CNN, MSNBC, ABC, WaPo, NYT all pushing another Genocide via Propaganda

[Dig]

Looks like the extermination of 2 million arabs is not enough for the mockingbird media.

They have not had their fill.

They pray for more blood, more dead babies, more raped grandmothers.

They love it, look at them salivating over Egypt.

Watch them give 24/7 coverage praising the CIA's Muslim Brotherhood.

Watch them greasing the wheels of genocide in our faces 24/7.

They need more conflict, they pray for it.

Look at all of the late night hosts helping the CIA's assets in pushing for chaos and turmoil. Look at them repeating every single spin the CIA/MI6's Muslim Brotherhood is pushing.

Watch when a new false flag occurs and how they will apologize to us again for creating more CIA/MI6 patsy regimes in the middle east/north africa.

Watch them again say "we did not know, we are sorry we pushed for Al-Qaeda to take over Egypt. We never thought they would be patsies for a new false flag. We never thougfht they would shut down the suez and drive gas to $10 a gallon like it is in Europe. please forgive us and buy more of our sponsors' NWO poisonous crap."

They are doing the run up to the iraq war all over again, it is the same spins, the same emotional tear jerkers to shock and awe us out of waking up to the theft of $30 trillion and full speed ahead to the cybernetics end game.

And look at all the NWO zionists like Haim Saban over at Qatar's Brookings Institute and Mitt Romney signing the new "TRANSFER AGREEMENT" to allow more zionist control over israel just when they were starting to lose their grip.

Hasn't the mockingbird media had enough blood on their hands?

Aren't millions of dead arab children and women enough?

Wasn't abu graib enough?

Isn't gitmo enough?

Aren't the coverups of 9/11 enough?

Wasn't the banksters bailout where the people were 99.9% against it enough?

Isn't nazi deathcare eugenics enough?

How much more blood do you need to satisfy you, you all know what is going to happen. Bloomberg blew the fricking whistle...the goal is control over suez to shut it down.

How come in venezuela gas is less than $.05 a gallon and in the US it is nearing $4.00 a gallon. It is almost 100x a greater price.

THE ONLY F*CKING WAY THAT IS POSSIBLE IS WITH THE TOTAL BULLSHIT CIA PSYOPS GUERRILLA WARFARE AND YOU KNOW IT, AND WE KNOW THAT YOU KNOW IT, AND YOU KNOW THAT WE KNOW THAT YOU KNOW IT!

ABORT ABORT ABORT ABORT THESE TOTALLY FRICKING SEDITIOUS ACTIONS

Whatever the elite have told you is bullshit, all of the plans will backfire as they have over the past 10 false flags. Global humanity is waking up and you no longer can deceive us with WaPo, Twitter, 3-D HDTV, Kinect, Facebook, or any of your other In-Q-tel's weapons of mass deception.

50 years ago a now dead president delivered this standing order to the entire National Press Club. Don't you think it is about f-ing time you followed it!

50 Year old message to CIA's Operation Mockingbird from a Dead President

The President and the Press:
Address before the American Newspaper Publishers Association
President John F. Kennedy
Waldorf-Astoria Hotel - New York City, April 27, 1961
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1710662559138481080

If the press is awaiting a declaration of war before it imposes the self-discipline of combat conditions, then I can only say that...

no war ever posed a greater threat to our security.

If you are awaiting a finding of "clear and present danger," then I can only say that

the danger has never been more clear and its presence has never been more imminent.

It requires a change in outlook, a change in tactics, a change in missions--by the government, by the people, by every businessman or labor leader, and by every newspaper.

For we are opposed around the world by a monolithic and ruthless conspiracy that relies primarily on covert means for expanding its sphere of influence--on infiltration instead of invasion, on subversion instead of elections, on intimidation instead of free choice, on guerrillas by night instead of armies by day.

It is a system which has conscripted vast human and material resources into the building of a tightly knit, highly efficient machine that combines military, diplomatic, intelligence, economic, scientific and political operations.

     Its preparations are concealed, not published. Its mistakes are buried, not headlined. Its dissenters are silenced, not praised. No expenditure is questioned, no rumor is printed, no secret is revealed.

[...]

It is the unprecedented nature of this challenge that also gives rise to your second obligation--an obligation which I share. And that is our obligation to inform and alert the American people--to make certain that they possess all the facts that they need, and understand them as well--the perils, the prospects, the purposes of our program and the choices that we face.

    No President should fear public scrutiny of his program.

For from that scrutiny comes understanding; and from that understanding comes support or opposition.

And both are necessary.

I am not asking your newspapers to support the Administration, but I am asking your help in the tremendous task of informing and alerting the American people.

For I have complete confidence in the response and dedication of our citizens whenever they are fully informed.

     I not only could not stifle controversy among your readers--I welcome it. This Administration intends to be candid about its errors; for as a wise man once said: "An error does not become a mistake until you refuse to correct it." We intend to accept full responsibility for our errors; and we expect you to point them out when we miss them.

    Without debate, without criticism, no Administration and no country can succeed--

and no republic can survive.

That is why the Athenian lawmaker Solon decreed it a crime for any citizen to shrink from controversy.

And that is why our press was protected by the First Amendment-- the only business in America specifically protected by the Constitution- -not primarily to amuse and entertain, not to emphasize the trivial and the sentimental, not to simply "give the public what it wants"--but to inform, to arouse, to reflect, to state our dangers and our opportunities, to indicate our crises and our choices, to lead, mold, educate and sometimes even anger public opinion.

    This means greater coverage and analysis of international news--for it is no longer far away and foreign but close at hand and local. It means greater attention to improved understanding of the news as well as improved transmission. And it means, finally, that government at all levels, must meet its obligation to provide you with the fullest possible information outside the narrowest limits of national security--and we intend to do it.

It was early in the Seventeenth Century that Francis Bacon remarked on three recent inventions already transforming the world: the compass, gunpowder and the printing press. Now the links between the nations first forged by the compass have made us all citizens of the world, the hopes and threats of one becoming the hopes and threats of us all. In that one world's efforts to live together, the evolution of gunpowder to its ultimate limit has warned mankind of the terrible consequences of failure.

And so it is to the printing press--to the recorder of man's deeds, the keeper of his conscience, the courier of his news--that we look for strength and assistance, confident that with your help man will be what he was born to be:

free and independent.
 

[CheneysWorstNightmare]

You just KNOW the Muslim Brotherhood will be involved in a false flag.

[Dig]

Hey look...

--Brookings Institute

--Saban Center

--CIA Officer for 20 years

--He is the one who created the Obama policy in Pakistan and Afghanistan

And look at him spreading the propaganda for Al-Qaeda/Muslim Brotherhood to take over Egypt.

SABAN CENTER AT BROOKINGS INSTITUTE SPECIAL REPORT
Egypt's Uprising:
The End of the Mubarak Era
http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2011-01-29/egypts-uprising-the-end-of-the-mubarak-era/
by Bruce Riedel January 29, 2011 | 8:15pm

Bruce Riedel, a former long-time CIA officer, is a senior fellow in the Saban Center at the Brookings Institution. At Obama’s request, he chaired the strategic review of policy toward Afghanistan and Pakistan in 2009. He is author of the new book Deadly Embrace: Pakistan, America and the Future of the Global Jihad and The Search for Al Qaeda: Its Leadership, Ideology and Future.

Early in 1982, then-Israeli Defense Minister Ariel Sharon tasked the Israel Defense Forces' special Devil's Advocate intelligence branch to do an intelligence estimate for him and Prime Minister Menachem Begin. The Devil's Advocate, a unique unit that does sensitive out-of-the box analysis only, was asked how Egypt would react if Israel invaded its northern neighbor Lebanon to destroy Yasir Arafat's Palestine Liberation Organization and install a Christian warlord as the new ruler of Lebanon. The Devil's team concluded that Egypt's new ruler, Hosni Mubarak, who had just come to power in a hail of bullets as his predecessor Anwar Sadat was assassinated on October 6, 1981, would do little or nothing. The IDF knew Mubarak well. He had been trained as a bomber pilot in Russia and risen to command of the Egyptian Air Force before the 1973 October war. His manner was always cautious and conservative; he preferred stability to change. He never sent the Air Force to do bold and risky missions. The IDF estimate said he would at most withdraw the Egyptian ambassador to Tel Aviv in protest but not break diplomatic ties and certainly not tear up the peace treaty Sadat had signed with Begin only a couple of years before. As a footnote, the Devil's team said Sadat would have been far more unpredictable and prone to drastic action. He would have been terribly humiliated by an Israeli invasion of Lebanon. But he was gone and Mubarak would be quiet. Sharon invaded Lebanon that summer. Mubarak whined but did nothing. For 30 years, decision makers in Jerusalem, Washington, Amman and other capitals have counted on Mubarak to bring stability and predictability to Egypt. The Devil's Advocate judgment has passed the test of time well. After 30 years of tumult in Egypt, first under Gamal Abdel Nasser and then Anwar Sadat, Cairo became a known quantity. Egypt would keep its peace with Israel, albeit cold as ice, and its alliance with America. It might be critical of Israeli or American policies, even harsh in private, but not shake its alliances. Mubarak would be careful, even plodding, never a risk-taker. Now that is over. Egypt is back in the game. Even if Mubarak or his new Vice President Omar Suleiman, the longtime spymaster of Egypt, survive in power somehow, the old predictability of Egypt's position in the region is gone. If Mubarak and Suleiman are swept from power and a new more representative government is established that includes members of the opposition including the Muslim Brotherhood, it will be even more of a sea change in the regional geopolitics.

The genie is out of the box in Egypt now. History has moved beyond Mubarak even if he tries to resist it. Mubarak has relied for decades on his secret police chief, Suleiman, 74, to keep order and maintain control. Suleiman is a ruthless counterterrorist fighter well known in Western capitals and highly respected by intelligence services around the world. He has often been Mubarak's go-to political operative handling delicate negotiations—such as dealing with Hamas in Gaza. Mubarak credits him (rightly) with saving his life in Ethiopia in 1995 when Islamic Jihad almost killed him; Suleiman had insisted on taking a heavily armored car, which saved Mubarak. At best he may be an interim figure for a transition to a different Egypt, however, as the genie is out of the box in Egypt now. History has moved beyond Mubarak even if he tries to resist it. A more representative government drawn from the diversity of Egypt's political opposition will be much more inclined to criticize American and Israeli policies. The Egyptian street may accept the strategic logic of peace with Israel and alliance with America, but it bristles at the humiliation of being a de facto silent partner in the siege of Gaza, Israel's wars against Hamas and Hezbollah and America's wars in Iraq and Afghanistan (which rely on transit via the Suez canal and Egyptian airspace). No conceivable Egyptian government will lightly rip up the peace treaty Sadat signed with Begin. The memory of the costs, both human and material, of Egypt's four wars with Israel remains vivid for Egyptians. But in the event of another Israeli war against Hamas in Gaza or Hezbollah in Lebanon — both very possible scenarios—a more democratic Egyptian government will have to listen to the voices of the street, both the left and the Muslim Brotherhood.
Look how this CIA Officer and senior officer at the Saban Center is spreading psychological programming about Mubarak not being radical enough and how Egypt needs a more radical islamic leader. What is the Saban Center? Are they an Islamic operation? Are they funded by the Bin Laden family? Are they an Iranian radical group? They are in Qatar, maybe they are pushing islam to take over the world.

Not exactly...Bruce Reidel and the Saban Center are the most psychopathic neocons around. THEY NO LONGER HAVE AN ENEMY AND THEY NEED TO CREATE ONE! THEY HAVE LOST ALL POWER AND THEY NEED A NEW THREAT!

Just take a look:

Bruce Reidel - Brookings/Soetoro Neo-Con in the White House
I've been watching CPAC for the last hour and these f**ks are bashing the almighty Karzai and how he gets along with Sotero. Bruce Riegel is a fucking Warpig! "It costs a half a million dollars to put a soldier on the ground"

I think I just threw up in my mouth a little.

"Alqueda is the first global terrorist organization" - Bruce R.

I just puked again.

Bruce Riedel
Senior Fellow, Foreign Policy, Saban Center for Middle East Policy

A former CIA officer, Bruce Riedel focuses on political transition, terrorism and conflict resolution. He was a senior advisor to three U.S. presidents on Middle East and South Asian issues. At the request of President Obama he chaired an interagency review of policy toward Afghanistan and Pakistan for the White House that was completed in March 2009.

THEY WANT TO DESTROY ISRAEL - Bruce Riedel

http://www.cpac.ca/forms/index.asp?act=view3&dsp=template&lang=e&template_id=1073

Watch right now. This shit is sickening...

Not enough? How about this odd warning about a spontaneous coup in Pakistan that is earily similar to the one in Egypt. I think Pakistan was their first choice but they failed so they moved to Egypt...check it out...

EXPOSED: Council on Foreign Relations plans a Coup D'etat in Pakistan!

Coup in Pakistan 'A Real Possibility'
 
Interview with Council on Foreign Relations and Brookings Institute Senior Propagandist Bruce Riedel

http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,728806,00.html
11/12/2010

Western countries would like to negotiate with the Taliban, but Pakistan would rather they didn't. US terrorism expert Bruce Riedel spoke with SPIEGEL ONLINE about just how explosive the situation currently is in Pakistan and how much influence al-Qaida still has.

SPIEGEL ONLINE: Mr. Riedel, there is increasing talk of trying to negotiate with the Taliban in Afghanistan in order to achieve a political settlement. How can this be achieved?

Bruce Riedel: We are all war weary, we are all looking for a way out, we would all like a political solution. The question is: Is the Taliban capable of the kind of process of compromise and negotiation that we want? And can it be separated from al-Qaida? There is every reason to test those propositions, and we have nothing to lose by testing them. But we also have to be honest with ourselves. The odds are good that the answer is no and that the ties between the two are too strong at the operational and ideological level. In the US last year, we had an attempted attack on the Metro system in New York City which was al-Qaida sponsored but in which the terrorists had been given to al-Qaida by the Afghan Taliban. So in this sense they were involved in recruiting for a terrorist attack on America. That suggests it is going to be very, very hard to break up this connection.

SPIEGEL ONLINE: Officially ,the Afghan Taliban regularly insist that they are not interested in international terrorism and would instead like to establish good neighborly relations with Afghanistan's neighbors. Does this mean the Afghan Taliban is not as monolithic as it claims to be?

Riedel: The Afghan Taliban is composed of several networks and it is not clear how monolithic even these networks are within themselves. But there is a broader phenomenon going on inside all the militant groups based in Pakistan, which is a radicalization. The idea of global Jihad is becoming more and more popular at the grassroots level. Afghan and Pakistani Taliban, who traditionally had a domestic agenda, are increasingly buying into the idea of globalized terrorism.

SPIEGEL ONLINE: One possible negotiating partner within the Afghan Taliban would be Mullah Baradar, who made it known he was ready to discuss the idea of holding talks. But he was arrested by Pakistan. Was this an attempt by Pakistan to stop negotiations altogether?

Riedel: That is in fact another dimension of this complicated problem. Pakistan does not want direct negotiations between the Afghan Taliban and the government of Afghan President Hamid Karzai or between the Afghan Taliban and the West. It wants to control the process so as to ensure it gets its preferred outcome, which is a satellite state next to Pakistan. When Mullah Baradar started to talk about talks, the Pakistani intelligence service (ISI) had him arrested. He is, from what I understand, under some sort of friendly house arrest now. But he is being used by the ISI as a signal to the other Taliban to prevent them from taking independent action.

SPIEGEL ONLINE: Pakistan's interests in Afghanistan may very well be legitimate, but they become less important when Pakistan itself is becoming instable...

Riedel: Pakistan today is already in the midst of a small scale civil war. Last year 25,000 Pakistanis were killed or wounded in terrorism-related violence, and that's just civilians. That's three times the number of civilians killed or wounded in Afghanistan in the same year. It is a very fragile, very volatile and very combustible country right now. In many ways it is the strategic prize in this whole equation. What happens in Afghanistan will have huge ramifications for what happens in Pakistan. A jihadist victory in Afghanistan would have enormous reverberations and could even signal a take over by jihadist forces in Pakistan.

SPIEGEL ONLINE: Some people believe a jihadist takeover is already more likely in Pakistan than in Afghanistan.

Riedel: I don't think it is imminent or inevitable. It is probably not even the most likely outcome. But for the first time, it is a real possibility. It could come in one of two ways. The Pakistani Taliban insurgence could grow and grow and grow, or, more likely, you could have a coup from inside the military by jihadist sympathizers. There is a lot of unrest in the Pakistani army because of their ongoing operations against militants. We could wake up one morning and have another Zia ul-Haqq in power in Pakistan, a committed jihadist, only this time without the Soviet Union as his enemy.

SPIEGEL ONLINE: It is interesting to note that al-Qaida not only has relations with the Afghan Taliban but also with the Pakistani Taliban, which almost seems to be acting as a kind of al-Qaida proxy.

Riedel: The reason is that al-Qaida learned an important lesson in Iraq: If you put foreigners in the front line, they will eventually turn the population against them. So in Pakistan, the front line is the Pakistani Taliban, Lashkar-e Toiba, all these Pakistani faces. Witness for example the rise of Ilyas Kashmiri, a long time Pakistani terrorist fighting in Kashmir and Afghanistan. Now he is the face of jihad in Pakistan. The same is true for Afghanistan. Al-Qaida doesn't lead the fight in Afghanistan. They let the Taliban lead it. But behind the scenes they provide support.

SPIEGEL ONLINE: Given the complexity of the problem, what should be the international community's first priority?

Riedel: We have to make sure this is an Afghan-led process. Secondly, we need to send a clear message to Pakistan that it can be part of the process, but it cannot be the dominant power. Afghanistan cannot be a satellite state of Pakistan.

SPIEGEL ONLINE: What is the relevance of the al-Qaida leadership in all this? What would happen, for example, were Osama Bin Laden to be killed by a US drone?

Riedel: It would have a tremendous symbolism. He would become an instant martyr for militant Jihad. And it would have consequences on the ground, too. We shouldn't think of bin Laden as living in a cave. He is actively engaged in controlling a global terrorist organization. I don't mean that he runs everything. But he provides strategic direction. The truth is, we don't have a clue where he is. We haven't had eyes on High Value Target Number One since 2002. We believe he is in Pakistan, it is a pretty good bet. But the largest manhunt in human history has so far produced no shred of evidence as to where he is.

SPIEGEL ONLINE: What about recent reports, attributed at the time to an anonymous NATO official, allegedly saying that bin Laden lives in a comfortable house in North Waziristan?

Riedel: I think that's a reasonable guess, but that's all it is.

SPIEGEL ONLINE: There are rumors on Jihadist websites and elsewhere that al-Qaida is already transferring cadres to Yemen, assuming that they can't hide in North Waziristan much longer given the US drones and the prospect of a military invasion there.

Riedel: Judging from the history of al-Qaida, they will prepare and plan ahead. I am sure they are putting key cadres in places like Yemen and Somalia, but also moving them around in Pakistan, where you can hide easily -- even in slums adjacent to the big cities, especially Karachi.

SPIEGEL ONLINE: Al-Qaida has proven to be rather resilient.

Riedel: Yes, al-Qaida has indeed proven to be very agile and resilient and it is a learning organization. It adapts to new circumstances and learns from mistakes. They are also very patient. They have invested years in planning their more spectacular operations. They can wait. So on the whole, this is far from over. Al-Qaida today remains a very dangerous foe and must not be underestimated.

Interview conducted by Yassin Musharbash

Still not enough? How about some words from multi billionaire Mr. Saban (an Egyptian Zionist Jew--I shit you not) himself:

Why is AL JAZEERA using Brookings Institute expert opinion??
http://ampal.blogspot.com/2011/01/why-is-al-jazeera-using-brookings.html
Sharif Hamid, "Expert" - Supposedly one of the experts taking about 10 our of every 60 minutes on AJE. They mention the Doha Brookings Institute. The Saban Center (created by Israeli media mogul HAIM SABAN) I dont know if I can trust Al Jazeera when their research center experts are run by the likes of Martin Idyk and Bruce Katz...

A ‘one-issue guy’, Saban funded Brookings as his personal power ranger
http://mondoweiss.net/2010/05/a-one-issue-guy-saban-funded-brookings-as-his-personal-power-ranger.html
by Philip Weiss on May 4, 2010

Key excerpts from Connie Bruck's profile of Democratic moneybags Haim Saban in the New Yorker. I do wonder (not having read the piece; this is social media; a trusted friend sent me the excerpt) whether Bruck slighted the Israel lobby angle, as she did in her profile of Saban's Republican doppelganger Sheldon Adelson. Remember that Bruck is herself married to a stalwart in the lobby, former California congressman Mel Levine who as I recall was courting Saban for Obama 2 years back.

At a conference last fall in Israel, Saban described his formula. His “three ways to be influential in American politics,” he said, were: make donations to political parties, establish think tanks, and control media outlets. In 2002, he contributed seven million dollars toward the cost of a new building for the Democratic National Committee—one of the largest known donations ever made to an American political party.

That year, he also founded the Saban Center for Middle East Policy at the Brookings Institution, in Washington, D.C. He considered buying The New Republic, but decided it wasn’t for him. He also tried to buy Time and Newsweek, but neither was available. He and his private-equity partners acquired Univision in 2007, and he has made repeated bids for the Los Angeles Times.

In targeting media properties, Saban frankly acknowledges his political agenda. He has tried repeatedly to buy the Los Angeles Times, because, he said, “I thought it was time that it turn from a pro-Palestinian paper into a balanced paper.” He went on, “During the period of the second intifada, Jews were being killed every day over there, and this paper was publishing images of a Palestinian woman sitting with her dead child, and, on the Israeli side, a destroyed house. I got sick of it.” Saban said he tried to buy the paper in 2007 but lost to Sam Zell, who purchased the Tribune Company, including the L.A. Times. In early 2008, he says that he tried to buy the paper from Zell but that Zell wanted more than he was willing to pay. After the Tribune Company went into bankruptcy, in 2009, Saban said he informed the creditors of his interest. “They’re not going to do anything until they get out of bankruptcy. So am I still interested in the L.A. Times? I am, yeah, I am,” he said. Saban also said that he asked the New York investor Steven Rattner to let the Sulzbergers know that he would like to buy the New York Times, but Rattner told him they weren’t interested. “What’s it worth now, the whole thing—a billion dollars?” Saban said dismissively. “But it’s a family legacy or something, I don’t know.” If the Sulzbergers were to change their minds, he said, “I would be jumping all over it.”

As Saban has said, “I’m a one-issue guy, and my issue is Israel.” [OMG, what the f are they planning in the Sinai penninsula?]

For example, Saban continued, “Obama was asked the same question Hillary was asked—‘If Iran nukes Israel, what would be your reaction?’ Hillary said, ‘We will obliterate them.’ We . . . will . . . obliterate . . . them. Four words, it’s simple to understand. Obama said only three words. He would ‘take appropriate action.’ I don’t know what that means. A rogue state that is supporting killing our men and women in Iraq; that is a supporter of Hezbollah, which killed more Americans than any other terrorist organization; that is a supporter of Hamas, which shot twelve thousand rockets at Israel—that rogue state nukes a member of the United Nations, and we’re going to ‘take appropriate action’! ” His voice grew louder. “I need to understand what that means. So I had a list of questions like that. And Chicago”—Obama campaign headquarters—“could not organize that meeting. ‘Schedule, heavy schedule.’ I was ready and willing to be helpful, but ‘helpful’ is not to write a check for two thousand three hundred dollars. It’s to raise millions, which I am fully capable of doing. But Chicago wasn’t able to deliver the meeting, so I couldn’t get on board.”

HE IS EGYPTIAN, NEOCON, WARMONGERER, ISRAEL FIRST!

Then why is he supporting the Muslim Brotherhood overthrow of Mubarak? Maybe because he needs a new threat as the neocons lose power in Israel?

Egypt-born Jew looks to buy 50% of Al-Jazeera
Haim Saban first showed a reported interest in the Doha -based network after a visit in 2004.
http://www.haaretz.com/news/egypt-born-jew-looks-to-buy-50-of-al-jazeera-1.6471
Published 04:15 08.10.09 By Nimrod Halpern

Egyptian-born Jewish businessman Haim Saban is negotiating with Qatar's emir the purchase of 50 percent of the Al Jazeera television network, the independent Egyptian newspaper Al-Mesryoon reported earlier this week. Saban was first reported to be negotiating the purchase of half the Doha -based network in 2004, after visiting the emirate with former U.S. President Bill Clinton. The media mogul, estimated to be worth more than $3 billion, brought the Power Rangers franchise to the Arab world and made a fortune out of developing and selling the Fox Family cable network together with News Corp. In Israel, Saban owns a controlling stake in Bezeq. Last month Saban blasted calls to boycott Israel for the occupation of the West Bank. He called those who support boycotting the Toronto film festival's decision to showcase Tel Aviv "anti-Semites" and "Jew haters." "The world always had anti-Semites," the Hollywood financier told the Los Angeles Times in an e-mail exchange last month. "It has now and always will, but the people of Israel always have, and always will live and prosper. Sorry Jew haters. You lose."  Among the artists who signed the petition calling for a boycott of the festival's Tel Aviv Week in August were Ken Loach, Julie Christie, Danny Glover, David Byrne and Jane Fonda ¬ though Fonda later retracted her decision. Meanwhile, a number of Hollywood Jews, including Jerry Seinfeld, Sacha Baron Cohen and Natalie Portman, issued a counter-statement in defense of the festival's decision.

[citizenx]

And absolutely no mention of the NAZI OR CIA contacts with the Muslim Bros. in the MSM.

The Nazi connection is well-established history.

The fourth reich is only exploiting well-maintained connections.

Nazis, Muslim Brotherhood and Operation Paperclip.

All people have to do is look it up in their NSA-approved Wikipedia or Google search-engine.

No brainer.

[John_Back_From_The_Club_O]

...And after the Super Bowl the block buster movie 'Planet of the Arabs' will be seen 10PM Eastern.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mi1ZNEjEarw

[Dig]

Some people have argued that CIA's Muslim Brotherhood are not a major player in this Bilderberg Coup d'etat. If the Muslim Brotherhood is not a major player in this manufactured coup then why the f**k are the psychotic trilateral terrorists at the treasonous Brookings Institute trying to tell Americans not to fear their inevitable control by Al-Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood over 80 million Egyptians?

BROOKINGS INSTITUTE SPECIAL REPORT:
Don't Fear Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood
www.brookings.edu/opinions/2011/0128_egypt_riedel.aspx
Bruce Riedel, Senior Fellow, Foreign Policy, Saban Center for Middle East Policy January 28, 2011

The Jasmine Revolution in Tunisia has sent a shock wave through the Arab world. Never before has the street toppled a dictator. Now Egypt is shaking, Hosni Mubarak’s 30-year-old regime faces its most serious threat ever. The prospect of change in Egypt inevitably raises questions about the oldest and strongest opposition movement in the country, the Muslim Brotherhood, also known as Ikhwan. Can America work with an Egypt where the Ikhwan is part of a transition or even a new government?

The short answer is it is not our decision to make. Egyptians will decide the outcome, not Washington. We should not try to pick Egyptians' rulers. Every time we have done so, from Vietnam’s generals to Afghanistan’s Hamid Karzai, we have had buyer’s remorse. But our interests are very much involved so we have a great stake in the outcome. Understanding the Brotherhood is vital to understanding our options.

The Muslim Brethren was founded in 1928 by Shaykh Hassan al Banna as an Islamic alternative to weak secular nationalist parties that failed to secure Egypt’s freedom from British colonialism after World War I. Banna preached a fundamentalist Islamism and advocated the creation of an Islamic Egypt, but he was also open to importing techniques of political organization and propaganda from Europe that rapidly made the Brotherhood a fixture in Egyptian politics. Branches of the Brotherhood grew across the Arab world. By World War 2, it became more violent in its opposition to the British and the British-dominated monarchy, sponsoring assassinations and mass violence. After the army seized power in 1952, it briefly flirted with supporting Gamal Abdel Nasser’s government but then moved into opposition. Nasser ruthlessly suppressed it.

Nasser and his successors, Anwar Sadat and Mubarak, have alternatively repressed and demonized the Brotherhood or tolerated it as an anti-communist and right-wing opposition. Technically illegal, it has an enormous social-welfare infrastructure that provides cheap education and health care. In Egypt’s unfair elections, it is always the only opposition that does well even against the heavily rigged odds.

The Egyptian Brotherhood renounced violence years ago, but its relative moderation has made it the target of extreme vilification by more radical Islamists. Al Qaeda’s leaders, Osama bin Laden and Ayman Zawahiri, started their political lives affiliated with the Brotherhood but both have denounced it for decades as too soft and a cat’s paw of Mubarak and America.

Egypt’s new opposition leader, former International Atomic Energy Agency head Mohamed ElBaradei, has formed a loose alliance with the Brotherhood because he knows it is the only opposition group that can mobilize masses of Egyptians, especially the poor. He says he can work with it to change Egypt. Many scholars of political Islam also judge the Brotherhood is the most reasonable face of Islamic politics in the Arab world today. Skeptics fear ElBaradei will be swept along by more radical forces.

The truth is that Mubarak held on to power for so long--with no vice president, no succession process anointing an heir (even his son Gamal has never been publicly made the chosen one), and no end to martial emergency rule--that Egypt is entirely uncharted waters now. No one knows how the army and security forces will react to changes that could threaten their hold on power and their prerogatives. No one knows who really controls the street or if the demonstrations will have legs. But it looks like the beginning of the end of Mubarak’s time.

For America, this is all uncharted waters, too. Washington has been confronted with unexpected change in big Muslim countries before, Iran in 1978 and Pakistan in 2007, and never gotten right the difficult balance of helping history move forward and preserving our equities.

The most problematic issue between the Ikhwan and America will be Israel. The Brotherhood raised an army to fight Israel in its war of independence in 1948. Its Palestinian branch was the nucleus for Hamas, and the Brotherhood retains links to the rulers of Gaza. The Ikhwan’s leaders understand the peace treaty with Israel is the cornerstone of modern Egyptian foreign policy and underwrites America’s $2 billion annual aid as well as the lucrative tourist trade, but they are very critical of Israel, its leader, and policies. Their base is fundamentally opposed to any Egyptian cooperation with Israel.

The Israelis find themselves in the very unpleasant position of having a huge stake in the outcome of what happens in Egypt and absolutely no ability to influence the course of events, except to do harm by foolish statements or actions. No wonder a former Israeli ambassador to Cairo said this week that “I am very much afraid that [the opposition] wouldn’t be as committed to peace with Israel and would be bad for Israel.”

The crisis in North Africa has come up unexpectedly for President Obama and Secretary Clinton. They have moved quickly to grasp the challenge. They know the stakes and the delicacy of our options. Neither complacency nor panic is the right American response.

They should not be afraid of the Muslim Brotherhood. Living with it won’t be easy but it should not be seen as inevitably our enemy. We need not demonize it nor endorse it. In any case, Egyptians now will decide their fate and the role they want the Ikhwan to play in their future.

[Dig]

Days of Rage, Oil Prices, and the Suez Canal
http://www.prisonplanet.com/days-of-rage-oil-prices-and-the-suez-canal.html
Kurt Nimmo Prison Planet.com Thursday, February 3, 2011

Bloomberg warns today that an act of sabotage or a decision by a new regime – possibly headed up by the Muslim Brotherhood – to close the canal and its oil pipeline to punish supporters of Egyptian dictator Hosni Mubarak could send oil prices through the stratosphere.

Egyptian troops currently guard the canal and its adjacent Suez-Mediterranean oil pipeline but that does not mean the flow of oil – more than 1.7 millions barrels per day – cannot be shut down.

About 2.5 percent of global oil production moves through Egypt via the Suez Canal and the Suez-Mediterranean Pipeline, according to Goldman Sachs.

From 1967 until 1975, Egypt kept the canal closed in response to Israel’s seizure of Arab territory, forcing tankers to travel around the Cape of Good Hope.

Earlier today, investors increased bets that oil prices will likely increase as much as $250 a barrel on concern the unrest in Egypt will shut down the flow of oil through the Suez Canal and spread to Saudi Arabia.

On January 28, Lindsey Williams told Alex Jones the situation unfolding in Egypt is a carefully engineered event instigated by the global elite as part of a plan to bankrupt the United States and send shock waves through the global economy.

In December, Williams told Jones that his insider connections said the price of oil will soon skyrocket to between $15-200 per barrel and this price increase will result in gasoline in the range of $4-5 per gallon.

Williams became a friend and trusted confidant of oil industry executives while serving as chaplain for them and their construction crews building the Alaska pipeline in the 1970s.

Market analysts are unsure how the current crisis will impact oil and the global economy. Robert Halver, from Baader Bank, compared Egypt to a raging volcano. He argued that the recent developments are ominous. Halver said that many experts fear the crisis may expand to other Arab states, which would lead to a decrease in oil supplies and an inevitable rise in prices, as Lindsey Williams predicted last year.

Several Arab states have announced plans to launch “Days of Rage” across the Middle East and Africa. See the map below for details.

“When the revolution comes, everyone will be prepared. At least in Northern Africa and the Middle East, where upsurges of optimism from the increasingly successful revolts in Tunisia and Egypt have led other nations’ oppositions to plan dates for their own,” writes Jason Ditz.

“Activists looking for democratic reforms in Syria and Sudan have begun to organize on Facebook and other social media outlets,” Earth Times reported on January 31. “A smaller group in impoverished Yemen also formed on the social media website.”

Algeria experienced five days of protests late last month and tens of thousands took to the streets in Yemen. Similar scenes played out in Jordan and elsewhere. “Undoubtedly, from Algeria to Yemen, the protesters have been emboldened and inspired by the Tunisian example,” the New Straits Times reported on January 29. The Tunisian protest and the downfall of the 23-year-rule of Zine El Abidine Ben Ali began after a young Tunisian set himself ablaze.

It is now obvious the timely emergence of ElBaradei and the Muslim Brotherhood on the chaotic political scene in Egypt was orchestrated by the global elite, as alluded to by Steven A. Cook, writing for the Council on Foreign Relation’s Foreign Affairs.

“The classic gambits of class-warfare, religion, and race seem to be tools well-oiled and working as smoothly as ever in the hands of the globalists as they dismantle their old ally in Egypt and prepare to replace him with their new man, Mohamed ElBaradei,” writes Tony Cartalucci. “If it is true that the Muslim Brotherhood is also a western intelligence front, it is no surprise then that they have come to support ElBaradei’s ‘National Front for Change’ or that they are fomenting similar unrest in Jordan, Yemen, Saudi Arabia and beyond, all with the Brookings Institute, CFR and other globalists’ gleeful encouragement.”

As Cartalucci notes, the tip off should be ElBaradei’s presence on the Board of Trustees of the Zbigniew Brzezinski/George Soros globalist think-tank, the International Crisis Group.

Mohamed ElBaradei, then literally sitting on the International Crisis Group’s Board of Trustees with the likes of George Soros, would not only be a trusted candidate to sow instability throughout Egypt, but would make an equally trustworthy leader of a pliable proxy regime to turn against Iran, Russia, and China. An ElBaradei controlled Egypt could equally be turned against disruptive members of the other globalist pet project Egypt is conveniently positioned to deal with, the African Union. And last but not least, Egypt controls the Suez Canal. Greater control over Egypt means greater control over the passage of freight through the canal.

ElBaradei and the Muslim Brotherhood, at the behest of the globalists, may indeed close down the Suez Canal, as some observers fear, and send the price of oil skyrocketing into outer space as long predicted by Lindsey Williams and others.

–

[Dig]

Just how psychotic is this total decepticon CIA rapist of liberty and freedom?

Let us take a gander at Operation Orchard.

It is now known that Operation Orchard was the total destruction of a Neo-Con project in the Deir ez-Zor region of Syria. It was carried out by Israeli Defense Forces just after midnight (local time) on September 6, 2007. Basically, Cheney and the Neocons, Nazis, and Zionist end timers at the CIA/MI6/CFR/CSIS moved nuclear materials into Syria to construct nuclear weapons to destabilize the region. The movie "Edge of Darkness" will help explain how this shit is done. Israel patriots who have been gaining ground over the neocons over the past few years caught wind of this shit and within minutes they took the whole facility out.

No one could say a word about it because there was too much evidence about what the intentions were.

Well what did the scumback neocon zionazi have to say when all intelligece information indicated that this was in fact a clear and present danger to the entire region?
Bruce Reidel, a former intelligence official at the Brookings Institution's Saban Centre, quoted in the Post. 'It was a substantial Israeli operation, but I can't get a good fix on whether the target was a nuclear thing,' adding that there was 'a great deal of scepticism that there's any nuclear angle here'
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/world/story/0,,2170188,00.html

What is that Bruce?

What is that Sabn?

You scream chicken little if a 20 year old arab kid lights a cigarette at a bar, but when there is an actual CIA sponsored nuke facility threatening to destabilize the entire middle east you tell the guardian: "Move along, nothing to see, these are not the drones you are looking for."

HOW MANY MORE NEED TO BE GENOCIDED TO SATISFY YOU? HOW LONG WILL ALL THE COUNTRIES IN THE REGION INCLUDING ISRAEL BE PREVENTED FROM FORMING THEIR OWN TREATIES? HOW HIGH DOES THE PRICE OF OIL NEED TO BE FOR YOU TO BE SATIDFIED? HOW MUCH MORE DU IS NEEDED THROUGHOUT IRAQ AND AFGHANISTAN? HOW MANY MORE US SOLDIERS NEED TO COMMIT SUICIDE FOR YOU TO END THE PROPAGANDA AND COVER UPS OF CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY? HOW MANY TIMES DO YOU HAVE TO EXCEED GOEBBELS WILDEST DREAMS?

[Dig]

I think the following deserves repeating:

For we are opposed around the world by a monolithic and ruthless conspiracy

that relies primarily on covert means for expanding its sphere of influence--

on infiltration instead of invasion,

on subversion instead of elections,

on intimidation instead of free choice,

on guerrillas by night instead of armies by day.

It is a system which has conscripted vast human and material resources into the building of a tightly knit, highly efficient machine that combines military, diplomatic, intelligence, economic, scientific and political operations.

Its preparations are concealed, not published.

Its mistakes are buried, not headlined.

Its dissenters are silenced, not praised.

No expenditure is questioned,

no rumor is printed,

no secret is revealed.

[Dig]

2007, Saban/Brookings/Reidel...

AL-CIA-DUH IS A GREATER THREAT THAN CANCER!

Al CIA-duh Strikes Back
By Foreign Relations and Brookings Institute Senior Propagandist Bruce Riedel

http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/62608/bruce-riedel/al-qaeda-strikes-back
May/June 2007

Summary:  By rushing into Iraq instead of finishing off the hunt for Osama bin Laden, Washington has unwittingly helped its enemies: al Qaeda has more bases, more partners, and more followers today than it did on the eve of 9/11. Now the group is working to set up networks in the Middle East and Africa -- and may even try to lure the United States into a war with Iran. Washington must focus on attacking al Qaeda's leaders and ideas and altering the local conditions in which they thrive.

Bruce Riedel is a Senior Fellow at the Saban Center for Middle East Policy at the Brookings Institution. He retired last year after 29 years with the Central Intelligence Agency. He served as Special Assistant to the President and Senior Director for Near East Affairs on the National Security Council (1997-2002), Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Near East and South Asian Affairs (1995-97), and National Intelligence Officer for Near East and South Asian Affairs at the National Intelligence Council (1993-95).

A FIERCER FOE

Al Qaeda is a more dangerous enemy today than it has ever been before. It has suffered some setbacks since September 11, 2001: losing its state within a state in Afghanistan, having several of its top operatives killed, failing in its attempts to overthrow the governments of Egypt, Jordan, and Saudi Arabia. But thanks largely to Washington's eagerness to go into Iraq rather than concentrate on hunting down al Qaeda's leaders, the organization now has a solid base of operations in the badlands of Pakistan and an effective franchise in western Iraq. Its reach has spread throughout the Muslim world, where it has developed a large cadre of operatives, and in Europe, where it can claim the support of some disenfranchised Muslim locals and members of the Arab and Asian diasporas. Osama bin Laden has mounted a successful propaganda campaign to make himself and his movement the primary symbols of Islamic resistance worldwide. His ideas now attract more followers than ever.

Bin Laden's goals remain the same, as does his basic strategy. He seeks to, as he puts it, "provoke and bait" the United States into "bleeding wars" throughout the Islamic world; he wants to bankrupt the country much as he helped bankrupt, he claims, the Soviet Union in Afghanistan in the 1980s. The demoralized "far enemy" would then go home, allowing al Qaeda to focus on destroying its "near enemies," Israel and the "corrupt" regimes of Egypt, Jordan, Pakistan, and Saudi Arabia. The U.S. occupation of Iraq helped move his plan along, and bin Laden has worked hard to turn it into a trap for Washington. Now he may be scheming to extend his strategy by exploiting or even triggering a war between the United States and Iran.

Decisively defeating al Qaeda will be more difficult now than it would have been a few years ago. But it can still be done, if Washington and its partners implement a comprehensive strategy over several years, one focused on both attacking al Qaeda's leaders and ideas and altering the local conditions that allow them to thrive.

Otherwise, it will only be a matter of time before al Qaeda strikes the U.S. homeland again.

HE NEEDS AN ENEMY!

ALL OF HIS CREDIBILITY IS SHOT TO HELL!

HE NEEDS EGYPT TO FALL INTO AL-CIA-DUH'S HANDS OR HE WILL NOT GET HIS FUNDRAISER!

HE IS HELPING KISSINGER/BRZEZINSKI/CSIS/RAND/BROOKINGS WITH THEIR NUKE FALSE FLAG PLANS!

HE SAYS THE ONLY WAY TO PREVENT A NUKE IS BY ALTERING LOCAL CONDITIONS THAT ALLOW THEM TO THRIVE.

THEN THE IMF CAUSES FAMINE AND THE RADICAL CIA FUNDED MUSLIM BROTHERHOOD IS BEING PUT INTO POWER.

FOR PETE'S SAKE PATRIOTIC CIA OFFICERS, THIS IS LOW HANGING F-ING FRUIT!

WRITE A DAMN MEMO OR SOMETHING! ESCALATE THIS CRAP! EXPOSE THIS INSANE COUP TO CREATE ANOTHER PATSY FOR FALSE FLAGS ALREADY!

HE SPELLS IT OUT...

BIN LADEN WANTS TO OVERTHROW THE REGIME IN EGYPT!

W T F ? THE ENTIRE UK/US PRESS IS PUSHING FOR THIS REGIME CHANGE!

DERRR DEEE DERR DEEEE DERRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR

[Dig]

Charlie Rose: A conversation with Bruce Riedel
http://www.charlierose.com/view/interview/10184

[Dig]

Gripping stuff here, really makes one think about what people are willing to do to cling to power

Cling to power? They already got all the power. It is not enough. They want every carbon based life form to be microchipped, sterilized, and radiated! They are pushing for total surveillance, total behavioral modification, and total destruction of the family.

[Dig]

Awesome exposure of Brookings war mongering insanity by Glenn Greenwald:

The truth behind the Brooking's Pollack-O'Hanlon trip to Iraq

Glenn Greenwald
Sunday August 12, 2007 09:36 EST
The truth behind the Pollack-O'Hanlon trip to Iraq
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2007/08/12/ohanlon/index.html
(updated below)

Last Wednesday, I interviewed Michael O'Hanlon of the Brookings Institution regarding the trip he recently took to Iraq and the highly publicized Op-Ed in the New York Times about his trip, co-written with his Brookings colleague, Ken Pollack. The full transcript of the interview, which lasted roughly 50 minutes, can be read here.

O'Hanlon's answers, along with several other facts now known, demonstrate rather conclusively what a fraud this Op-Ed was, and even more so, the deceitfulness of the intense news coverage it generated. Most of the critical attention in the immediate aftermath of the media blitz focused on the misleading depiction of the pro-war Pollack and O'Hanlon as "critics of the administration." To his credit, O'Hanlon acknowledged (in my interview with him, though never in any of the media appearances he did) that many of the descriptions applied to him -- including Dick Cheney's claim that the Op-Ed was written by "critics of the war" -- were inaccurate:
First, I think that to an extent, at least, it's certainly fair to go over a person's record when that person themself is being held up as playing a certain role in the debate. So while I'm not entirely happy with some of the coverage I've received here [on this blog] and elsewhere, I agree with the basic premise: that if I'm being held up as a "critic of the war", for example by Vice President Cheney, it's certainly only fair to ask if that is a proper characterization of me. And in fact I would not even use that characterization of myself, as I will elaborate in a moment.
Indeed, as I documented previously and as he affirmed in the interview, O'Hanlon was, from the beginning, a boisterous supporter of the invasion of Iraq. While he debated what the optimal war strategy was, once it became clear exactly what strategy Bush would use, O'Hanlon believed -- and forcefully argued -- that George Bush was doing the right thing by invading Iraq:
As you rightly reported -- I was not a critic of this war. In the final analysis, I was a supporter.
He believed with virtual certainty that Saddam Hussein possessed WMD and that that fact constituted the principal justification for the invasion. In February, 2003, O'Hanlon wrote -- in a column entitled "Time for War" -- that the "president was still convincing on his central point that the time for war is near" and decreed that "it is now time for multilateralists to support the president." Not a single one of the television interviews Pollack and O'Hanlon gave about their Op-Ed included any reference to the fact that they were both supporters of the war and of the Surge.

Throughout 2003 and into 2004, O'Hanlon supported not only the war, but also Bush and Rumsfeld's occupation strategy. And while he began to argue -- just as did Bill Kristol and his neoconservative comrades -- that improvements were needed in Iraq due to the need for more troops, there was never a point, and there still is none, where O'Hanlon argued for withdrawal of troops or a timetable for withdrawal (though in 2004, he argued for a decrease in troop numbers). Then, in 2005, he argued for troop increases. At the beginning of this year, O'Hanlon (and Pollack) supported George Bush's and Fred Kagan's Surge plan.

Manifestly, then, to describe them as "aggressive critics of the Bush administration's handling of the war" or as "critics of the war" -- as virtually every media figure and pro-war pundit did with no correction -- is misleading in the extreme. In no meaningful sense is Michael O'Hanlon any more of a "strong critic of the administration" or "vigorous opponent of Bush's war policies" than Bill Kristol or Fred Kagan, who also frequently bickered over the administration's strategic choices, accused them of poor war management, and/or called for a greater troop presence.

While this entire group of "war scholars" continuously objected to various strategies executed along the way -- they always believed they harbored the undiscovered Perfect Plan for this war -- they were in the past and are now full-throated supporters of the invasion itself and Bush's subsequent occupation. They are full-fledged members of the small minority of Americans who have been pro-war since before the invasion and who continue to be. The contrary media depictions of O'Hanlon and Pollack (which they actively encouraged) were just pure fiction.

* * * * *

"The itinerary the D.O.D. developed"

But the far greater deceit involves the trip itself and the way it was represented -- both by Pollack/O'Hanlon as well as the excited media figures who touted its significance and meaning. From beginning to end, this trip was planned, shaped and controlled by the U.S. military -- a fact inexcusably concealed in both the Op-Ed itself and virtually every interview the two of them gave. With very few exceptions, what they saw was choreographed by the U.S. military and carefully selected for them. This is O'Hanlon's description of how the trip was conceived:
GG: I just want to ask you some questions about the trip that you just took. Whose idea was that trip? How did that trip arise and who planned it?

MO: Well, I have wanted to go back to Iraq for a long time. I feel it’s- I've been there once in September 2003 - it behoves anybody who's working on this issue a lot of the time as I've been for a few years trying to get some on-the-ground experience and observations. And so I've been trying to get back for a couple of years and I started putting in these requests a little bit more assertively -

GG: Who did you put them in with?

MO: To the military, starting in about the spring.

GG: And then, at some point they accepted and said that they would organize a trip for you?

MO: Yeah. I think the trip was ultimately originally scheduled for other people as well. I think it's public knowledge that Tony Cordesman was also on our trip, and I think he had plans to go before Ken and I managed to get ourselves invited as well, but --

GG: Why did you need the permission of the U.S. military in order to go? Why couldn't you just go yourself?

MO: I suppose I could have, but I was hopeful that someone could help take care of my security, for one thing. I'm not going to try to sound more heroic than I am. And also I wanted to talk to a lot of military personnel and get their impressions.
The entire trip -- including where they went, what they saw, and with whom they spoke -- consisted almost entirely of them faithfully following what O'Hanlon described as "the itinerary the D.O.D. developed."

But to establish their credibility as first-hand witnesses, O'Hanlon and Pollack began their Op-Ed by claiming, in the very first sentence: "VIEWED from Iraq, where we just spent eight days meeting with American and Iraqi military and civilian personnel. . . . " Yet the overwhelming majority of these "Iraqi military and civilian personnel" were ones hand-picked for them by the U.S. military:
GG: The first line of your Op-Ed said:"viewed from Iraq where we just spent the last eight days interviewing American and Iraqi military and civilian personnel..."

How did you arrange the meetings with the Iraqi military and civilian personnel?

MO: Well, a number of those -- and most of those were arranged by the U.S. military. So I'll be transparent about that as well. These were to some extent contacts of Ken and Tony, but that was a lesser number of people. The predominant majority were people who we came into contact with through the itinerary the D.O.D. developed.
I specifically asked O'Hanlon whether, as a result, he was concerned that he was getting an unrepresentative view of the situation in Iraq, and in response he said:
If someone wanted to argue that we were not getting a representative view of Iraqis because the ones we spoke with were provided by the military, I would agree that this would be a genuine concern. Certainly that might have influenced the impressions that we were presented, though by no means did all of the Iraqis agree with the view of progress in Iraq.
The following exchange then occurred:
GG: Given that some of the claims in your Op-Ed are based upon your conversations with Iraqis, and that the Iraqis with whom you spoke were largely if not exclusively ones provided to you by the U.S. military, shouldn't that fact have been included in your Op-Ed?

MO: If the suggestion is that in a 1,400 word Op-Ed, we ought to have mentioned that, I can understand that criticism, and if we should have included that, I apologize for not having done so. But I want to stress that the focus here was on the perspective of the U.S. military, and I did a lot of probing of what I was told, and remain confident in the conclusions that we reached about the military successes which we highlighted. But if you're suggesting that some of our impressions might have been shaped by the military's selection of Iraqis, and that we might have disclosed that, that is, I think, fair enough.
Subsequently, I pressed him again on how they could possibly rely on what they were hearing given that virtually all of the vaunted "Iraqi military and civilian personnel" with whom they were speaking were hand-picked for them. O'Hanlon acknowledged:
I will take your point and I would agree with your point that we were certainly not getting a representative view of Iraqi opinion.
Indeed, the great bulk of the information on which this Op-Ed was based came from the U.S. military, either directly or through the Iraqi "sources" provided to Pollack and O'Hanlon, a fact which -- though concealed in their Op-Ed and in their interviews -- O'Hanlon defended this way:
Now you could say in one sense all this data ultimately, all this information ultimately is coming from the U.S. military. Yes, but there's an opportunity for a lot of probing, a lot of debate, a lot of conversations back and forth. . . .
Not only was this obviously critical fact --that "all this information ultimately is coming from the U.S. military" -- excluded from their Op-Ed, but, with one exception, neither they nor their numerous media interviewers saw fit to mention it. The only reference to it was a fleeting one as a result of this commendable question from Wolf Blitzer to Pollack during one of CNN's several segments devoted to their "findings":
BLITZER: Was this part, though, of a U.S. military tour, if you will, that they took you around, you were escorted from location to location to location and they were the ones that took you to specific places? Or did you have the freedom to say I want to go here, I want to go there? Who organized, in other words, the stopovers, the visits that you were having?

POLLACK: It was -- largely this was -- it was largely organized by the military. We felt that was important because right now the big story is the military story.
And that was it. In their Op-Ed and countless media appearances, where they constantly paraded around -- and were held up -- as first-hand witnesses who had seen the Truth in Iraq with their very own eyes, that was the only mention of this fact, a fact which rather obviously and profoundly impacts the credibility of what they claimed to have "discovered."

* * * * *
Sweeping conclusions from 2-hour visits

But this only begins to convey how ludicrous and misleading a spectacle this whole event was. O'Hanlon and Pollack were in Iraq for a total of 7 1/2 days. They spent every night ensconced in the Green Zone in Baghdad. They did not spend a single night in any other city. As O'Hanlon admitted, they spent no more than "between 2-4 hours" in every place they visited outside Baghdad, and much of that was taken up meeting U.S. military commanders, not inspecting the proverbial "conditions on the ground."

Yet in their Op-Ed, they purported to describe the encouraging conditions in four places other than Baghdad -- Ramadi, Tal Afar, Mosul, and the Anbar Province -- as though they could possibly have made any meaningful observations during their visits which were all roughly the duration of the average airport layover. Worse, both O'Hanlon and Pollack -- and especially Pollack -- in their interviews repeatedly described their optimistic observations about Iraqi cities in such a way as to create the misleading impression that these were based upon their first-hand observations.

Here, for instance, is Pollack on NPR purporting to describe the Great Progress in Mosul as though he is some grizzled war reporter who has witnessed the conditions "on the ground" there -- a place in which, O'Hanlon acknowledged to me by e-mail, they spent a grand total of 2 hours:
The most obvious change we saw was in the security sector, where in Northern, Central and Western Iraq, there was improvement. It varied very widely. It was uneven. But in some places, it was really striking.

My last trip to Iraq was at the end of 2005, and I was up by Mosul. And I gotta tell you, Mosul was a disaster. It was completely out of control, and we had tens of thousand of American troops up in Mosul trying desperately to keep that place together.

Well, this trip, we went up to Mosul, and found that there are only several hundred American troops up there. And the reason for that is we now finally have some Iraqi army divisions that are rising to the occasion. We got two divisions up there -- an Army Division and a Police Division -- which are both capable and reliable. And that's allowed the military to greatly scale back their commitment to Iraq's third largest city, to the point where they are simply providing advisory teams and fire support teams, and the Iraqis are doing the work . . . . That is such a dramatic change.
And here is what Pollack told Tucker Carlson on MSNBC:
In addition, what was most striking to me -- because the last time I was in Iraq was about 18 months ago in late 2005, and I was over there looking at Iraqi army formations -- and frankly, they were all awful [GG: that was the same exact time when Gen. Petraues was proclaiming "very substantial momentum" and "huge progress" in Iraqi troop readiness]. This time around, the Iraqi army formations are really starting to step up to the plate.

And we have a number -- I won't say the whole army, not even the majority of it -- but there are a number of divisions and brigades and battalions that are really proving to be able partners of the U.S., to the extent that in some parts of Iraq, particularly Mosul, Tal Afar, some other parts, areas south of Baghdad, the Iraqis really are taking the lead and the U.S. forces are really just supporting them.
Any reasonable person would conclude that Pollack is describing progress based upon first-hand observations made during his "visit to Mosul" -- a completely deceitful impression in light of the reality of this trip. Indeed, the overarching narrative for every interview was that they had "just returned from Iraq" and were excited by what they saw.

Yet they inspected virtually nothing in these cities, and everything with regard to "Iraqi troop readiness" -- which Pollack excitedly touted in hailing the "dramatic progress" in Mosul and elsewhere -- was all based on what they were told by the U.S. military or its hand-picked sources. As O'Hanlon said:
GG: What I'm trying to get at is if they told you, for instance, that there were certain army divisions in Mosul where the bad commanders were being weeded out and they were now capable of holding neighborhoods better, you wouldn't actually go to the neighborhoods and inspect whether or not what you were told was true. Your claims in that regard in the Op-Ed were based upon your belief that what the U.S. military commanders were telling you was accurate. Is that true?

MO: Yes, that's true. Based on that example, on that type of example, you're right.
The day before I interviewed O'Hanlon, The New Yorker's George Packer spoke with Pollack and reported that Pollack "spoke with very few Iraqis and could independently confirm very little of what he heard from American officials." To Packer, Pollack also confirmed that the flamboyant claims about Iraqi troops readiness "came from American military sources."

* * * * *

Severe sloppiness or bad faith?

With the possible exception of their observations about U.S. troop morale and the McCain-like claims about the isolated, peaceful strolls they were led on by the military, Pollack and O'Hanlon could have just as easily stayed at home, spoken on the telephone with U.S. military commanders, written down what they said, and then "reported" everything exactly as they did in their Op-Ed. The trip to Iraq part was just a prop in the argument, something to bestow unwarranted and artificial credibility on their war cheerleading claims.

I have nothing against O'Hanlon personally; he was perfectly cordial and professional in my dealings with him and I think he deserves credit for agreeing to be interviewed in light of what I had written about his Op-Ed. But it is very difficult to credit him and Pollack with good faith, as though they are guilty of nothing more than sloppy "scholarship."

A failure to disclose obviously critical facts that bear on the credibility of their "findings" and a willingness to ground their conclusions in patently one-sided and highly controlled data are far more serious sins than mere sloppiness. It is difficult to avoid reaching any conclusion other than that they willfully served as propaganda tools in order to bolster the perception of success for a war and a "Surge" strategy which they prominently supported and on which their professional reputations rest.

After all, the whole premise of the Op-Ed is that they have credibility to speak about the Progress in Iraq because they just returned from a trip there and because they are "two analysts who have harshly criticized the Bush administration's miserable handling of Iraq." Indeed, they used the very first sentence to create the misleading impression that they were offering first-hand accounts of the purported progress, rather than simply relying upon claims of the U.S. military.

Moreover, they not only acquiesced to the fraud that they are "critics of the administration," they actively propagated it in order to lend their claims credibility they did not deserve. Here, as but one example, is Michael O'Hanlon's description of himself on Hardball: "I have been a critic of the administration all along." That is nothing short of an outright falsehood.

But far more importantly, they had to have known beforehand that they were going to get a highly unrepresentative picture of Iraq by having the U.S. military shape their itinerary from start to finish and hand-pick virtually everyone with whom they would speak. That is just so obvious. And yet when I asked O'Hanlon about this, he acted as though this had never occurred to him before.

It's one thing for political hacks like Joe Lieberman or John McCain to go on these contrived missions -- trips aptly derided on Meet the Press by Jim Webb in explaining why he has never gone:
Sen. Graham: "Have you been to Iraq and talked to the soldiers?"

Sen. Webb: "You know, you haven't been to Iraq, Lindsey. (cross-talk). You go see the dog and pony show. That's what Congressman do."
But Pollack/O'Hanlon are "scholars" -- people whose claims are supposed to be immune from political pressures and who reside above the political fray. Ask them and they will be happy to tell you that. Here is Ken Pollack with Tucker Carlson, snidely dismissing the notion that he has anything other than the purest of aims:
And you know, I am going to go out there and I am going to say what I have to say. I've been doing this my entire life. I say exactly what I think is the right answer. I don't care about politics.
Pollack's deeply apolitical superiority did not, however, prevent him from issuing this decree at the Council on Foreign Relations last week:
Q. The Democratic candidates have been fighting among themselves over what to do. Your advice to the Democrats is what, to cool it until the election?

Pollack: Certainly to cool it until early 2008.
Whatever it means to be a "scholar," it ought to include at the very minimum a refusal to ground one's "scholarly" conclusions in data that is plainly biased, politically motivated, and worthy of extreme skepticism. Yet -- while O'Hanlon sheepishly admits being fooled about Iraq's WMD and repeatedly insisted that he has learned lessons -- they go on an Iraq "fact-finding trip" and then come back and flamboyantly trumpet extraordinary claims based on very little other than the unverified assertions of the U.S. military. And they never bother to disclose any of that. Whatever that is, it is not the behavior of apolitical "scholars."

[The above-the-political-fray Pollack is employed by the "Saban Center for Middle East Studies" at Brookings -- so named because it is funded with many millions of dollars by billionaire Haim Saban, an Israeli-American neoconservative who was a 2004 supporter of George Bush, was a close associate of Ariel Sharon, and spent the 1990s persuading Bill Clinton (with millions of dollars in donations to the Democratic Party) to be more supportive of Israel.

In a 2004 glowing profile, the NYT described Saban as "throwing his weight and money around Washington and, increasingly, the world, trying to influence all things Israeli," and in that article, Saban told the NYT: "I'm a one-issue guy and my issue is Israel." The profile also reported: "While Mr. Saban is a vocal opponent of President Bush -- 'I think Bush is just messing it up every day more' -- he supports some of Mr. Bush's policies. 'On the issues of security and terrorism I am a total hawk.'" In essence, Saban is Marty Peretz but with money that he earned himself. That is who backs Ken Pollack's presumably large paychecks and funds his Brookings war "scholarship"].

O'Hanlon and Pollack appeared on at least 10 major television news programs. Other than Blitzer, no interviewer even raised the issue of whether they were overly-dependent on the U.S. military for their information, none probed the basis for their claims, and Pollack and O'Hanlon never once even alluded to the questionable nature of what they had been shown (even though O'Hanlon "apologized" for not disclosing it in the Op-Ed when I pressed him on it). And from what I reviewed, not a single one ever identified either of them as having been pro-war and pro-Surge, and they themselves never bothered to mention that as they were hailed as hard-nosed "critics" of the administration -- thus helpfully preserving the dramatic television storyline that "harsh critic of the Bush administration" went to Iraq and found Great Progress.

These interviewers just all stood by, excited and oozing enthusiasm, as Pollack and O'Hanlon lavished tales on the country of the grand and glorious progress we are finally making in Iraq. The host on the very-very-liberal NPR began the Pollack interview by gushing: "If you've been searching the papers for good news from Iraq, we found a little on the Op-Ed pages!" Vapid, mindless and absurd.

After all this time, and everything that has happened under the Bush presidency, nothing has changed. Michael Gordon and the NYT continue to publish one war-fueling story after the next on its front page based on nothing other than the unverified claims of government and military officials. Our "journalists" do not have even an iota of instinct to question or probe anything they hear from our war-mongering Serious Experts and Serious Political Leaders.

And the Foreign Policy Community is led by highly revered propagandists whose "scholarship" violates the most basic and obvious principles of research and disclosure -- all in the service of prolonging still further a war for which they bear profound responsibility. This, in turn, is driven by the overarching and self-absorbed fear that they will be forced to acknowledge their own wrongdoing and culpability. And thus we will remain occupying and waging war in Iraq, through the end of the Bush presidency and beyond.

UPDATE: There were numerous other fallacies and grounds for criticism with regard to O'Hanlon's answers which I excluded due to space constraints. In a superb comment, DanJoaquinOz examines several of those issues.

-- Glenn Greenwald

[Dig]

Ron Paul: “The CIA Runs Everything”
http://justgetthere.us/blog/archives/Ron-Paul-The-CIA-Runs-Everything.html
Thursday, January 21. 2010

The CIA was created at the behest of the bankers on Wall Street. OSS spook and Wall Street lawyer Frank Wisner was recruited by Dean Acheson to work under Charles Saltzman, at the State Department’s Office of Occupied Territories in 1947. The CIA’s first director, Allen Dulles, was a Wall Street lawyer.

The CIA is Wall Street’s finely honed tool for the neoliberal agenda of the banksters. “A considerable proportion of the developed world’s prosperity rests on paying the lowest possible prices for the poor countries’ primary products and on exporting high-cost capital and finished goods to those countries. Continuation of this kind of prosperity requires continuation of the relative gap between developed and underdeveloped countries – it means keeping poor people poor,” former CIA agent Philip Agee wrote. “Increasingly, the impoverished masses are understanding that the prosperity of the developed countries and of the privileged minorities in their own countries is founded on their poverty.”

“Throughout its entire history, the CIA has set up an elaborate shell game of ‘proprietaries’ (front companies), money-laundering operations and off-the-books projects so complex that no outsider — and few insiders — could ever keep track of them. BCCI was neither the first nor the last of these,” writes Mark Zepezauer.

Excerpt from the Campaign for Liberty Regional Conference in Atlanta, GA.

As the crowd begins to cheer, Ron Paul states, “We need to take out the CIA”.

“They are a government unto themselves. Their in buisnesses, their in drug buisnesses… and… they take out dictators. We need to take out the CIA.”

From Raw Story:
US House Rep. Ron Paul says the CIA has has in effect carried out a “coup” against the US government, and the intelligence agency needs to be “taken out.” Speaking to an audience of like-minded libertarians at a Campaign for Liberty regional conference in Atlanta this past weekend, the Texas Republican said:

There’s been a coup, have you heard? It’s the CIA coup. The CIA runs everything, they run the military. They’re the ones who are over there lobbing missiles and bombs on countries. … And of course the CIA is every bit as secretive as the Federal Reserve. … And yet think of the harm they have done since they were established [after] World War II. They are a government unto themselves. They’re in businesses, in drug businesses, they take out dictators … We need to take out the CIA.
Paul’s comments, made last weekend, were met with a loud round of applause, but they didn’t gather attention until bloggers noticed a clip of the event at YouTube.

Paul appeared to be referring to news reports that the CIA is deeply involved in air strikes against Al Qaeda targets in Afghanistan and Pakistan. A suicide bombing late last year against Forward Operating Base Chapman in Afghanistan took the lives of seven of CIA operatives, including two contracted from Blackwater. The event highlighted the CIA’s deep involvement in the war effort.

Paul’s reference to the CIA being “in the drug business” refers to long-running allegations that the CIA has funded some of its covert operations with proceeds from drug-running. That claim was most famously made in a 1996 investigative report from the San Jose Mercury-News, which alleged that cocaine from the Contra-Sandinista civil war in Nicaragua was making its way to the streets of L.A. via the CIA.

[Dig]

Pakistan Press exposed the genocidal propaganda by Brookings, Saban, and Bruce Riedel in 2007. He has moved from Pakistan to Egypt. He caught Egypt off guard:


Why Bruce Riedel Has Lost My Respect

Mr. Riedel waits until the 24th paragraph of his long tirade against Pakistan to disclose the agenda on Pakistan’s nuclear program. He urges the US government to work even with Israel if the need be to isolate Pakistan and ultimately end Pakistan’s nuclear capabilities.  What more does the Pakistani government and military need than this damning evidence of U.S. intentions for Pakistan and the US double game with us in the past seven years? [Ahmed Quraishi]

http://pakalert.wordpress.com/2009/06/07/why-bruce-riedel-has-lost-my-respect/

By S. M. Hali
Sunday, 7 June 2009.


ISLAMABAD, Pakistan—‘Pakistan and the Bomb’ is the latest article in The Wall Street Journal by Bruce Riedel, a former CIA officer, who is a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, has been a senior advisor to three US presidents on Middle East and South Asian issues and chaired President Obama’s strategic review of policy toward Afghanistan and Pakistan which concluded in March 2009.

My respect for Bruce Riedel as an analyst has diminished after reading his latest endeavor, since portions of it appear to be based on half truths, conjectures and apparent twisting of facts in pursuit of an agenda. Lest I be accused of the same offense, let me illustrate my observation with examples from the renowned analyst’s article.

He opens with the current intense military operation raging in the Swat valley to crush the militants. He appears to suggest the futility of the operation by mentioning the retaliatory suicide bomb attacks in Lahore and Peshawar.

Bruce Riedel, in his third paragraph states matter of factly:

“The fighting has cast a spotlight on the shaky security of Pakistan’s growing nuclear arsenal …” And then self-contradicts in the very next paragraph, “Today the arsenal is under the control of its military leaders; it is well protected, concealed and dispersed. But if the country fell into the wrong hands—those of the militant Islamic jihadists and al-Qaeda—so would the arsenal.”

Firstly the country is in no danger of being overrun by the militants. Yes they had entrenched themselves in Swat and the tribal regions but are in the process of being flushed out and defeated and have little or no chance of taking over the country. Moreover, the reason why Riedel talks of the secure protection of Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal is that – and he being a former CIA operative would know – that if the Indian and western intelligence agencies have not been able to find any clue about the location of Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal; how would a rag-tag militia do so?

The honorable writer quotes former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto as saying that she believed “al-Qaeda would be marching on Islamabad in two years”.

This has to be refuted as the armed forces are currently battling with full intensity to prevent such an eventuality.

The writer brazenly labels Pakistan as being a “state sponsor of proliferation” and engaged in “highly provocative behavior against India, even initiating a limited war…”

Unfortunately, Mr. Riedel, you will have to shed your blinkers to get a clearer vision. The lone example of proliferation was confessed by Dr. Abdul Qadeer Khan as being his personal indiscretion and the state proceeded strongly to plug the gap and you yourself confirm the same in paragraph 20 of your piece that “there has been little evidence of continued technology proliferation activity” since Dr. Khan’s confession.

Unfortunately, India, whose case Bruce Riedel appears to be pleading has indulged in numerous proven cases of nuclear proliferation, some of which have been in the notice of US State Department. The US imposed sanctions against Indian scientists involved in proliferation, yet it is Pakistan, which is continuously being flogged like a dead horse. Threats and belligerence have emanated from India starting with the May 1998 saber rattling after conducting its nuclear tests, which forced Pakistan to cross the nuclear threshold; the 2001-2002 troops buildup against Pakistan following the December 13, 2001 attack on Indian Parliament building, which has been blamed on Pakistan, but little or no evidence provided and has been suggested by some Indian Human Rights activists as having been planned and executed by the Indian state mechanism.

Regarding the Mumbai attacks too Indian feet-dragging on vital clues has stalled the investigations.

Coming to the “initiating a limited war” allegation, implying “Kargil”; Bruce Riedel has been advisor to three US presidents, and he should get some facts of history right. Kargil is not Indian terrain but disputed Kashmiri territory. President Obama had promised to help resolve the Kashmir imbroglio to ease the tension between Pakistan and India but has now forgotten. Talking of history, Bruce Riedel has got President Yahya’s name wrong and mentions the 1971 dismemberment of Pakistan’s eastern wing but fails to acknowledge Indian machinations in the sorry episode.

Another insinuation is that Dr. Abdul Qadeer Khan “stole” the sensitive centrifuge technology from the Netherlands. Two wrongs do not make a right but every single nuclear capable state, including USA, Soviet Union, Britain, France, India and Israel, developed its nuclear capability through clandestine means. 

Bruce Riedel talks of traveling to both Pakistan and India to convince them to sign the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT) and the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) but says, “The Pakistanis were the harder sell and never even came close to an agreement.” The fact is that neither did India and even the US refused to ratify the treaty in 2000. Thus what is good for the goose is good for the gander! Why single out Pakistan?

Mr. Riedel waits until the 24th paragraph of his long tirade against Pakistan to disclose the agenda on Pakistan’s nuclear program: “US options would be severely limited by Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal. We would need to work with India, Afghanistan, China and others (perhaps Israel) to isolate the danger.”

The method behind the madness appears to be a strident attempt to isolate Pakistan’s nuclear capability, have it capped and defanged. The insistence that “India is no longer our enemy” now appears to fall in place.  Bruce Riedel advises US to have “constancy and consistency” in its policy towards “Pakistan and its bomb” and end its “double standards with India.” Sound advice but asking “Islamabad to put the no-first-use pledge back on the table with India, and sign the CTBT without demanding Indian adherence first” is unrealistic.

This is an edited version of the original article published by the respected The Nation. Mr. Hali is a defense and security analyst. He also hosts a talk show on the state-run PTV.

Also See:
Video: Targeting Pakistani Nukes: ‘Don’t Mess With Us’
Video: Arrogant Pakistan
Ahmed Quraishi, Naeem Salik with Dr Dansih on ARY News about PAK NUCLEAR [Urdu]
 Pakistanis Laugh At Weak U.S. Nuclear Safeguards
Pakistan Enhances Second Strike Nuclear Capability
Pakistan’s Plutonium based Tritium H-Bombs deter Indian agression
Video: Pakistan Missiles Far Ahead of India
Pakistan beefs up nuclear plants
Analysis: Nuclear Armageddon in South Asia
 The American War On Wana
Pakistan Should Exploit American Desperation
The main aim of the US & its allies is to de-nuclearise Pakistan, the only Islamic country having nuclear weapons
Dissecting The Anti-Pakistan Psyop – A Must Read
Preparing for war on Pakistan
Codename Operation Enduring Turmoil Exposed! – Neocon Plans for Pakistan and rest of the World

[Dig]

This seditious Nazi propagandist has been exposed like nobody's business. He creates Der Ewige Pakistani and Der Eige Egyptian Nazi Propaganda everywhere. Please pay attention to the second to last paragraph in red.
Obama’s Neocon: Bruce Reidel’s rancid racism against Pakistan
http://rupeenews.com/2009/06/09/obamas-neocon-bruce-reidel-rancid-racism-against-pakistan/
Posted on June 9, 2009 by The Editors

Bruce Reidel started out as a low level operative in the CIA(?). He weasled his way into the Democratic party and some got the ear of Brack Obama. His initial analysis was good. It mimicd the ongoing reviews called by the outgoing Bush Administration which wanted to overhaul its Afghan policy and try to convert defeat into victory. Mr. Reidel however is no expert on Pakistan, and is not familiar with the culture, traditions and history of the republic. His recent rendition of Pakistani history, published in the Wall Street Journal displays a paucity of ideas, and a bankruptcy of vision and a total absence of understanding of the Pakistani ethos. His book has some edges, but one could overlook them because it had kernels of truth which could be tied together in a good bead story.

Mr. Reidel’s initial articles took a somewhat balanced view. He talked about a regional approach, and aptly described the resolution of Afghanistan, tied in to the resolution of Kashmir. He discussed the fact that the root cause of the problems lay in the disenfranchisement of the Kashmiris, and once that problem was solved and Pakistani’s Eastern borders secured, Islamabad would be more emendable to helping the US in the war in Afghanistan. Mr. Reidel also talked about “convincing” the Pakistanis into helping the US and he also discussed a Marshall plan for Pakistan and a the sacrosanct nature of the Durand Line.

Pick a rock, any rock, and you can find “experts” predicting gloom and doom. One wonders how much venom the bigots can spew. Judging by the decibel level of the doomsayers, one can always judge the level of frustration that they face.  News about Pakistan is accompanied with the pugilistic doomsayers who come out in droves.

Mr. Reidel’s  ”in depth” analysis of the Afghan war however was mostly based upon the writings of an unknown two  bit teacher by the name Rashid Ahmed, a 3rd rate professor at an open admisison university of Pakistan which used to be called Islamabd University. In terms of academic standard or admission cireterio the campus on which Mr. Rashid Ahmed works in, the campus is known as a party campus, with dorms full of sixties type of hippies and a woman’s wing which has always been embroiled in scandal and mischief . Mr. Rashid Ahmed wrote what the CIA wanted to read. His book was very well received in the west, and he has now become a celebrity talking about this that and the other as if he is an authority on the Taliban or the Pakhtuns. He is neither. Mr. Ahmed Rashid is a pawn in the hands of Mr. Reidel. the Dollars make him repeat his master’s voice.

Over the past  few months things  changed. The Afghan review came out. It was pretty much a regurgitation of the old NEI, CIA and DOD reviews. The old policy was sold to the American public as new. Mr. Holbrooke was appointed as an envoy of Afghanistan and Pakistan instead of the original Pakistan and India envoy. After vociferous complaints by Delhi Kashmir was taken off the agenda. “K” may be part of Mr. Holbrooke’s silent agenda but it is not to be mentioned publicly. The Free Trade Agreement between pakistan and the US remains elusive as does the access of Pakistani Textiles to the US market. The ROZ has been placed on queue in the COngress and may appear on the agenda next year. Puny aid of $1.9 Billion is to be awarded to Pakistan, but half o fit will be spent on enhancing US embassies.

In other words the Neocon agenda continues with few nuanced changes.

The CIA has almost always been wrong on predicting major events. It has been a total failure in monitoring real and perceived enemies. Filling Gitmo, renditions and torture are not success stories that should be rewarded.

The CIA has once again come up with policy statements for the new President. In fact the new policy is partly based upon the recommendations of the intelligence agencies.

Selective Amnesia of Americans: Pakistan is the most mistreated friend in the world. The Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) is the organization that gave us the fiasco of Bay of Pigs becuase it didn’t have a clue that the Cuban had Russian missiles hidden in their closets. By the time they found out it was too late. The CIA is the same organization that couldn’t predict the simple fact that the USSR was ready to implode, a fact known to almost everyone on the streets of Moscow or Kabul. Justifying the Banality of a brutal Occupation in Iraq and Afghanistan: The Thinktanks attempt to complete the circle of complicity between a sycophantic press, and a non-inquisitive servile public. The nation is forced to accept the only argument that it is being repeatedly inundated with

The truth is out. Mr. Reidel is a bigoted racist who has brought the likes of Mr. Kilcullen to the forefront to wage war on Pakistan. Mr. Reidel’s  rancid and hackneyed imperviousness to everything Pakistani blinds him to the large spectrum of vivacious Pakistani diversity, makes him deaf to the varied cacophony of Pakistani ideas, gangly numbs him to the inherently punier societal contradictions of the country, and helps him ignore the profound internal cohesion, so that he can surreptitiously inexerably and single-mindedly negatively highlight the putative and superficial dissonance of a highly complex society. Mr. Reidel can say nothing good about Pakistan. He can thus impugn them with being enmeshed and ensnared in everything that goes wrong with anything. Mr.Reidel has not spent a lot of time in Pakistan. He however claims to be an expert on Paksitan. Textbooks only get you so far. It is pedagogical to investigate the didactic provenance of his cabal and research the incipient truculence of his petulantly portentous and venomously vindictive and revanchist commentariat.

Pakistan cannot be handed the forced foster parentage of failed American policies in South Asia.

A passionate attachment of one nation for another produces a variety of evils. Sympathy for the favorite nation facilitates the illusion of an imaginary common interest in cases where no real common interest exists, infuses into one the enmities of the other, and betrays the former into participation in the quarrels and wars of the latter without adequate inducement or justification.” (George Washington, Farewell Address, 1796)

Mr. Reidel’s  recent article in the Wall Street Journal was a new nadir of his incompetence. That article and the compendium of his flummoxed ad hominem trope has serious errors in it, which is typical of the odiously conflated half-baked harebrained doctrinal tripe so pervasive in the open hunting season on Pakistan these days. Mr. Reidel is wrong, totally wrong on Pakistan.

The “Firm” participated in the Mossedegh snafu in which they  an elected and popular prime minister and installed Reza Shah as emperor.  The CIA is the same organization that didn’t have a clue about the popularity of Imam Khomeni and ’till the last moment continued to support the Shah of Iran. “The Company” is the same spy agency that tried to buy arms from Iran to fund the Contras in Nicragua. The CIA was unable to predict the USSR’s invasion of Afghanstan and it took them two years to join the Pakistanis in their war against the Communist invaders.

Mr. Reidel–stop this nonsense!

Here are a few new players who have jumped on the Anti-Pakistan bandwagon. The Darth Vader plenipotentiary of the Neocons is the Australian Rupert Mrudock. The Neocon agenda was to implement the Plan for a New American Century (PNAC). This plan called for maintaining the supremacy of the US through violent conflict if needed. According to PNACers the destruction of the USSR accorded an opportunity to trample over smaller nations in order to encircle any future threats to America. Hence the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. The bad wars, sheer incompetence of the executers, and the stiff resistance given to the invaders brought many American policy holders to their sense. It is very consternating and most disappointing that the phlegmatic doyens and placid cognoscenti of the Obama Administration lacked the imperious intellect to reject this compendium of insipid depredation, and chose to egregiously reproduce the vapid pabulum and rambling crypto-racist putrid screed written by this doltish and vindictive votary of prurient scurrility. The puerile headlines in the Hate-Pakistan press remind me of the old schoolyard song. “Sticks and stones may break my bones but words shall never harm me“.

The risible rhetoric is amazing in its transparent bias and mind boggling in its obeisance to the Gods of mendacity. Congressman Denis Kucinich once remarked that “the American press is worse than Izvestia and Pravda” in kowtowing to the government line. The misanthropic media has almost become an organ of the state and is used by the military to disseminate misinformation and outright lies. Headlines are added at the discretion of the editor. Many times  the headlines are totally disconnected from the actual essay.  Even the paragons of the left wing media like the New York Times were used like a fiddle to play the swan song of the WMDs. The list is long. The childish name calling is not limited to the New York Times Company. The juvenile vacuous, vapid chatter is as ubiquitous now as it was in the war mongering days that fueled the frenzy to attack Iraq. The New York Times apologized, but continues its venomous diatribes against Pakistan. This polemicist’s troglodyte’s pauperized intellect, vacuity of ideas and teutonic bloviations are a prosaic and trite admixture of the clichéd and discredited Neocon assertions, unsubstantiated and facile aspersions, outright augean distortion, and pure unadulterated balderdash. Mr. Reidel has been caught “in flagrante delicto” with his pants down. His penchant for a revivified virulence of the macabre and ghoulishly political vaudeville shows a total lack of knowledge of South Asia and only a peripheral knowledge of Pakistan and Pakistanis. The headlines use the worst words that they can find, despair, peril, dangerous, failed, disarray, implode, explode etc etc.

Some Pakistanis worry about the use of the words. The real reason for the frustration is fear. They fear failure in the Hindu Kush. they are scared of getting thrown out of the Khyber, and they are frustrated by the lack of success in the Indus. All the huffing and the puffing has not enabled them to blow away the house.

[Dig]

Just 8 months ago this guy was screaming that we needed to nuke Pakistan because of the Times Square False Flag smoking SUV bullshit


Al Qaeda Has Us in Its Gun Sights
Terrorism, Pakistan, Middle East, National Security
Bruce Riedel, Senior Fellow, Foreign Policy, Saban Center for Middle East Policy
http://www.brookings.edu/opinions/2010/0503_al_qaeda_new_york_riedel.aspx?p=1
The Daily Beast May 03, 2010 —

It is far too soon to make any judgments about the car bomb that was placed in Times Square Saturday night. It is also too soon to dismiss or accept the Pakistani Taliban’s posted claim of credit for the car bomb—which said the attempted attack was in retaliation for the recent killing of two al Qaeda leaders in Iraq. From previous experience investigating terrorist attacks (since 1977), I know you need to let the investigation proceed before making any assessment of who may have been responsible for this attempted act of violence. The NYPD and FBI investigators on the scene are the best we have.

That said, we ought to take a look at another plot that was foiled last year to attack the Big Apple for some insights into how our most deadly enemy, al Qaeda, is plotting against us. Last month, Zarein Ahmedzay joined Najibullah Zazi in pleading guilty to a plan to blow themselves up last September—on the eighth anniversary of the 9/11 attacks—on New York subway trains as they passed through Times Square and Grand Central Station at rush hour. Their guilty pleas reveal that they were working for al Qaeda. Ahmedzay and Zazi are Afghan Americans who went to Peshwar, Pakistan, in August 2008 to join the Taliban and fight the NATO army in their homeland. The Taliban introduced them to two senior al Qaeda officials, who encouraged them to go back to America to carry out terror and not waste themselves in Afghanistan. After bomb training in Waziristan, they agreed. The senior al Qaeda officials they met with included Rashid Rauf, a British citizen of Pakistani parents born in Birmingham, England. Rauf was the central player in the 2006 al Qaeda plot to blow up simultaneously between seven and 10 jumbo jets en route from the U.K. to Canada and the U.S. on the fifth anniversary of 9/11. The potential suicide bombers have since been convicted in London and we have seen some of their martyrdom videos played at their trials. Their explosives have been tested and we know they would have worked. Rauf was arrested in Pakistan for the plot; he was the go-between moving back and forth from London to Pakistan to coordinate the attack with al Qaeda’s senior leadership. Rauf escaped from prison in 2007, almost certainly with the help of insiders in the Pakistan intelligence service. He was believed to have been killed in a drone attack in 2008, but British officials told me last week they are not certain of his death.

A third individual is still under indictment in the subway plot and we may learn more if he pleads guilty or goes to trial. What is clear is that al Qaeda has still got the Big Apple in its gun sights. Whether they had anything to do with Saturday’s car bomb or not, we know they are determined to strike inside America again. It is also clear from the Zazi plot and others uncovered in the last six months that al Qaeda has asked all of its allies in the global Islamic jihad, like the Taliban and Lashkar e Tayyiba, and its franchises around the Muslim world, including the one in Yemen, to help it find killers and press the war on America.

[Dig]

You gotta be shitting me...

Gitmo is a terrorist training camp and intelligence gathering arm for Al-CIA-duh and MI6/CIA's Muslim Brotherhood


New York Post:
Another Spying Scandal at Gitmo
Liguists Connected to Muslim Brotherhood Recruit and Train Gitmo Detainees for Future Terrorist Acts in Home Countries
Posted on December 1, 2009 by Anthony By PAUL SPERRY in the New York Post
Last Updated: 2:29 PM, December 1, 2009 Posted: 12:48 AM, December 1, 2009

A number of Arabic and Pashtu interpreters at the terror-war detention center at Guantanamo Bay are under active investigation for omitting valuable intelligence from their translations of detainee interrogations, among other security breaches. This could taint some of the evidence at the “9/11 trial” in New York and proceedings against other detainees. Remarkably, the Pentagon never cleaned up the “mole infestation” at its highest-security facility after the FBI busted a Muslim spy ring at Gitmo in 2003. The 2003 probe involved at least two Arabic interpreters with high-level security clearance. Senior Airman Ahmad al-Halabi, a Syrian native, and former Army linguist Ahmed Mehalba, an Egyptian native, were later convicted of stealing or mishandling classified documents. Six years later comes a new problem with Muslim personnel who have virtually unfettered access to detainees and intelligence at Gitmo. Professional military security and intelligence officials at Gitmo did the preliminary probe, then prepared a classified summary and are now briefing top officials and members of Congress in Washington. An active FBI criminal probe is also under way.

The possible new spy ring involves several Arabic linguists, some also Egyptian and Syrian immigrants. They’re suspected of, among other things:

* Omitting valuable intelligence from their translations of interrogations.
* Slipping notes to detainees inside copies of the Koran.
* Coaching detainees to make allegations of abuse against interrogators.
* Meeting with suspects on the terror watchlist while back in the United States.

Officials say some of the suspected “dirty” linguists — who met privately in a locked mosque at Gitmo — have had access to 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheik Mohammed and other high-value al Qaeda detainees.

“Three years of investigations have revealed the presence of pro-jihad/anti-Western activities among the civilian-contractor and military-linguist population serving Joint Task Force Guantanamo,” states a copy of a classified Gitmo briefing, prepared in May for the FBI, CIA and Congress’ intelligence committees.

The report explains that dirty Arabic linguists have gathered classified data involving detainees, interrogations and security operations in an effort to “disrupt” Gitmo operations and US “intelligence-collection capabilities.”

It goes on to specifically finger the Muslim Brotherhood, a terrorist organization. The US operations and front groups of the Egypt-based brotherhood are the subject of my recently released book, “Muslim Mafia,” which first revealed the contents of the secret Gitmo report.

“These actions are deliberate, carefully planned, global, and to the benefit of the detainees and multiple terrorist organizations, to include al Qaeda and Muslim Brotherhood,” the briefing states.

How did this happen at the highest security facility in the world? In the wake of the Abu Ghraib scandal, US officials went from waterboarding terrorists to handing them prayer rugs and Korans, while calling them to prayer five times a day. Pentagon political correctness dictated turning a blind eye to any questions of loyalty among Muslim linguists and chaplains. Compromised interrogations could affect releases and trials — and the problems go much further.

At least one in seven former Gitmo detainees has returned to terrorism or militant activity. Some recidivists had met with the suspect Muslim translators. Others were privately counseled by Muslim chaplains and lay leaders also under investigation for security breaches. If they fed intelligence to these repatriated detainees, then al Qaeda and the Taliban may know what we know about them and adjust accordingly. Prisoners released from Gitmo are allowed to keep their Korans — and it’s camp policy not to search the holy books. Non-Muslim personnel can’t even touch them. There’s no telling what military secrets have been compromised. Also in question is just how far the enemy has penetrated our critical foreign-language program — not just at Gitmo, but across the entire national security and intelligence complex. Many Arabic linguists are contractors who rotate in and out of the federal security agencies leading the War on Terror. To prevent future betrayal, the government must reevaluate its security-clearance and hiring procedures for contract and military linguists. Post-hiring, it must institute periodic security interviews, polygraph exams and database-access audits for each translator. More immediately, it must review key translations on the shelf for accuracy, using trustworthy translators — and subject new translations to spot-checking in a stringent quality-assurance program. The translation of intelligence against our enemy — evidence that will now be tested in civilian court — can no longer be blindly entrusted to individuals with possibly divided loyalties.

Paul Sperry, a Hoover Institution media fellow, is author of “Infiltration” and the new book “Muslim Mafia.” Sperry@SperryFiles.com

[pac522]

Bump, for later. Summer of Rage, coming soon to a country near you.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LOL12y4QJbg

[Dig]

When the hell is Anderson Cooper, Rachel Maddow, Bill Maher, Bruce Reidel, Joseph Nye, General Abizaid, and all of the other conspirators who helped destabilize countries leaving hundreds of millions to fight over scarce resources going to be investigated for crimes against humanity?

Hey look, the RAND smart mobs have spread to Europe:

Inspired by Arab Spring, Spain's youthful 15-M movement spreads in Europe
http://news.yahoo.com/s/csm/20110520/wl_csm/385206
By Andrés Cala – Fri May 20, 2:33 pm ET

Madrid – Tens of thousands of disenchanted and unemployed young Spaniards refused to leave tent cities they raised over the week in plazas throughout the country, defying an official ban on gatherings ahead of this Sunday’s municipal elections. Some are calling the growing youth movement a "Spanish Revolution" – spread via Twitter and Facebook – that's reminiscent of the 1968 French student movement that catalyzed an unprecedented social and moral overhaul in Europe and throughout the world. Some commentators say the Arab Spring has arrived in Spain. Critics, meanwhile, call it an excuse for a big party. Regardless, the so-called 15-M movement, a reference to the day protesters occupied Plaza del Sol in Madrid, is calling for political and economic reform in Spain and has spread to 166 Spanish cities and to other parts of Europe. Similar plaza takeovers have been organized through online social networks for Friday in at least 10 Italian cities. “I’m here against the system, against everything, the banks, the government, the Popular Party, unemployment. You name it. Nothing works,” says Sabina Ortega, a journalism student. “It’s against a two-party system. And my goal is to feel represented. I want politicians to know they are not listening,” she says. “I’ll stay here as long as I have to.”

Unemployed youth

At more than 21 percent, Spain has Europe’s highest unemployment rate and is also suffering from its worst economic crisis in decades, compounded by a series of draconian austerity measures. One of every two people of working age under 25 is jobless in Spain. They are dubbed “the lost generation.” Young Spaniards are fleeing to other European capitals to find work. Experts, though, say this movement is not just about work, but about feeling alienated and misrepresented. “This is an expression of discontent and it’s understandable. Spain had a generational shift 35 years ago with the transition to democracy, but it hasn’t had any mobility since,” said José Álvarez Junco, a respected writer, historian, professor in Universidad Complutense de Madrid, and an expert in social movements. “They are facing a wall in their professional and personal expectations.”

Sunday's election

Leaders of the Popular Party, who see Sunday’s elections as leading to the ouster of the governing party in the 2012 general elections, have criticized the movement, while the government and Socialist Party have tried to capitalize on the resentment – although apparently without much success. “There is a certain arrogance from the country’s leaders. They forgot what happened 35 years ago when we, because I’m one of them, came to positions of power at a very early age. We should recognize that, but I doubt it will happen because they dismiss them as a rowdy group of youngsters,” says Mr. Junco. “But logically, the Popular Party will benefit from this. More people will decide to skip this election and that benefits the right." Polls even before the plaza takeovers already forecasted the ruling Socialist Party suffering a serious defeat, losing towns and provinces it has controlled for decades to the opposition right-leaning Popular Party.

Reminiscent of 1968 France

But the movement's ability to achieve concrete change is unlikely, at least not through plaza takeovers. The protests are heterogeneous and lack leadership and clear demands, aside from a complete overhaul of the political system. “It’s impossible for a movement without demands to succeed,” Junco says. “It reminds me of May 1968 in France. There is a component of spectacle, but also a great moral expression, a revolution, shaking of the moral conscience, that nonetheless lacks any political achievement.”  The protests began last weekend when police forcefully removed about a dozen tents in Madrid’s main square Puerta del Sol. Inflamed, young people thronged to the square, swelling in number every day, in what is now a tent city the thrives on donations – from food and blankets to power generators – to keep the movement alive.

United in frustrations, divided in message

It has attracted people of all ages and social groups united only by their frustration with the leadership of what many believe is a corrupt elite deaf to the demands for change from the masses.  On the main square, there was an image of a Nazi officer with the swastika replaced by a euro symbol. Slogans were numerous: “This is not a crisis. It’s fraud,” “Don’t vote for them,” “You are all enemies,” “We are not anti-system, the system is anti-us,” and “We will not pay for this crisis.”

There are also posters written in English: “Stop the new world order” and “Democracy is our fight.”  The crowds rose their hands, palms facing forward, chanting: “They don’t represent us. These are our weapons.” Other banged on pots. There was guitar playing, drinking, dancing, and anti-system bashing aplenty.  Just about everyone has a different motive or reason to be there and a different goal. Some want an overhaul of the electoral system, others an all-out revolution, others a reform of the financial system. Some plan to vote, others will cast a no-vote, and most say they will stay away in protest.  “I’m tired of being governed by people who don’t represent me,” says Denis, a political science student who refused to give his last name. "We are all fed up and that is the only thing we have in common. We want our rights back.”  The Electoral Board on Thursday banned a march that protesters planned for Saturday, saying political gatherings are not allowed during the week before the elections. Organizers, however, say they have no political agenda and indeed they are calling for no-vote and criticizing all of Spain’s mainstream parties.  On late Friday, the group voted in favor of extending their plaza takeovers but to avoid clashes voted against a march.

Look at what Bilderberg did to Egypt (80 million people) in less than 6 months!  Here is an account of it from the CFR puppet that was supposed to take over! Even he has been left hanging out to dry as he has to live the rest of his life knowing that he has forever destroyed his people, his county, his culture for the Bilderberg chess players and their trinkets they throw at him:

Finally this moron is realizing that he has helped the globalist Nazi assholes take over the entire country of Egypt to rape her, steal all her assets, and install MI6's Muslim Brotherhood. Guess what El Bardei...you helped destroy Egypt and you know it. You are a traitor to your country and your people by allowing the SMART MOB trojan horse to destroy your TROY! Now release all the documents exposing what the IAEA really is and how it is supposed to regulate nuclear energy to such an unmarketable cost so that the carbon credit ponzi scheme can gain steam.

ElBaradei: I am sorry I wanted Mubarak out, Egypt is much worse now!
http://www.jpost.com/MiddleEast/Article.aspx?id=221660
By BLOOMBERG  05/22/2011 12:11

“Right now, socially, we are disintegrating,” ElBaradei said on CNN’s “Fareed Zakaria GPS,” scheduled to air Sunday. “Economically we are not in the best state. Politically it’s -- it’s like a black hole. We do not know where we are heading.” ElBaradei said many Egyptians don’t feel secure as the country struggles to create a new government after former president Hosni Mubarak was forced from power by protests earlier this year. “People do not feel secure,” ElBaradei said. “They are buying guns” to protect themselves, he said. ElBaradei said he wasn’t sure when a presidential race could begin because there aren’t any laws that outline “how to run a campaign, how you raise funds” or when candidates can become official. “What kind of state or regime we are going to have?” ElBaradei asked. “Is it a presidential system? Is it a parliamentary system? When are we going to have a new constitution?” He also expressed concern about the influence of the Islamic group the Muslim Brotherhood, which has had longer to organize than other nascent political contenders. ElBaradei said the election may slip to next year given the uncertainty.

Amre Moussa, the former Egyptian foreign minister who is stepping down as the head of the Arab League to seek his country’s presidency, said in a separate interview on the CNN program that he doesn’t think Egypt’s current problems will “derail the revolution or derail our quest for and movement towards democracy.” ElBaradei said the Egyptian economy is suffering from no investment, inflation, a budget deficit and lack of tourism. He urged more outside investment in the country to spur an economic recovery. The number of tourists visiting Egypt slumped by about 60 percent in March from a year earlier, after the popular uprising against Mubarak, according to the Cairo-based government statistics agency. Tourists’ spending fell to $352 million from $1 billion, it said. In addition to lost tourism revenue, factory output has been hit by strikes and near-daily protests since the uprising, many demanding wage increases. Growth may slow to 1 percent this year, the lowest rate in almost two decades, the International Monetary Fund has said.

http://www.upi.com/Business_News/Energy-Resources/2011/05/18/Post-Mubarak-Egypt-running-out-of-food/UPI-63801305737085/

Post-Mubarak Egypt 'running out of food'
Published: May 18, 2011 at 12:44 PM

CAIRO, May 18 (UPI) -- Egypt, struggling to consolidate a revolution that deposed President Hosni Mubarak in February, faces what could be even worse turmoil because the country is running out of food as well as the money to buy it. Food prices went up 10.7 percent in April compared to the same month in 2010, government statistics indicate. At the same time, Egypt's annual urban inflation rate surged past 12 percent in April, underlining how key factors that triggered the popular uprising that forced Mubarak from office after 30 years remain in play. A dozen other Arab states were roiled by similar uprisings, some much less intense than Egypt's.

But food prices and related economic grievances played a big part in these upheavals, unprecedented in modern Middle Eastern history. It began in Tunisia, where longtime President Zine el-Abidine Ben Ali was driven from office in January. Then Mubarak was toppled. Three other Arab dictators teeter on the brink: Moammar Gadhafi of civil war-wracked Libya, Ali Abdullah Saleh of Yemen -- whose country is actually running out of water and on the cusp of critical food shortages -- and Bashar Assad of Syria who has sent tanks into the streets to crush protests in which demonstrators howled for his removal. What transpires in Egypt, long the leader of the Arab world, could be a pointer to how other Middle Eastern states may emerge from their wrenching political upheavals. "The most populous country in the Arab world shows all the symptoms of national bankruptcy -- the kind that produced hyperinflation in several Latin American countries during the 1970s and 1980s -- with a deadly difference: Egypt imports half its wheat and the collapse of its external credit means starvation," Asia Times Online observed May 10. "The civil violence we have seen … foreshadows far worse to come. The Arab uprisings began against a background of food insecurity, as rising demand from Asia priced the Arab poor out of the grain market. "The chaotic political response, though, threatens to disrupt food supplies in the relative near term. Street violence will become the norm rather than the exception in Egyptian politics." This bleak assessment in Asia Times Online's Spengler column was underlined by a warning from Ahmad al-Rakaibi, head of Egypt's Holding Company for Food Industries, of "acute shortage in the production of food commodities manufactured locally as well as a decline in imports of many goods, especially poultry, meat and oil."

Egypt is reported to have only four months' supply of wheat on hand and only one month's supply of rice.

Remember that Egypt was becoming financially secure, they had over 99% potable water in the cities and over 84% in the rural areas, they were becoming agra (food) independent, they were weeding out corruption in their financial dealings, Mubarak promoted Arabs acting as human shields to protect Christians at prayer, they rejected many UN style "zero population growth" initiatives, they got ris of Al-CIA-duh elements, they banned MI6's Muslim Brotherhood, and they kept peace with their neighbors.

In less than 6 months, Kissinger and the rest of the Trilateral Terrorists have plundered the country into an apocalyptic nightmare...all by design.

People supporting these "Spring uprisings" need to look at history and see that this is exactly the same NWO gameplan used to genocide over 40 million in Russia and over 80 million in China.

Watch the movie REDS to see how they do it.

THIS IS THE NEW ELITE SPONSORED "COMMUNIST REVOLUTION" BUT IT IS A CYBERNETIC REVOLUTION GLOBALLY!

ALL OF THE CYBERNETIC INFRASTRUCTURE IS IN PLACE. NOTICE HOW ALL THE FUSION CENTERS GET FUNDED WITH $BILLIONS BUT THERE IS NO MONEY FOR TEACHERS! THIS HAS BEEN PLANNED FOR A LONG TIME!