The Girl in the Coca-Cola-in-Arabic T-Shirt at the Neocon Rally (Fly in the Ointment!)

Interesting.

Is the Jewish culture so attached to being suppressed that it has become indivisible from being Jewish?

BTW, Phil, I couldn't find the comment you referenced. Was it deleted?

While I'm still among the living: In a recent post, it was noted that Ron Paul (and Dennis Kucinich) were being characterized as tantamount to anti-semites.

"As to presidential politics, he (Michael Medved) said that Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich were all but antisemites, "both of whom have trafficked with haters of Israel and are basically pledged to the destruction of Israel as we know it."

For Jewish readers, as well as deluded Christian war-mongers (and Moslems, and Zoroastrians and Manicheans and even devotees of Bob) here's the skinny:

At a recent "Values Voters" conference (I assume all-Republican), Dr. Paul was asked to tell voters about his personal faith and what it meant to his life:

"I get to my God through Christ. Christ to me is a man of peace. He is for peace. He is not for war… I strongly believe that there is a Christian doctrine of just war, and I believe the nation has drifted from that. No matter what the rationales are, we have drifted from that, and it's very, very dangerous. And I see it in many ways being un-Christian.

Christ is for love and forgiveness and turning the other cheek, for peace. And to justify what we do in the name of Christianity, I think, is very dangerous and not part of what Christianity is all about. Christ came for spiritual reasons, not secular war and boundaries and geography. And yet we are now dedicating so much of our aggressive activity in the name of God… he is the prince of peace. That is what I see from my God and through Christ. I vote for peace."

Also:

"We cannot go to Washington to dictate to us how to improve our personal behavior. You don't dictate, you don't legislate virtue…"

As Matt Simon writes, "I only hope "values voters" will listen. And to … non-Christians out there, if you're going to have a Christian in the White House, wouldn't you prefer a Christian who practices the virtue of tolerance?"

Sounds good to this Catholic (I assume Paul is Protestant). Not Medved. He prefers a false Christian, a wolf in sheep's costume, who will spill blood again and again. Medved, unaware of the true nature of St. George's purpose in writing '1984,' actually seems to believe that "War is Peace, Ignorance Strength."

Humanity has suffered at the hands of false Christians down through the ages. False Christian popes have condemned the Jews, launched crusades, sat idle while false-Christian bishops and cardinals tortured thousands during the Inquisition. False Christians have donned white hoods and lynched innocents, organized pogroms, built concentration camps, on and on through history. The boot which smashes the face forever is as often, perhaps more often, worn by a false Christian as by an atheist.

Ron Paul seems genuinely devoted to peace. A strong defense, yes, but amicable relations with the world. He does not want to see Israel destroyed: far from it. He wants people to be able to live their lives in peace, just as Martin Buber desired a one-state Israel where Jews and Arabs lived together in harmony. Today, 2007, one state or two, what do I know? But it saddens me to see a good man slandered by hate-mongers.

To all, Shantih. ("OMG, is he quoting Eliot?!")

A really useful article from Phil, I do not however see jews as a persecuted people, I learned to look for myself a long while ago, the past, the present to a future not supressed by such works of art as Joan Peters: From Time Immemorial & associated crap bending international opinion formers. To be honest, Phil, there is quite a history of anti gentile, anti anything not jewish from your people. I think it's time you and others put the persecuted people to bed. I also believe some of *our* own kids are the brightest and best to lead our country forward, we should not have jewish laden policy units, media and acadademic think tanks in a non jewish country – what is going on here? We too have got to get back to being priyud of ourselves and our achievments in this world. We too have an identity – it is not jewish and we should not be afraid of saying so,
History shows more than more than one genocide alas only your community tries to elevate the jewish holocaust above all others. By putting cheap gimmicks and excuses to oneside I think we can start to forge a better way forwards. When the moslems slam international jewish groups and Israel over Iraq they don't lie, aren't anti semites – they are the wronged not the wrong doers.
We need that honest debate more now than ever – with or with out your community.

Here's the link to the Gelb review:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/23/books/review/Gelb-t.html?ref=books

Friday September 21, 2007 05:14 EST

-Giuliani's proposal for endless Middle East wars on behalf of Israel

"In London this week, Rudy Giuliani proposed what is probably the single most extremist policy of any major presidential candidate, certainly this year and perhaps in many years:

Rudy Giuliani talked tough on Iran yesterday, proposing to expand NATO to include Israel and warning that if Iran's leaders go ahead with their goal to be a nuclear power "we will prevent it, or we will set them back five or 10 years." . . . .

While Giuliani did not explicitly address the implications for Iran of adding Israel to NATO in his speech, his aides later highlighted a 2006 Heritage Foundation paper by Nile Gardiner, a former Thatcher aide who was announced as a new Giuliani adviser yesterday.

That step would "leave the mullahs with no illusions about the West's determination to respond to Iran's strategic threat to the region," Gardiner wrote. "Any nuclear or conventional attack on Israel, be it direct or through proxies such as Hezbollah or other terrorist groups, would be met by a cataclysmic response from the West."

Adding Israel to NATO has been opposed by France and some other European nations in the past, largely because it would entangle the alliance in the Middle East.

Like most countries, Israel deems all of its wars to be defensive wars in response to threats. So Rudy Giuliani, as President, would in essence deem any war in which Israel is involved to be, by definition, a war on the U.S., and would use American resources and lives to become involved in any such war and fight on behalf of Israel. Shouldn't the fact that the leading GOP candidate for President believes such a thing be the source of a bit more discussion? Other than John Edwards' views regarding haircuts, is there any major presidential candidate who has espoused a view anywhere near this radical or controversial?

Israel has been involved, and will continue to be involved, in an endless series of wars with its neighbors over matters having nothing to do with U.S. interests. As Matt Yglesias noted, Guiliani's policy would, among many other things, "commit[] the United States to the armed defense of the borders of a country that lacks internationally recognized borders." A Giuliani presidency would mean that we would be almost immediately deemed to be at war with Hamas, Hezbollah, Syria and Iran. It is hard to imagine a more certain and rapid guarantee of endless American wars in the Middle East than this.

In a rational world, Giuliani's proposal would be a major controversy, and the other presidential candidates — Republican and Democrat alike — would be loudly pointing to this extremist view to harm the Giuliani campaign. After all, if Americans are asked: "Do you think the U.S. should fight in any wars that Israel fights?" or "do you believe the U.S. should consider any attack on Israel to be an attack on the U.S.?", is there really any doubt what the views of most Americans would be? Giuliani's desire to commit the U.S. military to fighting in any Israeli wars is obviously a fringe position — the type that normally harms presidential candidates greatly.

During the Israel-Hezbollah war last summer — even with virtually no significant political figures criticizing the Bush administration for involving itself so blatantly in supporting Israel's war effort — the vast majority of Americans wanted the U.S. to stay out of that war. A Washington Post poll found that a plurality (46%) blamed "both sides equally" (Israel and Hezbollah) for the war; a plurality (48%) believed that Israel's claimed "bombing [of] rocket launchers and other Hezbollah targets located in civilian areas" was "not justified"; and a solid majority (54-38%) said Israel "should do more to try to avoid civilian casualties in Lebanon."

More importantly, while large majorities favored the deployment of U.N. peacekeeping forces to Lebanon, a large majority (59-38%) opposed having U.S. troops involved in that force. More significantly still was this finding from an August, 2006 CBS News/New York Times poll:

"Do you think the U.S. has a responsibility to try to resolve the conflict between Israel and other countries in the Middle East, or is that not the U.S.' business?"

Has responsibility – 39%

Not the U.S.' business – 56%

Not sure – 5%

That large majority is opposed merely to America's efforts to broker a resolution, let alone to an American commitment, as Giuliani proposes, to fight in every war that Israel fights with its neighbors. A USA Today/Gallup Poll taken at the same time found:

In the current conflict, do you think the United States should take Israel's side, take the side of Hezbollah, or not take either side?

Israel's – 31%

Hezbollah's – 0%

Neither – 65%

As always, it is worth underscoring how lopsided American public opinion is on these questions even though there is virtually no significant American politician who was or is willing to criticize Israel's actions in Lebanon, and equally few who were willing to argue that U.S. support for Israel is excessive. With Americans now even more overwhelmingly against ongoing U.S. occupation in Iraq than they were back then, these numbers are almost certainly even more imbalanced against increased U.S. involvement in the Middle East.

Plainly, the last thing most Americans want is for the U.S. to expand its involvement in Middle East wars, particularly when doing so is on behalf of the interests not of the U.S., but of another country. Yet here is Giuliani advocating that we do exactly that — embrace an obviously radical strategy opposed by the overwhelming majority of Americans, likely vehemently opposed — and the silence is deafening.

Of course, none of Giuliani's extremism on this issue should be surprising, given that his senior foreign policy advisor is Norman Podhoretz, whose life has been devoted to trying to induce the U.S. to wage war against any country hostile to Israel. Podhoretz was one of the signatories on the 2002 PNAC letter to President Bush which declared that "No one should doubt that the United States and Israel share a common enemy" and — listing Iraq, Iran and Syria, among others — argued that "Israel is fighting the same war." Podhoretz currently "prays" that the U.S. bomb Iran.

This idea of Israel joining NATO is even a fringe idea in Israel, where it has been pushed primarily by Israeli super-hawk, Minister of Strategic Affairs Avigdor Lieberman, consistent with his own self-described mission: "Our first task is to convince Western countries to adopt a tough approach to the Iranian problem." And by "tough approach," he does not mean diplomacy: "The dialogue with Iran will be a 100-percent failure, just like it was with North Korea."

In some sense, one can welcome Giuliani's explicit advocacy that we view all of Israel's enemies as, by definition, enemies of the U.S. Virtually all of the swirling war dances towards Iran are rooted in this belief, but advocates of war with Iran are too dishonest to acknowledge it openly. In his Washington Post column this morning, for instance, Charles Krauthammer — long an advocate of war with Iran — listed the four specific crimes that allegedly demonstrate that Iran is our Enemy ("our" meaning the United States):

(1) Hamas launching rockets into Israeli towns and villages across the border from the Gaza Strip. Its intention is to invite an Israeli reaction, preferably a bloody and telegenic ground assault.

(2) Hezbollah heavily rearmed with Iranian rockets transshipped through Syria and preparing for the next round of fighting with Israel. The third Lebanon war, now inevitable, awaits only Tehran's order.

(3) Syria, Iran's only Arab client state, building up forces across the Golan Heights frontier with Israel. And on Wednesday, yet another anti-Syrian member of Lebanon's parliament was killed in a massive car bombing.

(4) The al-Quds Force of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard training and equipping Shiite extremist militias in the use of the deadliest IEDs and rocketry against American and Iraqi troops. Iran is similarly helping the Taliban attack NATO forces in Afghanistan.

Of the four crimes in the Bill of Particulars against Iran, only one has anything even ostensibly to do with the U.S., and that is composed of highly dubious claims (arming the Taliban) and ones which hardly demonstrate its Evil (they are interfering in a neighboring country of theirs which we invaded and are occupying with 160,000 soldiers). As Krauthammer's column illuminates, for those salivating for an American war with Iran, the case is grounded overwhelmingly in the Giuliani View — that the U.S. should use its resources and lives to wage war against any country hostile to Israel.

Why do Giuliani and Krauthammer and friends feel so free to advocate a plainly fringe position of Endless War on behalf of Israel? Usually, political advocates, and particularly presidential candidates, avoid such positions like the plague. Here, it is because no political figure can possibly oppose this view, at least not explicitly. Is it even possible to imagine a presidential candidate objecting to the view that the U.S. should consider Israel's enemies to be enemies of the U.S., even though vast majorities of Americans share that objection?

As is true for Iraq, it is so striking how little public opinion matters when it comes to formulating American policy. What accounts for the complete unwillingess of any presidential candidate to seize on Giuliani's extremist and fringe position? The neoconservative New York Sun — not Mearsheimer and Walt in their important, richly documented and now NYT-Best-Selling new book, but The New York Sun — provided an answer recently:

It [an AIPAC dinner] is also an important illustration of just how much stock all of the presidential candidates, Democrats and Republicans alike, will put in the pro-Israel community, particularly for campaign dollars. . . . .

A Democratic political consultant who worked on President Clinton's re-election campaign, Hank Sheinkopf, noted that the Aipac dinner always draws a parade of politicians.

"New York is the ATM for American politicians. Large amounts of money come from the Jewish community," he said. "If you're running for president and you want dollars from that group, you need to show that you're interested in the issue that matters most to them."

And, of course, mentioning any of this subjects one to a cascade of predictable and transparently exploitive though still nasty accusations of anti-semitism, and what presidential candidate would possibly want that? And thus Rudy Giuliani can propose a policy that is incomparably dangerous and intensely unpopular, yet know that his doing so will result in no political price being paid.

Now that we are occupying two Middle Eastern countries, with a broken military, and are threatening imminent war with at least another one, isn't it long past time to have the discussion about the extent to which the U.S. is willing to wage war on behalf of Israel's interests? Do Americans really think that Iranian hostility towards Israel or its support for "terrorists groups" that are hostile to Israel are grounds for declaring Iran to be our Enemy or waging war against them? If so, then let proponents of war with Iran make that case expressly. And for the rest of the presidential campaign, shouldn't Giuliani's desire to involve the U.S. military in every war Israel fights be a rather central feature in discussions of his potential presidency?"

– Glenn Greenwald

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2007/09/21/giuliani_israel/index.html

.

Thanks David. I told you guys Glenn Greenwald is demolishing the War Party in a very convincing and matter-of-factly, non-partisan way. And he is read a lot and making an impact. Read his comments section and you'll see what I mean.

As far as Osama bin Laden is concerned, the latest videos were faked too. In my personal opinion, he is probably either dead or sitting pretty in some secret CIA prison.

(The 'War on Terror' is not about Osama or Al Qaeda, or at least not anymore. It's really about the implementation of this agenda:

http://www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf

Read this document, look at how many of its recommendations have been implemented since 9/11 and tell me if Im wrong because its mind boggling.)

And the facts that

1) faked videos came out on the anniversary of 9/11 while the 'surge' propaganda campaign was climaxing, and that

2) occasionally he supposedly mentions approvingly war critics like Chomsky or Michael Scheuer or Robert Fisk,

would look very suspicious to me even if the videos were deemed authentic – which they weren't. It seems whenever the Bush administration needs a boost, bin Laden shows up to help giving new meaning to the term 'deus ex machina'.

Also remember Brzezinski's incredible February 2007 testimony to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee:

**********

"[...] If the United States continues to be bogged down in a protracted bloody
involvement in Iraq, the final destination on this downhill track is likely to
be a head-on conflict with Iran and with much of the world of Islam at large.
A plausible scenario for a military collision with Iran involves Iraqi failure
to meet the benchmarks; followed by accusations of Iranian responsibility
for the failure; then by some provocation in Iraq or a terrorist act in the U.S.
blamed on Iran; culminating in a “defensive” U.S. military action against
Iran that plunges a lonely America into a spreading and deepening quagmire
eventually ranging across Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, and Pakistan. "

http://www.senate.gov/~foreign/hearings/2007/hrg070201a.html

**********

Do you understand how incredible what you just read is? Brzezinski, of all people, goes to testify before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and warns of "a terrorist act in the U.S. blamed on Iran"!!!

In my opinion, if something does happen, it won't be Bin Laden doing it or Iran.

In addition to the example of the Taiwanese lobby, Gelb adduces the fact that nominal U.S. policy has always been that Israel must return the occupied territories, as proof that the lobby has no teeth. :)

http://dilbertblog.typepad.com/the_dilbert_blog/2007/09/a-feeling-im-be.html

I was happy to hear that NYC didn't allow Iranian President Ahmadinejad to place a wreath at the WTC site. And I was happy that Columbia University is rescinding the offer to let him speak. If you let a guy like that express his views, before long the entire world will want freedom of speech.

I hate Ahmadinejad for all the same reasons you do. For one thing, he said he wants to "wipe Israel off the map." Scholars tell us the correct translation is more along the lines of wanting a change in Israel's government toward something more democratic, with less gerrymandering. What an a#s-muncher!

Ahmadinejad also called the holocaust a "myth." F*#k him! A myth is something a society uses to frame their understanding of their world, and act accordingly. It's not as if the world created a whole new country because of holocaust guilt and gives it a free pass no matter what it does. That's Iranian crazy talk. Ahmadinejad can blow me.

Most insulting is the fact that "myth" implies the holocaust didn't happen. F*#k him for saying that! He also says he won't dispute the historical claims of European scientists. That is obviously the opposite of saying the holocaust didn't happen, which I assume is his way of confusing me. God-d*mned f*#ker.

Furthermore, why does an Iranian guy give a speech in his own language except for using the English word "myth"? Aren't there any Iranian words for saying a set of historical facts has achieved an unhealthy level of influence on a specific set of decisions in the present? He's just being an as#@ole.

Ahmadinejad believes his role is to pave the way for the coming of the Twelfth Imam. That's a primitive apocalyptic belief! I thank Jesus I do not live in a country led by a man who believes in that sort of bullshit. Imagine how dangerous that would be, especially if that man had the launch codes for nuclear weapons.

The worst of the worst is that Ahmadinejad's country is helping the Iraqis kill American soldiers. If Iran ever invades Canada, I think we'd agree the best course of action for the United States is to be constructive and let things sort themselves out. Otherwise we'd be just as evil as the Iranians. Those fu#%ers.

Those Iranians need to learn from the American example. In this country, if the clear majority of the public opposes the continuation of a war, our leaders will tell us we're terrorist-humping idiots and do whatever they d*mn well please. They might even increase our taxes to do it. That's called leadership.

If Ahmadinejad thinks he can be our friend by honoring our heroes and opening a dialogue, he underestimates our ability to misinterpret him. F#@!ing idiot. I hate him.

As per Alan, Brzezinski's comments, "…accusations of Iranian responsibility for the failure; then by some provocation in Iraq or a terrorist act in the U.S. blamed on Iran…" illustrate in the starkest possible terms that we are living in the Age of Cognitive Dissonance. Here is the former National Security Advisor, former head of and founder of the Trilateral Commission, a director of the CFR, saying before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee that the U.S. government may conduct a false-flag operation to engender war with Iran, and there's not a whisper of it in the press. Short of Brzezinski immolating himself on the White House lawn with a note attached, what more can he do? My take on it was that he was doing his level best to derail the imminent plans of the Cheney faction to do exactly that. So far, it seems to have worked (thank God!). It looks like we'll go to war without the false-flag event, now that the Cheneyites have determined that they can get away with anything anyway and nothing seems to matter anymore. Toss out a Ken Burns docu about WW2 to get the "base" all tingly, then launch the attack.

Don't believe in false-flag attacks. Read about Gladio, specifically about the Bologna train station bombing in 1980:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gladio

If Zbig saved Detroit from being dirty-bombed, I guess that's something, in this sad day and age.

PS. If Ron Paul gets elected, I hope he makes Glenn Greenwald Attorney General.

Just a brief warning to conspiracy theory lovers:

Osama bin Laden is NOT repeat NOT Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny… He really does exist.

It is the height of Amero-centric, navel gazing to think that someone who has rock star status among 1.3 billion Muslims is an X-file creation of the CIA's black arts department

About the attack on Andrew Meyer:

It was not only the behavior of that 'campus police' that was frightening, but also that of Kerry and the bystanders – largely a student public for chrissake.

A chorus of boos would have been the least you could have expected, but nothing. Not a peep out of Kerry either.

The 'campus police' claimed that they took action because Meyer's 'speaking time' was up – which is of course bs, because this was not a structured debate, just a bloke asking some questions.

They took action because here was somebody who became 'controversial' towards the main authority figure present: Kerry – and apparently that is 'strengstens verboten' in today's America.

David Seaton, nobody said Osama bin Laden is fictive. What I said is that there is a wider agenda here – using the 'War on Terror' as pretext – that would be not easily implemented if Osama were to be caught or killed. And we shouldn't forget that the special forces teams that were on his hunt were diverted for the Iraq war, suggesting that the Bush administration had indeed other priorities than to do everything it could to catch him.

Also, the fact that all of his videos of the past 3-4 years were faked should make one wonder what is going on. It is not too far fetched to assume that he is dead and that the Pentagon creates faked videos to keep Americans scared and the 'freedom agenda' rolling. One should wonder if bin Laden is more useful alive than dead. And if you think this is a 'conspiracy theory', explain the faked videos!

P.S. For all the smart asses who dismiss false flag or psy-ops or propaganda operations as 'conspiracy theories', I have one thing to say: Welcome to the real world. These things happen. In final analysis, what are intelligence agencies and psy-ops military departments if not conspiracy specialists?

Anyone who thinks we live in an innocent world where these type of things don't happen might as well believe in Santa Claus and has a lot of reading to do. Just because the term 'conspiracy' has bad connotations today doesn't mean conspiracies don't happen anymore.

I'd rather take Brzezinski seriously than believe in Santa Claus!

Required reading for those who need to land on the real world is the document that defines the 'freedom agenda' and has the famous sentence that became the mother of conspiracy theorism:

"[…] Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event––like a new Pearl Harbor."

http://www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf

Project participants:

**********

- Paul Wolfowitz, Nitze School of Advanced International Studies, Johns Hopkins University

- I. Lewis Libby, Dechert Price & Rhoads

- William Kristol, The Weekly Standard

- Stephen Cambone, National Defense University

- Abram Shulsky, The RAND Corporation

- Donald Kagan, Yale University

- Fred Kagan, U. S. Military Academy at West Point

- Robert Kagan, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace

- Eliot Cohen, Nitze School of Advanced International Studies, Johns Hopkins University

- Alvin Bernstein, National Defense University

- Devon Gaffney, Cross Donors' Forum for International Affairs

- Thomas Donnelly, Project for the New American Century

- David Epstein, Office of Secretary of Defense, Net Assessment

- Robert Killebrew, Col., USA (Ret.)

- David Fautua, Lt. Col., U.S. Army

- Dan Goure, Center for Strategic and International Studies

- Mark Lagon, Senate Foreign Relations Committee

- Roger Barnett, U.S. Naval War College

- James Lasswell, GAMA Corporation

- Robert Martinage, Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessment

- Phil Meilinger, U.S. Naval War College

- Mackubin Owens, U.S. Naval War College

- Steve Rosen, Harvard University

- Gary Schmitt, Project for the New American Century

- Michael Vickers, Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessment

- Barry Watts, Northrop Grumman Corporation

- Dov Zakheim, System Planning Corporation

**********

Who was involved with the New American Century Project?

**********

Signatories or contributors to other significant letters or reports [Wikipedia]

* Elliott Abrams
* Kenneth Adelman
* Richard V. Allen
* Richard L. Armitage
* Gary Bauer
* Jeffrey Bell
* William J. Bennett
* Jeffrey Bergner
* John R. Bolton
* Ellen Bork
* Rudy Boschwitz
* Linda Chavez
* Eliot Cohen
* Seth Cropsey
* Midge Decter
* Paula Dobriansky
* Thomas Donnelly
* Nicholas Eberstadt
* Hillel Fradkin
* Aaron Friedberg
* Francis Fukuyama
* Frank Gaffney
* Jeffrey Gedmin
* Reuel Marc Gerecht
* Charles Hill
* Bruce P. Jackson
* Eli S. Jacobs
* Michael Joyce
* Donald Kagan
* Robert Kagan
* Zalmay Khalilzad
* Jeane Kirkpatrick
* Charles Krauthammer
* William Kristol
* John Lehman
* I. Lewis Libby
* Tod Lindberg
* Rich Lowry
* Clifford May
* Joshua Muravchik
* Michael O'Hanlon
* Martin Peretz
* Richard Perle
* Daniel Pipes
* Norman Podhoretz
* Peter W. Rodman
* Stephen P. Rosen
* Donald Rumsfeld
* Randy Scheunemann
* Gary Schmitt
* William Schneider, Jr
* Richard H. Shultz
* Henry Sokolski
* Stephen J. Solarz
* Vin Weber
* Leon Wieseltier
* Marshall Wittmann
* Paul Wolfowitz
* R. James Woolsey
* Dov Zakheim
* Robert B. Zoellick

**********

See also:

http://rightweb.irc-online.org/profile/1535

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_for_the_New_American_Century

This agenda has nothing to do with bin Laden, but 9/11 made it possible for this agenda to start getting implemented (read the document and see for yourselves). If Osama were to be caught or killed, and this became known, this agenda would be finished. And judging from the participants of the PNAC and those who funded it, including all the major Military Industrial Complex companies, this wouldn't be exactly happy news to them. I can only explain the fake bin Laden videos with the following three scenarios:

1) Osama bin Laden is hiding and not putting out videos or messages, so the Pentagon creates faked videos to advance that agenda anyway because the 'War on Terror' and the 'Freedom Agenda' must go on. That wouldn't explain though why he hasn't created a true, incontestable video pointing this out.

2) Osama died a few years ago, maybe at Torra Borra (where Bush supposedly let him go!) but he is more useful when thought to be alive, thus the faked videos because the 'War on Terror' and the 'Freedom Agenda' must go on.

3) Osama bin Laden is fabricating his own videos with fake beards and sound overdubs because he is having fun learning sound and video editing in his cave.

.

Just was watching Ahmadinejad’s performance at Columbia live on NYT-video. Very impressive. He is a very talented communicator and was actually interrupted several times by applause.

I think that Osama bin Laden is well known where he is currently in residence, Waziristan, and that he makes and distributes his videos with total impunity because he has lots of friends in Pakistan. The amount of people who follow him, respect him and protect him is one of he biggest parts of the problem.

Do you really think that all this organization and daring is not within the capability of Arabs and South Asians and that it all of it has to be guided from the "mothership"?

I just got finished hearing Ahmadinejad say that the United States is too self-centered, too self-absorbed. I think your theories are proof of his thesis.

You must understand that this whole story is not really about the USA, bin Laden is just using the USA to radicalize the Umma. The USA is not the star in this film, it is merely in a supporting role. If this were understood more clearly, some intelligent action might flow from that insight.

Osama can be real AND Western governments can be exploiting him for their own purposes. (Adam Curtis's 2004 documentary The Power of Nightmares — while not the final word on the War on Terror — has stood up remarkably well in demonstrating this symbiotic relationship. I'm always amazed at how he managed to "get it" so soon.)

(BTW, "rock star status among 1.3 billion Muslims" might be overstating his following just a bit.)

Osama can be real AND Western governments can be exploiting him to their own ends. (Adam Curtis's 2004 documentary The Power of Nightmares — while not the final word on the War on Terror — has stood up remarkably well in demonstrating this symbiotic relationship. I'm always amazed at how he managed to get it so quickly.)

(BTW, "rock star status among 1.3 billion Muslims" might be overstating his following just a bit.)

Agreed. The question though is why so many messages are either questionable or outright fake and whether he is dead.

Duke University professor Bruce Lawrence who is probably the greatest expert on Bin Laden and who has written "Messages to the World: The Statements of Osama bin Laden", a collection and analysis of his writings and messages, thinks that bin Laden is dead. He has disputed the authenticity of several messages and videos:

http://abclocal.go.com/wtvd/story?section=local&id=3828678

His book:

http://www.amazon.com/Messages-World-Statements-Osama-Laden/dp/1844670457/ref=pd_bbs_2/105-8394934-4883632?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1190668931&sr=8-2

As far as the credibility of CIA confirmations of authenticity go, it suffices to mention that just a few weeks after such a definitive confirmation of authenticity, Swiss scientists embarrassed the CIA by stating they were 95% sure that the bin Laden tape was fake:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/alqaida/story/0,12469,851112,00.html

"[…] But researchers at the Dalle Molle Institute for Perceptual Artificial Intelligence, in Lausanne, believe the message was recorded by an impostor.
In a study commissioned by France 2 television, researchers built a computer model of Bin Laden's voice, based on an hour of genuine recordings.
Using voice recognition systems being developed for banking security, they tested the model against 20 known recordings of Bin Laden. The system correctly identified his voice in 19 of them.
This meant there was only a 5% risk of error in their conclusion that the latest tape is a fake, Professor Hervé Bourlard, the institute's director, told the Guardian yesterday. "It's an automatic system but it's very sensitive," he said. "It picks up things the human ear doesn't pick up."
He agreed that the sound quality of the recent tape was poor but added: "Many of our 20 [test] recordings were also of poor quality. Some were very good, some very bad, but our results were all positive except in one case."
Prof Bourlard, a voice recognition expert, is the author or joint author of 150 research papers and two books, and has worked extensively with the International Computer Science Institute at Berkeley, California."

**********

And what about the latest videos?

http://www.news.com/8301-10784_3-9777136-7.html

I think if Bin Laden were actually dead the rumor would have gotten around first Waziristan and then Pakistan before it ever reached the western "experts". I imagine quite a few people see him on a daily basis and quite a few people see those people. That Bin Laden can live and work with impunity in atomic Pakistan is the bottom line of the disastrous policies of Washington over the years.

Part of the problem here is our imagining that we are the central part of this narrative, when in fact we are merely bystanders, albeit not innocent ones.

"Arie, I hope you're right about Howard being tossed on his ear. Is Labor a "pretend" opposition, like the U.S. Dems, or will they be able to effectively dismantle Howard's security state?"

That remains to be seen.'Hope springs eternal in the human breast.'

I must say though that Labor has opposed (Australia's) involvement in Iraq right from the start, unlike most of the American Democrats.

The present Labor leader, Kevin Rudd, also seems to be opposed to the unchecked market forces glorified by the conservatives. But it seems to me that there has always been more resistance against that in Australia than in the US, since the ideals of individual enterprise and responsibility, as opposed to that of social solidarity, never ranked as highly in Oz.

The fall of British Singapore to the Japanese was for Australians the sign to look for another protector that was found in the US. Rudd claims that he attaches the same value to that alliance as his conservative opponent does, but in his heart of hearts he is probably, like the last Labor Prime Minister, Keating, inclined to the 'Asian turn'. Personal elements that are conducive to this is that he specialized in Mandarin and Chinese history.He addressed the Chinese President in that language during his recent visit, thus upstaging the present Foreign Minister, Alexander Downer (called 'Lord Downer of Bagdad' by some opponents) who muttered something about him knowing French.

Also, one of Rudd's daughters is married to a Chinese.

Yet, I would think that the US is still more popular in Australia than in virtually any other Western country. There are some polls pointing in that direction. Rudd has to take that into account.

For the rest he seems to be a very average Australian: working class origin, catholic, family man, not suspected of corruption, drinking or womanizing.

As far as the security state is concerned: he can hardly do worse than the present crowd that has been busily demolishing ancient protections for individual liberty with glee. Whether he will do much better on this score remains, as said, to be seen.