Thanks to the authors and Land Destroyer Report
Saturday, October 15, 2011
Unelected corporate-funded policy makers constitute the greatest threat to US national security.
by Tony Cartalucci
October 16, 2011 – While US politicians grapple over the credibility of using the US DEA’s bomb plot to assassinate a Saudi ambassador as a pretext to escalate tensions with Iran, America’s unelected, corporate-funded policy makers have already announced their long, foregone conclusion. The DEA’s entrapment case is decidedly to be used as a pretext for war with Iran.
The Foreign Policy Institute (FPI), just one such unelected, corporate-funded think tank, has released two statements calling on President Obama to use force against Iran. FPI director William Kristol states:
“It’s long since been time for the United States to speak to this regime in the language it understands—force.
And now we have an engraved invitation to do so. The plot to kill the Saudi ambassador was a lemon. Statesmanship involves turning lemons into lemonade.
So we can stop talking. Instead, we can follow the rat lines in Iraq and Afghanistan back to their sources, and destroy them. We can strike at the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), and weaken them. And we can hit the regime’s nuclear weapons program, and set it back.”
Likewise, FPI’s executive director Jamie Fly claims, in tandem with Kristol’s unqualified, corporate-funded opinion, “It is time to take military action against the Iranian government elements that support terrorism and its nuclear program. More diplomacy is not an adequate response.”
Image: Just a sampling of Wall Street-London corporate-funded think tanks. Those that believe America’s policy is created within the offices of our elected legislatures will be sadly disappointed to know that it is in fact produced by these unelected, nebulous private institutions. Despite the different logos and rhetoric wielded by each of these institutions, they consist of the same members and same corporate-financier sponsors and merely specialize in executing different aspects of the corporate-financier agenda. For more information, please see “Naming Names.” (click on image to enlarge)
Ironically, Jamie Fly, who believes it is time to take “military action” against Iran for supporting terrorism, is a signatory of a letter imploring House Republicans to support the US war in Libya where NATO forces are literally handing an entire nation over to rebels led by the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group, listed by both the US and British government as a foreign terrorist organization, and is confirmed to have fought and killed US and British troops in both Iraq and Afghanistan. It should also be noted, that fellow policy makers at the Brookings Institute proposed that the US arm, train, and even go as far as de-list as a terrorist organization, MEK (Mujahedin-e Khalq), in covert efforts to wage war against Tehran. MEK is acknowledged by Brookings to not only be a bona fide terrorist organization, but also has American civilian and military blood on its hands.
Image: Know your enemy. It is not turban-wearing cave dwellers that threaten America. It is unelected, corporate policy pimps like those found lurking within the halls of the Foreign Policy Initiative. They seek to mislead Americans into supporting an agenda that literally bleeds them to death while they and their corporate-financier sponsors continue to consolidate both wealth and power on a global scale. (click on image to enlarge)
It is safe to say that Jamie Fly, William Kristol, and the rest of the policy wonks populating FPI and similar corporate-funded think tanks harbor less than genuine “concerns” regarding “terrorism,” – concerns which are voiced purely for public consumption.
As reported previously, the official, though rarely spoken about policy toward Iran is one of purposefully provoking the regime into a war it desperately wants to avoid. The Brookings Institution, like FPI, is a corporate-funded think tank full of unelected policy makers who literally steer America’s destiny. In its report “Which Path to Persia?” it is clearly stated that not only does Iran want to avoid war, but any potential aspirations to acquire nuclear weapons are driven only by a desire to defend its sovereignty, not use unilaterally against its neighbors nor to proliferate such weapons into the hands of non-state actors.
Despite this admission, the Brookings Institution claims that American extraterritorial ambitions across the Middle East cannot be impeded by strong, independent nation-states and spells out a criminal conspiracy to remove such impediments. Such tactic include funding terrorist organizations to wage a covert war against Tehran, funding opposition groups to rise up against the Iranian government, sanctions, and even provoking a war through covert means.
Masking this criminal conspiracy is a narrative repeated ad naseum by the corporate media, literally sponsored and steered by the same corporations and banks that fund the above mentioned think tanks. The American people are presented with a belligerent, irrational enemy, so entirely fictitious it challenges the archetypes produced by Hollywood. Should Americans know the truth about America’s real policy regarding Iran, war not only would not take place – those who have pushed so hard to shed American treasure and blood in Iran would be ferreted out as criminals and permanetnly removed from society.
US foreign and domestic policy is not produced by our legislatures as we are meant to believe. John Kerry and John McCain don’t sit behind their desks twelve hours a day penning the 1,000 page policy papers they present to Congress to be rubber stamped. President Obama is not sitting in the Oval Office churning out reams of policy papers either. It is the unelected, corporate-funded policy think tanks and their army of policy makers, lawyers, scribes, and media personalities the produce, promote, and ram through an agenda that serves not the American people, but the corporate-financier interests that fund their work.
While many Americans scratch their heads at what appears to be a profound mystery – a Democratic president carrying the torch of a Neo-Conservative Republican’s global war, not only maintaining all previous wars, but expanding the battlefront – in reality this linear, continuous policy that is being executed piecemeal by both sides of the American political aisle is the direct result of these corporate-funded think tanks successfully commandeering both political parties.
John Kerry and John McCain’s love for sending Americans to their deaths in foreign nations and spending American tax money to destabilize countries around the world is not an anomalous convergence of some political ideal, but rather the result of absolute, naked corporate fascism overrunning America’s political institutions and co-opting politicians of inferior human character. As in Nazi Germany, this unchecked power, not foreign enemies, presents the gravest risk to national security imaginable. Those that serve this system and fail to speak out against it, and worse yet, willingly collaborate with it, are America’s true enemies and a self-evident threat the American people can no longer afford to tolerate.
Vote out of office any and all public servants that promote extraterritorial meddling, including wars, funding foreign opposition movements, arming foreign militants, and funding foreign propaganda networks. Vote out of office all representatives that peddle 1,000 page pieces of legislation produced by corporate lawyers and their vast array of “think tanks.” And above all, identify and expose the actual corporate-financier interests driving this destructive agenda, then boycott and replace them. The vast influence and unwarranted power these corporate fascist monopoly men have garnered is a direct result of our apathy, ignorance, and decades of paying into their system with our money, time, energy, and attention.
America is being brought to the precipice of a war neither the American nor the Iranian people want by a cartel of corporate-financier interests that admit the nation of Iran poses to threat to the United States. This is purely a war to enhance US hegemony in the Middle East, not protect the American people and our way of life at home. It is a war that the American people will pay for in both trillions of dollars in public funds, as well as the blood of our soldiers, sailors, Marines, and airmen. It is up to the American people to end this cycle of parasitic exploitation before it ends America.
Posted by Land Destroyer at 3:46 PM
Friday, October 14, 2011
October 15, 2011 – Kenneth Pollack helped literally co-author the blueprints for America’s current policy toward Iran. Titled, “Which Path to Persia?” and published in 2009 for the Fortune 500-funded Brookings Institution, much of what was covered in the report had already gone operational before it hit the press. This included training, arming, and supporting terrorists within Iran, sanctions, US-funded uprisings, and covert attempts to provoke Iran into war.
While pundits in the media and politicians behind their podiums talk about “extending hands,” “carrots and sticks,” and other trite, and ultimately contrived policies the US is supposedly pursuing in regards to Iran, there is in reality only Brookings’ plan – and it leads only to war.
Recently, Pollack penned a column for the Daily Beast titled, “Iran’s Covert War Against the United States.” In it, Pollack, addressing a readership almost assuredly ignorant of his work on “Which Path to Persia?,” claims that Iran appears to be irrationally wandering down a misguided path, waging what might be a “covert war” against America, highlighted by the contrived “Iran terror plot” targeting a Saudi ambassador. Pollack, a former analyst for the CIA, seems to humor the recent allegations against Iran as plausible despite his own cautionary words regarding jumping to conclusions and despite the growing factual basis that exists to entirely dismiss the plot. Additionally, Pollack’s feigned astonishment over why Iran has been taking a tougher stance against the US recently is a case study in duplicity, as he was one of the chief architects of the various provocations Washington has used to provoke Iran into such a stance. Pollack’s disingenuous editorial does however lend us some insight into the current mindset of the “Which Path to Perisa?” co-authors, and ultimately into the mindset of those for whom the report was prepared for and who are eager for war.
“Which Path to Persia?” Brookings Institution 2009 .pdf
To understand American policy toward Iran, one must understand who the authors are of such policy and what their motivations are. The Brookings Institution itself was created by and for the corporate-financier elite. It is a policy think-tank that represents the collective interests of the big oil corporations, banks, and military contractors that fund it. Quite obviously then, policy toward Iran, or any nation for that matter, from within the halls of the Brookings Institution will revolve around expanding the global financial, social, political, and military hegemony of its corporate sponsors.
Iran is a nation of 70 million, has a developed infrastructure, as well as a tremendous wealth in natural resources, including oil and natural gas. A Western dominated banking system lording over 70 million people, telecommunications companies supplying services to this vast population, and the immense consumerist troughs that could be laid out before these people alone serves as a compelling incentive to attempt to domineer Iran. War against such a nation would be a trillion dollar endeavor, utterly bankrupting the American people, but enriching the military industrial complex beyond imagination. Of course, construction firms such as war-profiteering Halliburton and Bechtel would make fortunes rebuilding amidst the destruction of such a vast nation – as untold of billions have already been made by these same corporations in Iraq, a nation with but a fraction of the land area and population of Iran. Iran’s oil fields flowing once again into the tankers, pipelines, and coffers of Anglo-American oil companies also serves as an attractive incentive, as do the geopolitical implications.
China would be essentially dependent entirely on oil controlled by the Wall Street-London “international order,” as would all nations. The development of the modern nation-state is dependent on energy. By controlling access to energy, one controls the development of nations. While many analysts suggest the continental United States contains enough energy to meet America’s needs for the foreseeable future, tapping into this supply and abandoning holdings overseas would catapult the developing world into direct competition with America on almost every front. It would also allow nation-states worldwide to defend themselves against what has essentially been a free reign of financial piracy perpetrated by the International Monetary Fund, World Bank and other Western contrived “international institutions” used to manipulate and exploit the planet.
Image: Just some of Brookings Institution’s corporate & institutional financial sponsors. For the full list please see Brookings’ 2010 annual report (page 19 of .pdf). It should be noted that many of the managing directors, chairmen, and CEOs of these corporations also populate Brookings’ Board of Directors producing a conflict of interests of monstrous proportions. Boycotting these corporations is an absolute necessity for anyone seriously interested in stopping the global corporate-financier elite’s agenda. (click image to enlarge)
With this in mind, it is quite clear why the corporate-financier interests that fund Brookings have thrown their support behind executing the recommendations made in “Which Path to Persia?” and continue marching the United States ever closer to war with Iran. The report itself, most likely never intended to reach the American public on a large scale, and using language and length inaccessible to the average “bread and circus” crowds, fully acknowledges that Iran’s leadership may be aggressive, but not reckless. The report also notes that Iran would use its nuclear weapons only as an absolute last resort, considering American and even Israeli nuclear deterrence capabilities. Even weapons ending up in the hands of non-state actors is considered highly unlikely by the report.
Similar reports out of the RAND corporation note that Iran has had chemical weapons in its inventory for decades, and other reports from RAND describe the strict control elite military units exercise over these weapons, making it unlikely they would end up in the hands of “terrorists.” The fact that Iran’s extensive chemical weapon stockpile has yet to be disseminated into the hands of non-state actors, along with the fact that these same elite units would in turn handle any Iranian nuclear weapons, lends further evidence to this conclusion.
Brookings notes on pages 24 and 25 of the report, that the real threat is not the deployment of these weapons, but rather the deterrence they present, allowing Iran to counter US influence in the region without the fear of an American invasion. In other words, the playing field would become level and America may be forced to recognize Iran’s national sovereignty in regards to its own regional interests. The report also acknowledges on multiple occasions that Iran is not looking to provoke the West, and that the West, or Israel would have to proactively work to provoke Iran into war instead.
In one breathtaking quote, the Brookings report states in regards to initiating a large scale airstrike against Iran:
“…it would be far more preferable if the United States could cite an Iranian provocation as justification for the airstrikes before launching them. Clearly, the more outrageous, the more deadly, and the more unprovoked the Iranian action, the better off the United States would be. Of course, it would be very difficult for the United States to goad Iran into such a provocation without the rest of the world recognizing this game, which would then undermine it. (One method that would have some possibility of success would be to ratchet up covert regime change efforts in the hope that Tehran would retaliate overtly, or even semi-overtly, which could then be portrayed as an unprovoked act of Iranian aggression.)”
This quote alone, not to mention the entire content of this report, compiled by some of America’s most prolific policy makers and funded by America’s largest corporations and banks, demonstratively executed over the past several years, makes everything that follows regarding the sanctions, covert military operations, US-funded uprisings, US-funded terrorism via the MEK (Mujahedin-e Khalq), and now these most recent, entirely contrived allegations regarding a supposed “bombing plot,” all unjustified acts of war on America’s behalf. The reckless self-serving nature of this gambit puts in danger the lives of hundreds of millions of people as these craven megalomaniacs edge us ever closer to war with Iran.
Pollack, in his Daily Beast op-ed, seems to almost relish the converging paths bringing us closer to war. While he fills his editorial with disclaimers regarding the believability of the recent Iranian plot allegations, his infinite duplicity is exhibited by omitting the role he has played in developing policy designed to purposefully provoke a war with Iran it had actively sought to avoid. Should readers know this, they would not only dismiss him as a meddling, treasonous, warmonger, but dismiss the latest allegations against Iran as yet another contrived attempt to stoke the fires of war.
Readers need to take a good look at Brookings’ sponsors. These are the people conspiring to send your sons and daughters, brothers and sisters, mothers and fathers off to war. These are the people that intend to bleed you dry financially as you pay them to wage a war you neither want nor will benefit from. These are the ones that will ultimately profit while both America and Iran suffers immeasurably.
These corporations need to be put out of business, and instead of wringing our hands and hoping for salvation from our clearly compromised, corporate-fascist government, we can begin today by boycotting these corporations and putting our money instead into local businesses, entrepreneurship, and solutions that benefit we the people. Even just beginning to boycott them, cutting back in our daily life and working toward the eventual goal of complete local self-sufficiency will scale down both the reach and ambitions of these corporations. It will also spur change within, as sagging profits motivate individuals within these corporations to abandon those advocating exploitative, parasitic agendas and business models.
We can speak up to expose the fraud, speak out to stop the war, but it is essential, above all, to begin changing the balance of power that has allowed for our nation to be led to the edge of such a precipice in the first place.
Posted by Land Destroyer at 5:15 PM
While America occupies Iraq and Afghanistan, wages covert war on Pakistan, conducts drone attacks on Yemen and Somalia, bombards Libya, and positions for a wider confrontation with Iran and Syria, Nobel Peace Prize Laureate President Obama has now quietly, without much fanfare, sent 100 US troops to help Ugandan President Yoweri Museveni crush rebels threatening his 25 year dictatorship.
In what is essentially a “reverse-Libyan-style” intervention, the US is sending troops to crush, not assist rebels rising up against their despotic ruler. Ironically, just as with Libya’s rebels, Uganda’s rebels are also listed as a foreign terrorist organization by the US State Department. Instead of the corporate-financier contrived International Criminal Court issuing fictitious warrants for Uganda’s head of state, as was done with Qaddafi in Libya, it is the Ugandan rebel leader, Joseph Kony, who is being targeted.
Both the Ugandan government (with US assistance) and the rebels, known as the Lord’s Resistance Army (LRA), are accused of perpetrating heinous atrocities against their enemies and civilian populations in their decades long conflict. In particular, Ugandan President Yoweri Museveni has just recently presided over the mass murdering and displacement of 20,000 of his own people on behalf of British corporations who sought to construct tree plantations on their land. US and British military assistance and business deals with the Ugandan government have been a ubiquitous feature throughout Museveni’s perpetual, unending term as president.
While mutilated victims of the LRA are just now being paraded in front of the public to frame the recent US troop deployment as another “humanitarian intervention,” it is more than likely that geopolitical aspirations, not humanitarian concerns, are driving this agenda. This is especially so considering just how equally abhorrent the Ugandan government’s human rights record is.
The LRA has often been harbored by the Sudanese government (now the South Sudanese government). Sudan has served as a proxy battlefield between the West and China for control over of its vast oil holdings and ultimately as part of a greater battle to control Africa’s resources. Sudan appears to have used the LRA as a sort of armed buffer between them and their neighbors, in particular, Uganda, ruled by an eager servant of the Anglo-American agenda.
Surely, as Africa, a forsaken continent, is already written off in the minds of many Americans, little concern and few eyebrow will be lifted as their Nobel Peace Prize-wearing president sends yet more troops off to war there, in a global military expansion quickly and alarmingly approaching the scale and scope of Adolf Hitler’s expansion across Europe and Northern Africa during World War II. This is difficult to deny when the final tally is done – the United States is conducting either covert or overt military operations in at least 8 nations – Iraq, Afghanistan, Yemen, Somalia, Iran, Libya, Pakistan, and now Uganda – and has 820 military installations in at least 135 countries. As Wall Street and London seek global hegemony, the price Americans pay as this tally grows will only increase. However far flung Uganda may seem, every inch of expansion by the globalists is one inch less for free humanity.
Posted by Land Destroyer at 2:31 PM
NATO claims of ‘victory” in Libya up in smoke as fighting erupts in Tripoli and rebel “final assault” of Sirte drags on past one week.
by Tony Cartalucci
October 15, 2011 – Pro-Qaddafi protesters took to the streets in Tripoli carrying aloft the green flags synonymous with Libya’s sovereign government. The demonstration quickly unraveled into a two-hour firefight when the city’s supposed rulers, NATO-backed rebels, confronted them with machine guns. The violence underscores just how tenuous the rebel’s grip is on the capital, while ongoing battles in Bani Walid, Sabha, and Sirte illustrate how flimsy NATO’s premature claim of victory was 2 months ago after their bombardment of Tripoli.
Image: “Well done NATO!” “…the Alliance can finally chalk up an unequivocal success.” Two months later, battles are breaking out in Tripoli, entire cities still fly Libya’s green flag, and NATO bombards populated civilian centers with scores of strike sorties a day, taking out a catastrophic toll on Libya’s civilian population. In other words, an unequivocal failure. (click image to enlarge)
Twenty to thirty strike sorties have been flown by NATO over Libya everyday since. “Key hits” by NATO have focused almost entirely on the southern city of Bani Walid and the coastal city of Sirte. Sirte is now facing the fourth “final assault” launched against it by rebel forces and has held up its defenses since this latest push began last Friday. City residents and government troops sent rebels in retreat and prompted them to return with tank columns to confront what the London Guardian claims is only “100” fighters.
Additional sources of humiliation for both NATO and the corporate-media attempting to keep afloat the increasingly incompetent rebel brigades, include the false report made by rebels earlier this week of having captured Qaddafi’s son, Mutassim, and Soros-funded Amnesty International finally providing a watered down “warning” to rebels for brutalizing prisoners, many of whom have been arrested arbitrarily. Between this, and over optimistic claims that Sirte would fall before last week’s end, the truth appears to be that the rebel’s forces are stretched well beyond their operational capacity, engaged in atrocities far beyond what NATO accused Qaddafi of as a pretext for their intervention in the first place, and that protracted resistance to NATO’s campaign has begun across Libya, even in areas thought to be “secured” including Tripoli itself.
The facade of victory the corporate-media has constructed in the past two-months made early reports of violence in Tripoli and fierce counterattacks against NATO’s proxies across Libya seem almost impossible to believe. However, the fortunes have turned from bad to worse for Libya’s rebels, and while private contractors and NATO special forces are increasing in number across Libya and amongst the rebels’ ranks, it may not be enough to save the dwindling, demoralized fighters, especially as the “fruits” of revolution begin to look more and more like servitude to foreign powers.
Posted by Land Destroyer at 12:29 PM
Thursday, October 13, 2011
Nominee is establishment stooge, steeped in organizations renowned for extraterritorial meddling and subversion.
by Tony Cartalucci
am-bas-sa-dor (n.) A diplomatic official of the highest rank appointed and accredited as representative in residence by one government or sovereign to another, usually for a specific length of time.
Ideally, such a representative would “represent” the ideals and aspirations of their respective nation’s people. Assuming that the average American believes in living and letting live, and in an adherence to the US Constitution which is the common thread that binds Americans and the very foundation of what it means to be American, their ambassadors would best execute their posts by representing this paradigm.
Photo: Michael McFaul stands to be confirmed as the next US Ambassador to Russia. He is a card carrying member of both Freedom House and the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), two organizations notorious for extraterritorial meddling in the foreign affairs of sovereign nations. His nomination indicates the US will continue with its disingenuous front of “resetting” with Russia, while simultaneously subverting the Russian government with US-funded political unrest.
In reality, America’s ambassadors represent neither the American people, nor the US Constitution, and in fact stand in stark contrast to the will of the American people and the norms codified within the Constitution. Instead, these “ambassadors” work ceaselessly to execute American foreign policy, as dictated by elitist corporate-financier oligarchs, generally as subversive agitators. No example of this is clearer than US Ambassador to Syria, Robert Ford, who has actively taken sides with US-funded opposition groups and meddled publicly in Syria’s sovereign affairs amidst an armed uprising.
In this same vein, Michael McFaul is also a subversive agitator, not a potential “ambassador.” And it is for this very reason he is being considered as the next US “Ambassador” to Russia. To understand why McFaul stands contra to the American people’s interests and therefore the collective interests of America as a nation, but why he will be confirmed regardless, we must understand the recent history of US-Russian relations, what drives US foreign policy regarding Russia, and just what McFaul intends to do – which assuredly will not be merely “representing” the United States.
In the wake of the fall of the Soviet Union, the US quickly moved in to capitalize on a weak Russia. It fomented foreign-funded revolutions in former-Soviet states, including the “Orange Revolution” in Ukraine and the “Rose Revolution” in Georgia, installing Western puppets along with the Anglo-American imperial network of “NGOs” often referred to as “civil society.” Additionally, political operatives such as Russia’s Mkhail Khodorkovsky attempted to displace national institutions within Russia itself with clearly Western sponsored “civil society” networks, not the least of which was Khodorkovsky’s own “Open Russia Foundation” modeled after George Soros’ “Open Society Foundation” and even chaired by Washington’s Henry Kissinger and London’s Jacob Rothschild.
Khodorovsky’s goal was to consolidate both political power and Russia’s immense wealth, and transfer it to Wall Street and London receivership, while simaltanesouly creating a Western designed “civil society” network that would ensure Anglo-American preminence over Russia for the foreseeable future. Khodorovsky and other “oligarchs” working for Wall Street and London were eventually either imprisoned or forced to flee from Russia during the rise of Vladamir Putin. To this day, Khodorovsky resides in a Siberian prison, but is still playing a leading role, with the help of Toronto/London laywer Robert Amsterdam, to leverage claims of “human rights abuses” and “injustice” against Russia in the court of international public opinion.
Currently, the US is conducting a campaign of destabilization not only across the Middle East, but along both Russia and China’s peripheries as well. This includes efforts to destabilize and overthrow the government of Belarus, which faces Moscow across the Russian border. This, along with an aggressive NATO campaign to expand into Russia’s traditional spheres of influence, is clearly a stratagem of encirclement, while more covert operations are being conducted within Russia to foment political unrest.
Coordinating this political unrest, in the Middle East, throughout Eastern Europe, and even as far as Southeast Asia, is a network of US agencies branching out from the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), including Freedom House, Reporters Without Borders, and International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH). This network also receives considerable support from tax-free corporate foundations, including George Soros’ Open Society foundation which funds Amnesty International (page 10) and Human Rights Watch. While these organizations pose as “human rights advocates,” in reality they exist to exploit crackdowns on their own subversive, foreign-funded sedition within target nations while allowing Western sanctioned atrocities to pass by without notice, such as recent mass murdering in Uganda by British corporations, or the exile and extermination of 10,000 Libyans in the city of Tawarga by NATO-backed rebels.
Considering that America’s foreign policy, as crafted by corporate fascist-funded think tanks like the Brookings Institution (page 19), the American Enterprise Institute, the Council on Foreign Relations, and others, consists of subverting and dominating foreign, sovereign nations instead of engaging with them as equals, it makes perfect sense that Michael McFaul has been nominated as US Ambassador to Russia.
McFaul’s biography provided by Standford University, indicates that in addition to being a member of the corporate-funded Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, yet another unelected, unaccountable institution turning out and implementing US foreign policy on behalf of the Fortune 100, he also serves on the board of directors of Freedom House and the National Endowment for Democracy. That Freedom House and NED spend the entirety of their time undermining the sovereignty of foreign nations behind the veil of “democracy promotion” and McFaul’s association with these two organizations, it in and of itself casts grave doubts over his agenda and intentions if appointed ambassador to Russia. However, it is his own supporters that fully out him as a subversive agitator, who fully plans on meddling in Russia’s sovereign affairs and using American tax dollars to marshal political unrest in a foreign nation.
The Brookings Institution recently published a “letter of recommendation” of sorts for McFaul, titled, “Give the Next Russian Ambassador a Powerful Tool to Guard Human Rights.” Already out of the gates, the article is disingenuously using the concept of “human rights” to leverage US interests over Russia. Written by Brookings’ own arch-Neo-Conservative Robert Kagan and Freedom House President David Kramer, the piece begins by immediately calling on the US Senate to confirm McFaul.
Kagan and Kramer claim the US should then arm McFaul with a bill to “sanction” Russian officials accused of “human rights abuses.” Judging from previous US-Russian relations, and in particular, Robert Amsterdam’s transparent, almost cartoonish crusade for his jailed client, Mikhail Khodorovsky, it can be assumed these “abuses” are referring to the jailing of political operatives for grave criminal activities while in the process of serving US corporate-financier interests.
The Brookings piece goes on to enumerate McFaul’s “merits” which include, “democracy promotion” (read: extraterritorial meddling), meeting with “civil society” representatives both in Russia and in neighboring nations (read: conspiring with US-funded NGOs and political opposition leaders), as well as having a good rapport with Russian opposition activists operating in Washington. Brookings notes in particular how important it is to have McFaul in Russia, on the ground to give his “assessment” of up-coming Russian elections. Unspoken, but sure to trickle through the headlines in coming months will be McFaul’s “democracy promotion” on behalf of select opposition parties in Russia’s political landscape.
As if to alleviate any doubt regarding just what Brookings means by “human rights abuses,” Kagan and Kramer then cite the case of UK financier operative Sergei Magnitsky of Hermitage Captial Mangement, a criminal enterprise that while operating primarily in Russian markets, maintained its headquarters in the global financial mafia’s “pirate bay” – the Cayman Islands.
Magnitsky was arrested and imprisoned over tax evasion and tax fraud, and would die of illness while in prison. The US and UK would predictably trump up the circumstances surrounding the death of Magnitsky, with corporate foundation-funded Redress (page 28) of the UK submitting a “report” to the UN in yet another classic example of leveraging issues of “human rights” against a target nation to serve Western interests. This is but a taste of what is to come with McFaul presiding over the next leg of Anglo-American global destabilization.
Brookings’ Kagan and Freedom House’s Kramer have nominated McFaul with the intention of further meddling in Russia’s sovereign affairs, as well as destabilizing its neighbors in a bid to hedge Russia’s reemergence as a sovereign world power, or perhaps even in an attempt to play a grand strategy of global tension, forcing the besieged developing world to consolidate under the West’s more overt attacks, only for the “union” to be co-opted and integrated into the Wall Street-London “international order” at a later point in time. Either way, McFaul does not represent the ideals, principles, or laws of the American people or the US Constitution, nor does he represent universal values of respecting national sovereignty.
His confirmation by the US Senate will indicate duplicity amongst the US Senate Committee on Foreign Relations and a further divergence between their actions and the will and aspirations of the American people who put them in office. McFaul represents a corporate-financier elite and their agenda of building an “international order” (read: empire) at the cost of yet more American treasure and lives, leaving an immensely wealthy elite lording over a destitute American majority.
By exposing both McFaul’s true “credentials” and intentions, as well as who he really works for and why, and by systematically boycotting and replacing the consumerist troughs that fuel this corporate-financier oligarchy we can rectify this obvious and ever-expanding divergence between what is best for America and what is pursued by the oligarchs that presume dominion over us.
Posted by Land Destroyer at 9:15 AM
Wednesday, October 12, 2011
Federal entrapment snares another dupe and brings hundreds of millions to the brink of war.
by Tony Cartalucci
“…it would be far more preferable if the United States could cite an Iranian provocation as justification for the airstrikes before launching them. Clearly, the more outrageous, the more deadly, and the more unprovoked the Iranian action, the better off the United States would be. Of course, it would be very difficult for the United States to goad Iran into such a provocation without the rest of the world recognizing this game, which would then undermine it. (One method that would have some possibility of success would be to ratchet up covert regime change efforts in the hope that Tehran would retaliate overtly, or even semi-overtly, which could then be portrayed as an unprovoked act of Iranian aggression.)
This suggests that this option might benefit from being held in abeyance until such time as the Iranians made an appropriately provocative move, as they do from time to time. In that case, it would be less a determined policy to employ airstrikes and instead more of an opportunistic hope that Iran would provide the United States with the kind of provocation that would justify airstrikes. However, that would mean that the use of airstrikes could not be the primary U.S. policy toward Iran (even if it were Washington’s fervent preference), but merely an ancillary contingency to another option that would be the primary policy unless and until Iran provided the necessary pretext.” –page 84-85 of “Which Path to Persia?” Brookings Institution, 2009.
Apparently, manufacturing such a “necessary pretext” to unilaterally bomb a nation of 70 million is now also a part of US foreign policy toward Iran. An oafish fabrication announced this week by Attorney General Eric Holder, consisted of an Iranian-American used-car salesman that “allegedly” attempted to hire an undercover US DEA agent, posing as a Mexican Los Zetas gangster, to assassinate the Saudi ambassador to the US. US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton would add “nobody could make that up, right?” Wrong.
The Fortune 500-funded US policy think-tank, Brookings Institution, in 2009 made it quite clear that the US would pursue its interests across the Middle East and would not tolerate a strong, assertive Iran standing in the way. Brookings would acknowledge in their report, however, that Iran sought neither to confront the United States militarily, nor desired to provoke the West into attacking the Islamic Republic, and even declared that Iran’s nuclear threat was more the deterrence it would present toward future US acts of aggression rather than hyped claims of proliferation or unilateral first-strikes.
Many of the enumerated options explored in the Brookings report for destabilizing and overthrowing the Iranian government had already been in the process of being carried out even before the report was published in 2009. This included funding, arming, and training US State Department-listed foreign terrorist organization (#28 on the list), Mujahedin-e Khalq (MEK.) To date, covert support, weapons and funding have already made it into MEK’s hands, and select members of the terrorist organization have even received specialized training on US soil. US policy makers, after admitting MEK had the blood of US soldiers and civilians on its hands and that it has “undeniably” conducted terrorist attacks, shockingly wants to remove it from the US foreign terrorist organization list so that it can be worked with more closely in toppling the Iranian government.
Below, Brookings clearly authored this policy now being fully executed:
“Perhaps the most prominent (and certainly the most controversial) opposition group that has attracted attention as a potential U.S. proxy is the NCRI (National Council of Resistance of Iran), the political movement established by the MEK (Mujahedin-e Khalq). Critics believe the group to be undemocratic and unpopular, and indeed anti-American.
In contrast, the group’s champions contend that the movement’s long-standing opposition to the Iranian regime and record of successful attacks on and intelligence-gathering operations against the regime make it worthy of U.S. support. They also argue that the group is no longer anti-American and question the merit of earlier accusations. Raymond Tanter, one of the group’s supporters in the United States, contends that the MEK and the NCRI are allies for regime change in Tehran and also act as a useful proxy for gathering intelligence. The MEK’s greatest intelligence coup was the provision of intelligence in 2002 that led to the discovery of a secret site in Iran for enriching uranium.
Despite its defenders’ claims, the MEK remains on the U.S. government list of foreign terrorist organizations. In the 1970s, the group killed three U.S. officers and three civilian contractors in Iran. During the 1979-1980 hostage crisis, the group praised the decision to take America hostages and Elaine Sciolino reported that while group leaders publicly condemned the 9/11 attacks, within the group celebrations were widespread.
Undeniably, the group has conducted terrorist attacks—often excused by the MEK’s advocates because they are directed against the Iranian government. For example, in 1981, the group bombed the headquarters of the Islamic Republic Party, which was then the clerical leadership’s main political organization, killing an estimated 70 senior officials. More recently, the group has claimed credit for over a dozen mortar attacks, assassinations, and other assaults on Iranian civilian and military targets between 1998 and 2001. At the very least, to work more closely with the group (at least in an overt manner), Washington would need to remove it from the list of foreign terrorist organizations.” page 117-118 of “Which Path to Persia?” Brookings Institution, 2009
While Attorney General Eric Holder feigns outrage over Iran’s “alleged” role in an “alleged” bombing plot, and its violation of “international norms,” it turns out that the US has been in reality, carrying out just such a campaign of armed terror on Iranian soil for years. Adding insult to injury, Eric Holder is currently under investigation for his role in running thousands of military-grade weapons over the US-Mexican border, where they were used by mass-murdering drug gangs to terrorize people across Mexico and even to kill US agents. One might wonder how many “international norms” that has violated.
That the current “alleged” plot pinned on Iran revolves around yet another undercover federal agency conducting a long-term sting operation defies belief. That we are expected to believe one of Iran’s most elite military forces left such a sensitive, potentially war-starting operation to a used-car salesman and a drug gang reported in the papers daily for its involvement with US government agencies (and who turns out to actually be undercover DEA agents) is so ridiculous it can only be “made up” as Secretary Clinton puts it. More accurately, it is the result of an impotent US intelligence community incapable of contriving anything more convincing in the face of an ever awakening American public, to bolster its morally destitute agenda. The cartoonish nature of the plot and the arms’ length even its proponents treat it with to maintain plausible deniability is indicative of a dangerously out of control ruling elite and an utterly incompetent, criminally insane government.
It might be noted that this is yet another example of a “terrorist plot” conjured up by federal agencies, hyped by politicians and the media, and leveraged to propel foreign and domestic policy the public and the world at large have already soundly rejected. Two other notable examples include the Portland “Christmas Tree Bomber” used to terrorize the city into rejoining the FBI’s Joint Terror Task Force, and the more recent “RC Plane Bomber” who was entrapped by FBI agents in order to keep the fraud that is the “War on Terror” alive.
For a more in-depth look at this latest hoax, please see, “Iranian Terror Plot: Fake, Fake, Fake” at Anti-War.com.
Posted by Land Destroyer at 3:21 PM
Tuesday, October 11, 2011
It doesn’t get more common sense than this. Ron Paul 2012
Posted by Land Destroyer at 10:28 AM