel can also advance the cause of peace by taking appropriate steps – consistent with its security – to ease the freedom of movement for Palestinians, improve economic conditions in the West Bank, and to refrain from building new settlements – as it agreed to with the Bush Administration at Annapolis.

Let me be clear. Israel’s security is sacrosanct. It is non-negotiable. The Palestinians need a state that is contiguous and cohesive, and that allows them to prosper – but any agreement with the Palestinian people must preserve Israel’s identity as a Jewish state, with secure, recognized and defensible borders. Jerusalem will remain the capital of Israel, and it must remain undivided.

I have no illusions that this will be easy. It will require difficult decisions on both sides. But Israel is strong enough to achieve peace, if it has partners who are committed to the goal. Most Israelis and Palestinians want peace, and we must strengthen their hand. The United States must be a strong and consistent partner in this process – not to force concessions, but to help committed partners avoid stalemate and the kind of vacuums that are filled by violence. That’s what I commit to do as President of the United States.

The threats to Israel start close to home, but they don’t end there. Syria continues its support for terror and meddling in Lebanon. And Syria has taken dangerous steps in pursuit of weapons of mass destruction, which is why Israeli action was justified to end that threat.

I also believe that the United States has a responsibility to support Israel’s efforts to renew peace talks with the Syrians. We must never force Israel to the negotiating table, but neither should we ever block negotiations when Israel’s leaders decide that they may serve Israeli interests. As President, I will do whatever I can to help Israel succeed in these negotiations. And success will require the full enforcement of Security Council Resolution 1701 in Lebanon, and a stop to Syria’s support for terror. It is time for this reckless behavior to come to an end.

There is no greater threat to Israel – or to the peace and stability of the region – than Iran. Now this audience is made up of both Republicans and Democrats, and the enemies of Israel should have no doubt that, regardless of party, Americans stand shoulder-to-shoulder in our commitment to Israel’s security. So while I don’t want to strike too partisan a note here today, I do want to address some willful mischaracterizations of my positions.

The Iranian regime supports violent extremists and challenges us across the region. It pursues a nuclear capability that could spark a dangerous arms race, and raise the prospect of a transfer of nuclear know-how to terrorists. Its President denies the Holocaust and threatens to wipe Israel off the map. The danger from Iran is grave, it is real, and my goal will be to eliminate this threat.

But just as we are clear-eyed about the threat, we must be clear about the failure of today’s policy. We knew, in 2002, that Iran supported terrorism. We knew Iran had an illicit nuclear program. We knew Iran posed a grave threat to Israel. But instead of pursuing a strategy to address this threat, we ignored it and instead invaded and occupied Iraq. When I opposed the war, I warned that it would fan the flames of extremism in the Middle East. That is precisely what happened in Iran – the hardliners tightened their grip, and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was elected President in 2005. And the United States and Israel are less secure.

I respect Senator McCain, and look forward to a substantive debate with him these next five months. But on this point, we have differed, and we will differ. Senator McCain refuses to understand or acknowledge the failure of the policy that he would continue. He criticizes my willingness to use strong diplomacy, but offers only an alternate reality – one where the war in Iraq has somehow put Iran on its heels. The truth is the opposite. Iran has strengthened its position. Iran is now enriching uranium, and has reportedly stockpiled 150 kilos of low enriched uranium. Its support for terrorism and threats toward Israel have increased. Those are the facts, they cannot be denied, and I refuse to continue a policy that has made the United States and Israel less secure.

Senator McCain offers a false choice: stay the course in Iraq, or cede the region to Iran. I reject this logic because there is a better way. Keeping all of our troops tied down indefinitely in Iraq is not the way to weaken Iran – it is precisely what has strengthened it. It is a policy for staying, not a plan for victory. I have proposed a responsible, phased redeployment of our troops from Iraq. We will get out as carefully as we were careless getting in. We will finally pressure Iraq’s leaders to take meaningful responsibility for their own future.

We will also use all elements of American power to pressure Iran. I will do everything in my power to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. That starts with aggressive, principled diplomacy without self-defeating preconditions, but with a clear-eyed understanding of our interests. We have no time to waste. We cannot unconditionally rule out an approach that could prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. We have tried limited, piecemeal talks while we outsource the sustained work to our European allies. It is time for the United States to lead.

There will be careful preparation. We will open up lines of communication, build an agenda, coordinate closely with our allies, and evaluate the potential for progress. Contrary to the claims of some, I have no interest in sitting down with our adversaries just for the sake of talking. But as President of the United States, I would be willing to lead tough and principled diplomacy with the appropriate Iranian leader at a time and place of my choosing – if, and only if – it can advance the interests of the United States.

Only recently have some come to think that diplomacy by definition cannot be tough. They forget the example of Truman, and Kennedy and Reagan. These Presidents understood that diplomacy backed by real leverage was a fundamental tool of statecraft. And it is time to once again make American diplomacy a tool to succeed, not just a means of containing failure. We will pursue this diplomacy with no illusions about the Iranian regime. Instead, we will present a clear choice. If you abandon your dangerous nuclear program, support for terror, and threats to Israel, there will be meaningful incentives – including the lifting of sanctions, and political and economic integration with the international community. If you refuse, we will ratchet up the pressure.

My presidency will strengthen our hand as we restore our standing. Our willingness to pursue diplomacy will make it easier to mobilize others to join our cause. If Iran fails to change course when presented with this choice by the United States, it will be clear – to the people of Iran, and to the world – that the Iranian regime is the author of its own isolation. That will strengthen our hand with Russia and China as we insist on stronger sanctions in the Security Council. And we should work with Europe, Japan and the Gulf states to find every avenue outside the UN to isolate the Iranian regime – from cutting off loan guarantees and expanding financial sanctions, to banning the export of refined petroleum to Iran, to boycotting firms associated with the Iranian Revolutionary Guard, whose Quds force has rightly been labeled a terrorist organization.

I was interested to see Senator McCain propose divestment as a source of leverage – not the bigoted divestment that has sought to punish Israeli scientists and academics, but divestment targeted at the Iranian regime. It’s a good concept, but not a new one. I introduced legislation over a year ago that would encourage states and the private sector to divest from companies that do business in Iran. This bill has bipartisan support, but for reasons that I’ll let him explain, Senator McCain never signed on. Meanwhile, an anonymous Senator is blocking the bill. It is time to pass this into law so that we can tighten the squeeze on the Iranian regime. We should also pursue other unilateral sanctions that target Iranian banks and assets.

And we must free ourselves from the tyranny of oil. The price of a barrel of oil is one of the most dangerous weapons in the world. Petrodollars pay for weapons that kill American troops and Israeli citizens. And the Bush Administration’s policies have driven up the price of oil, while its energy policy has made us more dependent on foreign oil and gas. It’s time for the United States to take real steps to end our addiction to oil. And we can join with Israel, building on last year’s US-Israel Energy Cooperation Act, to deepen our partnership in developing alternative sources of energy by increasing scientific collaboration and joint research and development. The surest way to increase our leverage in the long term is to stop bankrolling the Iranian regime.

Finally, let there be no doubt: I will always keep the threat of military action on the table to defend our security and our ally Israel. Sometimes there are no alternatives to confrontation. But that only makes diplomacy more important. If we must use military force, we are more likely to succeed, and will have far greater support at home and abroad, if we have exhausted our diplomatic efforts.

That is the change we need in our foreign policy. Change that restores American power and influence. Change accompanied by a pledge that I will make known to allies and adversaries alike: that America maintains an unwavering friendship with Israel, and an unshakeable commitment to its security.

As members of AIPAC, you have helped advance this bipartisan consensus to support and defend our ally Israel. And I am sure that today on Capitol Hill you will be meeting with members of Congress and spreading the word. But we are here because of more than policy. We are here because the values we hold dear are deeply embedded in the story of Israel.

Just look at what Israel has accomplished in 60 years. From decades of struggle and the terrible wake of the Holocaust, a nation was forged to provide a home for Jews from all corners of the world – from Syria to Ethiopia to the Soviet Union. In the face of constant threats, Israel has triumphed. In the face of constant peril, Israel has prospered. In a state of constant insecurity, Israel has maintained a vibrant and open discourse, and a resilient commitment to the rule of law.

As any Israeli will tell you, Israel is not a perfect place, but like the United States it sets an example for all when it seeks a more perfect future. These same qualities can be found among American Jews. It is why so many Jewish Americans have stood by Israel, while advancing the American story. Because there is a commitment embedded in the Jewish faith and tradition: to freedom and fairness; to social justice and equal opportunity. To tikkun olam – the obligation to repair this world.

I will never forget that I would not be standing here today if it weren’t for that commitment. In the great social movements in our country’s history, Jewish and African Americans have stood shoulder to shoulder. They took buses down south together. They marched together. They bled together. And Jewish Americans like Andrew Goodman and Michael Schwerner were willing to die alongside a black man – James Chaney – on behalf of freedom and equality.

Their legacy is our inheritance. We must not allow the relationship between Jews and African Americans to suffer. This is a bond that must be strengthened. Together, we can rededicate ourselves to end prejudice and combat hatred in all of its forms. Together, we can renew our commitment to justice. Together, we can join our voices together, and in doing so make even the mightiest of walls fall down.

That work must include our shared commitment to Israel. You and I know that we must do more than stand still. Now is the time to be vigilant in facing down every foe, just as we move forward in seeking a future of peace for the children of Israel, and for all children. Now is the time to stand by Israel as it writes the next chapter in its extraordinary journey. Now is the time to join together in the work of repairing this world.

Source : http://www.observer.com

Rhyming reverend gets last word at Obama inaugural

Posted by: Randall Mikkelsen

WASHINGTON – Rev. Joseph Lowery was back on stage with a president, but on Tuesday the civil-rights pioneer used his wry rhymes to welcome the U.S. leader, not skewer him as he did three years ago.

Lowery, who co-founded the Southern Christian Leadership Conference with Martin Luther King Jr., delivered the benediction at Barack Obama’s inauguration as first black U.S. president.

Lowery prayed for healing from a era of “greed and corruption,” and asked, in verse, for divine help toward a new beginning of racial harmony:

“We ask you to help us work for that day when black will not be asked to get in back, when brown can stick around, when yellow will be mellow, when the red man can get ahead, man; and when white will embrace what is right,” Lowery said to laughter from the vast audience.

In 2006, speaking before then-president George W. Bush and three former presidents at the funeral of King’s widow, Coretta Scott King, Lowery delivered a stern rebuke to Bush’s conduct of the Iraq war and domestic policy.

“We know now there were no weapons of mass destruction over there. But Coretta knew, and we know, that there are weapons of misdirection right down here. Millions without health insurance. Poverty abounds. For war billions more, but no more for the poor,” he said then.

Critics charged that the remarks were out of place at a funeral. Lowery defended them as relevant to Mrs. King’s life.

Also speaking at the inauguration was evangelical pastor Rick Warren, who said in his invocation that “Dr. King and a great cloud of witnesses are shouting in Heaven” over Obama’s historic presidency.

Gay-rights supporters had criticized Obama for awarding the inaugural showcase to Warren, an influential supporter of a successful ballot measure to ban gay marriage in California.

But Lowery got the last word, and a chorus of Amens.

Photo credit: REUTERS/Jason Reed (Lowery speaks at Obama inauguration, Jan. 20)

Source : http://blogs.reuters.com

US veto blocks UN anti-Israel resolution

Written by http://www.daily.pk

Monday, 29 December 2008 03:43

The UN Security Council has been unable to force an end to Israeli attacks against Gaza due to the intervention of the United States. Washington once again used its veto powers on Sunday to block a resolution calling for an end to the massive ongoing Israeli attacks against the Gaza Strip.

The council has only been able to issue a ‘non-binding’ statement that calls on Israel to voluntarily bring all its military activities in the besieged region to an immediate end.

The statement comes as Israel has begun a fresh wave of air strikes on Gaza on Sunday, killing at least six people. At least 230 people were killed and 800 wounded in similar attacks on Saturday. The number of Palestinians deaths has so far risen to 271.

The council called on the parties to address the humanitarian crisis in the territory but has not criticized the Israeli air attacks.

Croatian UN Ambassador Neven Jurica read out the non-binding statement on behalf of the 15-member body that “called for an immediate halt to all violence” and on the parties “to stop immediately all military activities.”

“The members of the Security Council expressed serious concern at the escalation of the situation in Gaza,” he said, as the president of the council.

The council also requested the opening of border crossings into Gaza to address the serious humanitarian and economic needs in Gaza and to ensure medical treatment and a continuous supply of food and fuel.

US representative to the UNSC, Zalmay Khalilzad, defended the Israeli move, saying Tel Aviv has the right to self-defense.

“I regret the loss of any of all innocent life,” he said, adding that Hamas rockets precipitated this situation.

Palestinian fighters in the Gaza Strip say they fire rockets into Israel in retaliation for the daily Israeli attacks against them. Unlike the state-of-the-art Israeli weapons and ammunition, the home-made Qassam rockets rarely cause casualties.

The US, a staunch ally to Israel, has so far vetoed over 40 anti-Israeli resolutions sought by the council since 1972.

Since 2004, Washington has prevented the adoption of four other resolutions that called for Tel Aviv to halt its operations in the Gaza Strip.

Source : http://www.daily.pk

U.S. spent $ 1 Trillion in war against Islam

Written by http://www.daily.pk

Sunday, 28 December 2008 19:46

The news that President Bush’s so-called “war on terrorism” (on other word war on Islam) soon will have cost the U.S. taxpayers $ 1 trillion – and counting – is unlikely to spread much Christmas cheer in these tough economic times.

A trio of recent reports – none by the Bush Administration – suggests that sometime early in the Obama presidency, spending on the wars started since 9/11 will pass the trillion-dollar mark. Even after adjusting for inflation, that’s four times more than America spent fighting World War I, and more than 10 times the cost of 1991’s Persian Gulf War (90 % of which was paid for by U.S. allies). The war on “terrorism” looks set to surpass the costs the Korean and Vietnam wars combined, topped only by World War II’s price tag of $ 3.5 trillion.

The cost of sending a single soldier to fight for a year in Afghanistan or Iraq is about $ 775,000 – three times more than in other recent wars, says a new report from the private but authoritative Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments (CSBA). A large chunk of the increase is a result of the Administration’s cramming new military hardware into the emergency budget bills it has been using to pay for the wars. (See pictures of U.S. troops in Iraq.)

These costs, of course, pale alongside the price paid by the nearly 5,000 U.S. troops who have lost their lives in the conflicts – not to mention the wounded – and the families of all the casualties. And President Bush insists that their sacrifice and the expenditure on the wars have helped prevent a repeat of 9/11. “We could not afford to wait for the terrorists to attack again,” he said last week at the Army War College. “So we launched a global campaign to take the fight to the terrorists abroad, to dismantle their networks, to dry up their financing and find their leaders and bring them to justice.”

But many Americans may suffer a moment of sticker shock from the conclusions of the CSBA report and similar assessments from the Government Accounting Office (GAO) and Congressional Research Service (CRS), which make clear that the nearly $ 1 trillion already spent is only a down payment on the war’s long-term costs. The trillion-dollare figure does not, for example, include long-term health care for veterans, thousands of whom have suffered crippling wounds, or the interest payments on the money borrowed by the Federal Government to fund the war. The bottom lines of the three assessments vary: the CSBA study says $ 904 billion has been spent so far, while the GAO says the Pentagon alone has spent $ 808 billion through last September. The CRS study says the wars have cost $ 864 billion, but CRS didn’t factor inflation into its calculations.

Sifting through Pentagon data, the CSBA study breaks down the total costs of the “war on terrorism” as $ 687 billion for Iraq, $ 184 billion for Afghanistan and $ 33 billion for homeland security. By 2018, depending on how many U.S. troops remain in Afghanistan and Iraq, the total cost is projected to likely be between $ 1.3 trillion and $ 1.7 trillion. On the safe assumption that the wars are being waged with borrowed money, interest payments raise the cost by an additional $ 600 billion through 2018.

Shortly before the Iraq war began, White House economic adviser Larry Lindsey earned a rebuke from within the Administration when he said the war could cost as much as $ 200 billion. “It’s not knowable what a war or conflict like that would cost,” Defense Secretary Don Rumsfeld said. “You don’t know if it’s going to last two days or two weeks or two months. It certainly isn’t going to last two years.”

According to the CSBA study, the Administration has fudged the war’s true costs in two ways. Borrowing money to fund the wars is one way of conducting them on the cheap, at least in the short term. But just as pernicious has been the Administration’s novel way of budgeting for them. Previous wars were funded through the annual appropriations process, with emergency spending – which gets far less congressional scrutiny – used only for the initial stages of a conflict. But the Bush Administration relied on such supplemental appropriations to fund the wars until 2008, seven years after invading Afghanistan and five years after storming Iraq.

“For these wars, we have relied on supplemental appropriations for far longer than in the case of past conflicts,” says Steven Kosiak of the CSBA, one of Washington’s top defense-budget analysts. “Likewise, we have relied on borrowing to cover more of these costs than we have in earlier wars – which will likely increase the ultimate price we have to pay.” That refusal to spell out the full cost can lead to unwise spending increases elsewhere in the federal budget or unwarranted tax cuts. “A sound budgeting process forces policymakers to recognize the true costs of their policy choices,” Kosiak adds. “Not only did we not raise taxes, we cut taxes and significantly expanded spending.”

The bottom line: Bush’s projections of future defense spending “substantially understate” just how much money it will take to run Obama’s Pentagon, the CSBA says in its report. Luckily, Defense Secretary Robert Gates plans to hang around to try to iron out the problem.

Source : http://www.daily.pk

CIA Photoshopped Fake Syrian Nuke Site Pics

by LOS ANGELES TIMES

Professor William Beeman at the University of Minnesota passed along a note today from “a colleague with a U.S. security clearance” about the mysterious Syrian site targeted in a Sept. 6 Israeli airstrike.

The note raises more questions about the evidence shown last week by U.S. intelligence officials to lawmakers in the House and Senate.

The author of the note pinpoints irregularities about the photographs. Beeman’s source alleges that the CIA “enhanced” some of the images. For example he cites this image:

(SEE PHOTO)

The lower part of the building, the annex, and the windows pointing south appear much sharper than the rest of the photo, suggesting that they were digitally improved.

The author points to more questions about the photographs of the Syrian site.

1. Satellite photos of the alleged reactor building show no air defenses or anti-aircraft batteries such as the ones found around the Natanz nuclear site in central Iran.

2. The satellite images do not show any military checkpoints on roads near the building.

3. Where are the power lines? The photos show neither electricity lines or substations.

4. Here is a link to a photo of the North Korean facility that the Syrian site was based on. Look at all the buildings surrounding it. The Syrian site was just one building.

ORIGINALLY PUBLISHED
http://www.infowars.com/?p=1796

Source : http://www.conspiracyplanet.com

What’s Really Going On With Gold And Silver?

By Alex Panameno

When gold hit $700 per oz, it brought the price to a negative 7% compared to a year ago. This would roughly mirror the huge correction “within” the bull market we saw from 1970 to 1980. The same Bull Run that took gold from $34.50oz. In January 1970, to $850oz. by January 1980, that’s roughly a 2,450% increase!

The question still lies… Why has gold dropped?

I challenge you to see things for what they really are, in terms of U.S. dollars; Gold has indeed dropped from its March highs of $1,000 per oz.

That’s only because gold is traded in U.S. dollars and the U.S. dollar has rose so much against other currencies. In fact, if you are in Australia, New Zealand, Europe, or most other countries, gold is actually at an all time high!

Let’s take a closer look at the reasons the U.S. dollar has surged higher.

To say the U.S. dollar rally is real or sustainable is like saying everything we know about economics is wrong! How can the U.S. dollar get stronger as the U.S. economy deteriorates?

The obvious answer is that it can’t!

The U.S. dollar is being devalued at an alarming rate. Faster than what took place in Argentina, Mexico, and Russia put together. The only difference is that our government has better ways to hide it.

Just think about the recent bailouts, how much has our government thrown down the endless “bail out hole”

Let’s add it up!

* $ 800 billion to support mortgage consumer debt.

* $100 billion for Fannie Mae

* $100 billion for Freddie Mac

* $150 billion for Stimulus package (from January)

* $8 billion for Indymac

* $29 billion for Bear Stearns

* $ 700 billion for Wall Street ( Bank of America; Merrill Lynch, City Group, JP Morgan, Washington Mutual, Wells Fargo; Wachovia, Morgan Stanley, Goldman Sachs)

* $143.8 Billion for AIG ( which keeps growing)

* $25 Billion for the big three in Detroit.

* $138 billion for Lehman Brothers (post bankruptcy) through JP Morgan.

* $ 50 Billion for money market funds.

* $ 620 billion for general currency swaps from the feds.

Totaling : $2,863,800,000,000

This doesn’t include the hundreds of billions the feds have and will continue to buy in commercial paper. Plus, what they lend out to other financial firms.

Not to mention, the feds recent supply of new credit lines to Brazil, Mexico, South Korea, and Singapore to “help those countries deal with the global credit crisis.” The feds will start at $30 billion and have promised up to $100 billion dollars per country.

Can someone say hyper-inflation!

If you can’t see where the U.S. dollar and gold are headed, I’ll be crystal clear! The dollar is going in the exact same direction as the Zimbabwe dollar and Mexican peso. Between the last devaluations of the peso, it’s lost 99.9%. If you want to know the price of gold in old pesos; you just have to multiply gold by 100,000.

With everything that has taken place, many “main-stream” TV commentators believe or want us to believe, that the U.S. dollar is now the currency of choice; a safe haven or flight to quality.

Nothing can be further from the truth.

The fact is that the U.S. dollar is now seen as a liability, not an asset. More and more countries are walking away from it.

The reason the U.S. dollar has gone higher is due to the $598 trillion dollar derivatives market. You see, hedge funds have over leveraged themselves and have been hit with tremendous margin calls as markets move against them. They have been forced to liquidate their investments overseas, which is why overseas markets are now crashing. They’re liquidating to come up with equity to pay off margin accounts, which need to be paid off in U.S. dollars.

The dollar is NOT rising because it’s a “safe haven” or a flight to quality; but rather to satisfy U.S. margin accounts. Remember until further notice, margin accounts in most emerging world markets can also be satisfied in U.S. dollars hence, the surge in demand for the U.S. dollar over the past few weeks.

Now let’s talk about deflation. It’s true deflation is here! Deflation is a normal stage in any depressionary economic cycle. Prices of goods and services are going down, they have to. We have an over inventory of cars, electronics, homes, etcS The universal law of supply and demand kicks in. Sellers of goods and services are forced to devalue their prices in order to attract buyers. Regardless of lower prices, people just aren’t buying.

Have no fear, deflation won’t be here long. The un-federal reserve assures us of that, every time they create money out of thin air.

Hyper inflation is just around the corner!

Anyone with a head on their shoulders knows that current consumer price index (CPI) is phony! Real inflation is much higher then government reported numbers.

Whether you believe hyper inflation is coming or not, you better prepare for it.

It happened to the Argentina, Russia, Germany, and recently to Zimbabwe.

It’s true; our government is just as irresponsible in their creation of money.

Another key issue that’s looming on the horizon is the five dollar floor for mutual funds. By law, mutual funds have to sell out of stocks that are trading under $5 per share. With the recent drop in the Dow, a lot of stocks are getting dangerously close to that mark, and when they get there, all mutual funds holding that stock, will have to sell it, creating a snow ball effect. Plus don’t forget we are walking into the worst retail Christmas season, ever forecasted. When the depressing numbers hit Wall Street, get ready to see the DOW take another dive!

Now let’s talk about the nasty rumor of market manipulation and price fixing in the gold and silver markets.

The commodity futures trading commission (CFTC) puts out the “Commitments of Traders” (COT) reports. In where the public can clearly see the net long or short positions held by non-commercial and commercial institutions in all exchange trade commodity markets. Well, without dragging this out.. It’s true! Up until the first week of November, two well known bullion banks held %76 of all the short positions in the silver pits and the same two Institutions also held 60% of all the short positions in the gold pits at the New York Mercantile Exchange and the COMEX division.

The question is, “can this go on forever”? The answer is NO!

In fact, the CFTC is now in an active investigation of both the gold and silver pits.

Plus! At or before the expiration of the specified futures contract (gold/silver) all short positions must be satisfied by either the sale of the commodity (gold and silver) or the buying back of the short position. Well, we know they can’t sell metals they don’t have, therefore the only other option is to buy the short positions back, with a sizable profit I’m sure. Nevertheless, they will be bought back. Which will add a frenzy of buying, ultimately sparking the next Bull Run in that market.

Ladies and gentlemen, the time has never been better to own tangible gold and silver. We all know what gold and silver are capable of when the buying frenzy starts. You don’t need to be a doomsdayer to know that the worst is yet to come.

* The largest load of bank loans re-adjusting the first quarter of 2009 and not stopping until 2012

* Bank failures

* Foreclosures

* Rising unemployment.

* Inflation

* Crashing U.S. dollar

* The introduction of the North American Union and the Amero.

These are all the reasons why more and more people are gravitating to Tangible metals.

Alex Panameno

Trading Director

Goldworth Financial

Source : rense.com

Pictures : http://www.fotosearch.com

Afghanistan, Another Untold Story

by Michael Parenti

Barack Obama is on record as advocating a military escalation in Afghanistan. Before sinking any deeper into that quagmire, we might do well to learn something about recent Afghan history and the role played by the United States.

Less than a month after the 11 September  2001 attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, US leaders began an all-out aerial assault upon Afghanistan, the country purportedly harboring Osama bin Laden and his al Qaeda terrorist organization. More than twenty years earlier, in 1980, the United States intervened to stop a Soviet “invasion” of that country. Even some leading progressive writers, who normally take a more critical view of US policy abroad, treated the US intervention against the Soviet-supported government as “a good thing.” The actual story is not such a good thing.

Some Real History

Since feudal times the landholding system in Afghanistan had remained unchanged, with more than 75 percent of the land owned by big landlords who comprised only 3 percent of the rural population. In the mid-1960s, democratic revolutionary elements coalesced to form the People’s Democratic Party (PDP). In 1973, the king was deposed, but the government that replaced him proved to be autocratic, corrupt, and unpopular. It in turn was forced out in 1978 after a massive demonstration in front of the presidential palace, and after the army intervened on the side of the demonstrators.

The military officers who took charge invited the PDP to form a new government under the leadership of Noor Mohammed Taraki, a poet and novelist. This is how a Marxist-led coalition of national democratic forces came into office. “It was a totally indigenous happening. Not even the CIA blamed the USSR for it,” writes John Ryan, a retired professor  at the University of Winnipeg, who was conducting an agricultural research project in Afghanistan at about that time.

The Taraki government proceeded to legalize labor unions, and set up a minimum wage,  a progressive income tax, a literacy campaign, and programs that gave ordinary people greater access to health care, housing, and public sanitation. Fledgling peasant cooperatives were started and price reductions on some key foods were imposed.

The government also continued a campaign begun by the king to emancipate women from their age-old tribal bondage. It provided public education for girls and for the children of various tribes.
A report in the San Francisco Chronicle (17 November 2001) noted that under the Taraki regime Kabul had been “a cosmopolitan city. Artists and hippies flocked to the capital. Women studied agriculture, engineering and business at the city’s university. Afghan women held government jobs—-in the 1980s, there were seven female members of parliament. Women drove cars, traveled and went on dates. Fifty percent of university students were women.”

The Taraki government moved to eradicate the cultivation of opium poppy. Until then Afghanistan had been producing more than 70 percent of the opium needed for the world’s heroin supply. The government also abolished all debts owed by farmers, and began developing a major land reform program. Ryan believes that it was a “genuinely popular government and people looked forward to the future with great hope.”

But serious opposition arose from several quarters. The feudal landlords opposed the land reform program that infringed on their holdings. And tribesmen and fundamentalist mullahs vehemently opposed the government’s dedication to gender equality and the education of women and children.

Because of its egalitarian and collectivist economic policies the Taraki government also incurred the opposition of the US national security state. Almost immediately after the PDP coalition came to power, the CIA, assisted by Saudi and Pakistani military, launched a large scale intervention into Afghanistan on the side of the ousted feudal lords, reactionary tribal chieftains, mullahs, and opium traffickers.

A top official within the Taraki government was Hafizulla Amin, believed by many to have been recruited by the CIA during the several years he spent in the United States as a student. In September 1979, Amin seized state power in an armed coup. He executed Taraki, halted the reforms, and murdered, jailed, or exiled thousands of Taraki supporters as he moved toward establishing a fundamentalist Islamic state. But within two months, he was overthrown by PDP remnants including elements within the military.

It should be noted that all this happened before  the Soviet military intervention. National security adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski publicly admitted–months before Soviet troops entered the country–that the Carter administration was providing huge sums to Muslim extremists to subvert the reformist government. Part of that effort involved brutal attacks by the CIA-backed mujahideen against schools and teachers in rural areas.

In late 1979, the seriously besieged PDP government asked Moscow to send a contingent of troops to help ward off the mujahideen (Islamic guerrilla fighters) and foreign mercenaries, all recruited, financed, and well-armed by the CIA. The Soviets already had been sending aid for projects in mining, education, agriculture, and public health. Deploying troops represented a commitment of a more serious and politically dangerous sort. It took repeated requests from Kabul before Moscow agreed to intervene militarily.

Jihad and Taliban, CIA Style

The Soviet intervention was a golden opportunity for the CIA to transform the tribal resistance into a holy war, an Islamic jihad to expel the godless communists from Afghanistan. Over the years the United States and Saudi Arabia expended about $40 billion on the war in Afghanistan. The CIA and its allies recruited, supplied, and trained almost 100,000 radical mujahideen from forty Muslim countries including Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Algeria, and Afghanistan itself.  Among those who answered the call was Saudi-born millionaire right-winger Osama bin Laden and his cohorts.

After a long and unsuccessful war, the Soviets evacuated the country in February 1989. It is generally thought that the PDP Marxist government collapsed immediately after the Soviet departure. Actually, it retained enough popular support to fight on for another three years, outlasting the Soviet Union itself by a year.

Upon taking over Afghanistan, the mujahideen fell to fighting among themselves.  They ravaged the cities, terrorized civilian populations, looted, staged mass executions, closed schools, raped thousands of women and girls, and reduced half of Kabul to rubble. In 2001 Amnesty International reported that the mujahideen used sexual assault as “a method of intimidating vanquished populations and rewarding soldiers.’”

Ruling the country gangster-style and looking for lucrative sources of income, the tribes ordered farmers to plant opium poppy. The Pakistani ISI, a close junior partner to the CIA, set up hundreds of heroin laboratories across Afghanistan. Within two years of the CIA’s arrival, the Pakistan-Afghanistan borderland became the biggest producer of heroin in the world.

Largely created and funded by the CIA, the mujahideen mercenaries now took on a life of their own. Hundreds of them returned home to Algeria, Chechnya, Kosovo, and Kashmir to carry on terrorist attacks in Allah’s name against the purveyors of secular “corruption.”

In Afghanistan itself,  by 1995 an extremist strain of Sunni Islam called the Taliban—heavily funded and advised by the ISI and the CIA and with the support of Islamic political parties in Pakistan—fought its way to power, taking over most of the country, luring many tribal chiefs into its fold with threats and bribes.

The Taliban promised to end the factional fighting and banditry that was the mujahideen trademark. Suspected murderers and spies were executed monthly in the sports stadium, and those accused of thievery had the offending hand sliced off.  The Taliban condemned forms of “immorality” that included premarital sex, adultery, and homosexuality. They also outlawed all music, theater, libraries, literature, secular education, and much scientific research.

The Taliban unleashed a religious reign of terror, imposing an even stricter interpretation of Muslim law than used by most of the Kabul clergy. All men were required to wear untrimmed beards and women had to wear the burqa which covered them from head to toe, including their faces. Persons who were slow to comply were dealt swift and severe punishment by the Ministry of Virtue. A woman who fled an abusive home or charged spousal abuse would herself be severely whipped by the theocratic authorities. Women were outlawed from social life, deprived of most forms of medical care, barred from all levels of education, and any opportunity to work outside the home. Women who were deemed “immoral” were stoned to death or buried alive.

None of this was of much concern to leaders in Washington who got along famously with the Taliban. As recently as 1999, the US government was paying the entire annual salary of every single Taliban government official. Not until October 2001, when President George W. Bush had to rally public opinion behind his bombing campaign in Afghanistan did he denounce the Taliban’s oppression of women. His wife, Laura Bush, emerged overnight as a full-blown feminist to deliver a public address detailing some of the abuses committed against Afghan women.

If anything positive can be said about the Taliban, it is that they did put a stop to much of the looting, raping, and random killings that the mujahideen had practiced on a regular basis. In 2000 Taliban authorities also eradicated the cultivation of opium poppy throughout the areas under their control, an effort judged by the  United Nations International Drug Control Program to have been nearly totally successful. With the Taliban overthrown and a Western-selected mujahideen government reinstalled in Kabul by December 2001, opium poppy production in Afghanistan increased dramatically.

The years of war that have followed have taken tens of thousands of Afghani lives. Along with those killed by Cruise missiles, Stealth bombers, Tomahawks, daisy cutters, and land mines are those who continue to die of hunger, cold, lack of shelter, and lack of water.

The Holy Crusade for Oil and Gas

While claiming to be fighting terrorism, US leaders have found other compelling but less advertised reasons for plunging deeper into Afghanistan. The Central Asian region is rich in oil and gas reserves. A decade before 9/11, Time magazine (18 March 1991) reported that US policy elites were contemplating a military presence in Central Asia. The discovery of vast oil and gas reserves in Kazakhstan and Turkmenistan provided the lure, while the dissolution of the USSR removed the one major barrier against pursuing an aggressive interventionist policy in that part of the world.

US oil companies acquired the rights to some 75 percent of these new reserves. A major problem was how to transport the oil and gas from the landlocked region. US officials opposed using the Russian pipeline or the most direct route across Iran to the Persian Gulf. Instead, they and the corporate oil contractors explored a number of alternative pipeline routes, across Azerbaijan and Turkey to the Mediterranean or across China to the Pacific.

The route favored by Unocal, a US based oil company, crossed Afghanistan and Pakistan to the Indian Ocean. The intensive negotiations that Unocal entered into with the Taliban regime remained unresolved by 1998, as an Argentine company placed a competing bid for the pipeline. Bush’s war against the Taliban rekindled UNOCAL’s hopes for getting a major piece of the action.

Interestingly enough, neither the Clinton nor Bush administrations ever placed Afghanistan on the official State Department list of states charged with sponsoring terrorism, despite the acknowledged presence of Osama bin Laden as a guest of the Taliban government.  Such a “rogue state” designation would have made it impossible for a US oil or construction company to enter an agreement with Kabul for a pipeline to the Central Asian oil and gas fields.

In sum, well in advance of the 9/11 attacks the US government had made preparations to move against the Taliban and create a compliant regime in Kabul and a direct US military presence in Central Asia. The 9/11 attacks provided the perfect impetus, stampeding US public opinion and reluctant allies into supporting military intervention.

One might agree with John Ryan who argued that if Washington had left the Marxist Taraki government alone back in 1979, “there would have been no army of mujahideen, no Soviet intervention, no war that destroyed Afghanistan, no Osama bin Laden, and no September 11 tragedy.” But it would be asking too much for Washington to leave unmolested a progressive leftist government that was organizing the social capital around collective public needs rather than private accumulation.

US intervention in Afghanistan has proven not much different from US intervention in Cambodia, Angola, Mozambique, Ethiopia, Nicaragua, Grenada, Panama, and elsewhere. It had the same intent of preventing egalitarian social change, and the same effect of overthrowing an economically reformist government. In all these instances, the intervention brought retrograde elements into ascendance, left the economy in ruins, and pitilessly laid waste to many innocent lives.

The war against Afghanistan, a battered impoverished country, continues to be portrayed in US official circles as a gallant crusade against terrorism. If it ever was that, it also has been a means to other things: destroying a leftist revolutionary social order, gaining profitable control of one of the last vast untapped reserves of the earth’s dwindling fossil fuel supply, and planting US bases and US military power into still another region of the world.

In the face of all this Obama’s call for “change” rings hollow.

Michael Parenti’s recent books are Contrary Notions: The Michael Parenti Reader and the forthcoming God and His Demons. For further information, visit www.michaelparenti.org.

Source : http://www.globalresearch.ca