Monday, June 25, 2007
All the evidence suggests that 9/11 was an Israeli false flag operation, carried out with the assistance of key individuals and elements within the United States by a Zionist elite. One of these individuals is Larry Silverstein, who purchased the 99 year lease on the World Trade Center complex in July 2001 and who oversaw control of the complex before and during the attacks, along with Australian real estate tycoon Frank Lowy of Westfield America. Silverstein and Lowy are good friends, and Silverstein has been a director of Lowy's Westfield America since May 1997. Silverstein is connected to the Zionist elite in Israel in numerous ways, most notably via his close association and friendship with no less than three former Israeli prime ministers, namely Benjamin Netanyahu, Ariel Sharon and Ehud Barak. Silverstein is especially close to Benjamin Netanyahu who was in New York on the morning of 9/11, and who fathered the "war on terror" doctine. According to Haaretz.com, "Many Israeli politicians are acquainted in one degree or another with the 70-year-old Silverstein." It's via these channels that Silverstein was uniquely placed to assist Israeli intelligence and the Zionist mafia in Israel and America with carrying out the 9/11 attacks.
As an American born Jew, Silverstein is committed to Jewish causes. He was chairman of the board of the United Jewish Appeal (UJA) and remains a member of the executive committee, along with his wife, Klara, who is also a founding member of the Jewish Women's Foundation. His son, Roger, and his daughter, Lisa, are also UJA contributors. Roger Silverstein, director of leasing for WTC 7, serves on the executive committee of the Real Estate Executive Division of the UJA, and his daughter Lisa is co-chair of the UJA (source). According to it's website, the UJA is the most successful local charity in the history of the United States, and has raised millions of dollars in support of the Jewish community and the state of Israel.
Welcome to the new Cold War.
Putin cannot ignore the gravity of the proposed system or the threat it poses to Russia ’s national security. Bush’s Missile Defense is not defensive at all, but offensive. It thrusts US military bases--with nuclear infrastructure and radar--up to Russia ’s doorstep giving the US a clear advantage in “first-strike” capability. That means that Washington will be able to intimidate Russia on issues that are of critical international importance. Putin cannot allow this. He must force Bush to remove this dagger held to Moscow ’s throat.
Friday, June 15, 2007
Putin’s performance was a tour de force. He fielded all of the questions however misleading or insulting. He was candid and statesmanlike and demonstrated a good understanding of all the main issues.
Thursday, June 07, 2007
On May 14, at an industry conference in Colorado sponsored by the Defense Intelligence Agency, the U.S. government revealed for the first time how much of its classified intelligence budget is spent on private contracts: a whopping 70 percent. Based on this year’s estimated budget of at least $48 billion, that would come to at least $34 billion in contracts. The figure was disclosed by Terri Everett, a senior procurement executive in the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, the agency established by Congress in 2004 to oversee the 16 agencies that make up the U.S. intelligence infrastructure. A copy of Everett's unclassified PowerPoint slide presentation, titled "Procuring the Future" and dated May 25, was obtained by Salon. (It has since become available on the DIA's Web site.) "We can't spy ... If we can't buy!" one of the slides proclaims, underscoring the enormous dependence of U.S. intelligence agencies on private sector contracts.
The DNI figures show that the aggregate number of private contracts awarded by intelligence agencies rose by about 38 percent from the mid-1990s to 2005. But the surge in outsourcing has been far more dramatic measured in dollars: Over the same period of time, the total value of intelligence contracts more than doubled, from about $18 billion in 1995 to about $42 billion in 2005.
Wednesday, May 30, 2007
If you think George W. Bush and the neoconservatives inducted "regime change" into American foreign policy's hall of fame? Think again. Long before Iraq, U.S. presidents, spies, corporate types and their acolytes abroad had honed the art of deposing foreign governments.
The recent ouster of Saddam Hussein may have turned "regime change" into a contemporary buzzword, but it's been a tactic of American foreign policy for more than 110 years. Beginning with the ouster of Hawaii's monarchy in 1893, Kinzer runs through the foreign governments the U.S. has had a hand in toppling. Recent invasions of countries such as Grenada and Panama may be more familiar to readers than earlier interventions in Iran and Nicaragua.
Wednesday, May 16, 2007
George W. Bush has, of course, flagrantly violated his oath of office, which requires him "to protect and defend the constitution," and the opposition party has been remarkably reluctant to hold him to account. Among the "high crimes and misdemeanors" that, under other political circumstances, would surely constitute the Constitutional grounds for impeachment are these: the President and his top officials pressured the Central Intelligence Agency to put together a National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) on Iraq's nuclear weapons that both the administration and the Agency knew to be patently dishonest. They then used this false NIE to justify an American war of aggression. After launching an invasion of Iraq, the administration unilaterally reinterpreted international and domestic law to permit the torture of prisoners held at Abu Ghraib prison in Baghdad, at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, and at other secret locations around the world.
Nothing in the Constitution, least of all the commander-in-chief clause, allows the president to commit felonies. Nonetheless, within days after the 9/11 attacks, President Bush had signed a secret executive order authorizing a new policy of "extraordinary rendition," in which the CIA is allowed to kidnap terrorist suspects anywhere on Earth and transfer them to prisons in countries like Egypt, Syria, or Uzbekistan, where torture is a normal practice, or to secret CIA prisons outside the United States where Agency operatives themselves do the torturing.
On the home front, despite the post-9/11 congressional authorization of new surveillance powers to the administration, its officials chose to ignore these and, on its own initiative, undertook extensive spying on American citizens without obtaining the necessary judicial warrants and without reporting to Congress on this program. These actions are prima-facie violations of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (and subsequent revisions) and of Amendment IV of the Constitution.
These alone constitute more than adequate grounds for impeachment, while hardly scratching the surface.
Saturday, May 05, 2007
Minneapolis Vigil: Hagee’s “Night To Honor Israel” Promotes “Christian” Serial Wars: Chuck Carlson for We Hold These Truths
Christian Zionism, by whatever name and in spite of its claim to the contrary, is a theology steeped in support of recent wars. Most who were once part of this 150-year-old sect, including this author, thought the call to war began in 1948 with the creation of political State of Israel, which state was destined for war by the stated intent of its founders. Fortunately a few visionaries, including the late Phillip Mauro, foresaw Christian Zionism’s warring proclivities many years before the World Zionist movement hatched political Israel. Mauro’s prediction proves our point in advance of us. *Endnote
The Money Masters is a 1995 movie, produced by Patrick S. J. Carmack and directed and narrated by Bill Still, who assert the film is a documentary on the history of central banking, monetary policy, the "bond system", the Federal Reserve System, and fractional-reserve banking in the United States.
Saturday, April 21, 2007
Russian Roulette and the War on Iran: Ulterior Motives of a Potential Iran War Profiteer—and Its Risks by Ali Fathollah Nejad for Global Research
Chuck Carlson's anti-Zionist, anti-Christian Zionist web site entitled, "We Hold These Truths," lists special friends and foes of his truth movement. Mark Dankof of BATR and the Republic Broadcasting Network is listed as a friend. Interesting list for reading.
For the "We Hold These Truths" list of friends and foes, click here.
Monday, April 16, 2007
This war has now gone on longer than World War II. And that is an incredible statement, since the opposing army collapsed in only a few days. The people the neo-cons promised would greet our forces with flowers now have insurgent fighters who number at least two thirds of our forces on the ground and whose goal is to convince us to leave as soon as possible.
The perverse logic of this situation is that without exaggerating we could have declared victory at the end of the first couple of weeks and brought at least the bulk of our combat forces home. Bush made the announcement with great flourish, but then he failed to get the point: If we have won, let's quit while we are ahead.
Wednesday, April 04, 2007
(Mark Dankof editorial byte: Does Bill Clinton's position on Carter's book have something to do with Hillary's need for the Zionist lobby in the Presidential sweepstakes and the role of the Jews in helping her raise $26 million in the first quarter money reports?????)
Historically, the Democratic Party has been the party of war in the United States, having actively maneuvered to involve the U.S. in the First World War, Second World War, Korea, and Vietnam in spite of considerable popular support for isolationism or nonintervention, particularly among Republicans. That continues to be the case in spite of the White House's unfortunate adoption of the neoconservative formula for world domination, which is derived from the neocons' Trotskyite and Straussian roots rather than from any genuine, conservative Republican tradition. While the ever mutable Mitt Romney and other Republican presidential candidates are striking the obligatory hard-line poses in front of Israeli audiences and groups like the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), most Republican congressmen do not see Iran as a front-burner issue and would be extremely reluctant to consider a military option. That is not necessarily true of the Democrats.
Link to full article: click here.
Feinstein, who served as chairperson for the committee from 2001–2005, came under fire early last year in these pages for profiting by way of her husband Richard Blum who holds large stakes in two defense contracting companies. Both businesses, URS and Perini, have scored lucrative contracts in Iraq and Afghanistan in the last four years, and Blum has personally pocketed tens of millions of dollars off the deals his wife, along with her colleagues, so graciously approved.
But is it necessary? Can US have access to oil without dominating the region? Can Israel accept the fact that others also feel insecure and need guarantees for their security? US by trying to exert total control over the region has lost control and paradoxically made Israel less secure. Should US engage in a new war to reverse its setbacks and address Israel’s insecurity or should it try to accept the facts on the ground and work towards a new arrangement, where other countries interests are also taken into account. This is not easy, especially for the US who sees the Middle East through the Israeli eyes. Let us not forget how we ended-up in Iraq in the first place. It is a sin to say this, but at times, it appears that indeed the tail wags the dog. For example look at the Israel’s stated strategy for the 2000 and beyond with the events that have taken place.
Saturday, March 24, 2007
Some of the most determined are Arab-Americans, who have been growing in numbers and influence for years—there are probably about 3.5m of them—and who have been in the eye of a political storm since September 11th 2001. They are a growing political force in northern Ohio and Michigan, and their institutions, such as the Arab American Institute and the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), have plenty of access to Middle Eastern money.
But so far their performance has been unimpressive. James Zogby has been promising a breakthrough for his Arab American Institute for 20 years. CAIR remains marginal. Arab-Americans are badly split between Christians (63%) and Muslims (24%). They have also been late in taking to politics. Between 1990 and 2004 Arab-Americans donated $788,968 to candidates and parties, compared with $56.8m from pro-Israeli groups.
There is no evidence that any group, other than the neoconservatives, had so marked Iraq for attack; the oil interest and the foreign-policy establishment certainly had not. No conspiracy was necessary; rather, the neocons openly advocated such a policy, as did Ariel Sharon's government, and it was in line with long-held Likudnik thinking. Sharon's government not only supported the war but also helped to facilitate it through bogus intelligence.
Now Pelosi has, in effect, ceded Bush carte blanche to take out Iran's nuclear facilities. It's all up to him and Cheney.
For this the nation elected a Democratic Congress?
Why did Pelosi capitulate? Answer: She was "under pressure from some conservative members of her caucus, and from lobbyists associated with neoconservative groups that want war with Iran and the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC)," writes [John] Nichols [of The Nation].
Today, virtually the entire world is “revisionist.” Regardless of what President Bush and his friends may snidely suggest, the revisionists were and are right, and revisionism – that is, thoughtful skepticism of official claims – is an honorable and essential feature of any free society.
In recent years, awareness of the Jewish-Zionist role in the war, of the reality of Jewish-Zionist power, and of its hold on US policy, has grown everywhere – an awareness that, once grasped, is obvious and confirmed anew each day with the unfolding of events
Sunday, March 18, 2007
Dr. Kevin Barrett
Muslim-Jewish-Christian Alliance for 9-11 Truth (MUJCA)
POB 221, Lone Rock, WI 53556
Friday, March 16, 2007
Rabbi Block, who said he is an “AIPAC supporter” and participates in local activities of the lobby, added that “there are those I love and respect in my community who believe we should work with Pastor Hagee on the important concern we share—the welfare of the state of Israel. However, despite what may be good intentions, I don’t think Pastor Hagee’s activism is good for Israel.”
Rabbi Haim Dov Beliak, cofounder of a We site that opposes Christian right church-state policies, said that Hagee’s AIPAC appearance will mark a “decisive point when the costs of a relationship with Hagee couldn’t be clearer. AIPAC has to know that Hagee’s push for an attack on Iran is not based on a logically constructed policy but on cherry-picked biblical verses. And it is only the first step to the end-times scenario that Hagee enthusiastically predicts will engulf Israel in a devastating war.”
A former AIPAC official said giving Rev. Hagee a key speaking slot represents one more step toward an AIPAC embrace of the Evangelicals that began more than two decades ago, and warned that it has political risks.
# US Vice President Dick Cheney
# MK Binyamin Netanyahu
# Deputy Defense Minister Ephraim Sneh and Former CIA Director James Woolsey
# AIPAC President, Mr. Howard Friedman
# AIPAC impact on the youth, Aaron Applbaum
# Pastor John Hagee, Founder and Senior Pastor, Cornerstone Church, San Antonio, Texas
# From Campus to the Capitol
Tuesday, March 06, 2007
The New Republic's Odd New Owner (the pro-Zionist CanWest Communications and Asper Family: Media Matters
Following a deadly, anti-Israeli terrorist attack in Jerusalem in 2001, a CanWest chain-wide editorial announced "Howsoever the Israeli government chooses to respond to this barbaric atrocity should have the unequivocal support of the Canadian government" [emphasis added]. CanWest deplored "the usual hand-wringing criticism about 'excessive force' " and declared, "Nothing is excessive." (Papers were instructed not to publish columns or letters to the editor taking issue with that editorial.)
During an October 2002 speech, Izzy Asper eviscerated media coverage of the Middle East, complaining that "lazy," "sloppy," "stupid," and "anti-Semitic" reporters suffer from a pro-Palestinian bias. "'They have adopted Palestinian propaganda as the context of their stories. They have become partisans in, and not providers of, knowledge about this war against Israel," said Asper.
Who is Ali Reza Azkari? For those who know the languages of the Middle East it is obvious from his middle name, Reza, that Ali is Iranian. Those who follow Iranian political history will know that he was a former Iranian deputy defense minister. And for many years Ali Reza Azkari was the highest ranking Iranian intelligence officer in Lebanon.
February 7th is the last time Ali Reza Azkari was sighted. Iran has sent a team to Turkey to investigate the situation. Iran has asked Interpol to intercede and help find their man. Iran has asked local Turkish authorities for their eyes, ears and assistance. To date, there are no leads. Nothing, just dead ends.
The one thing Iran has not done is issue an official statement speaking of the disappearance of one of their top officials and most valued diplomats. Iran has not yet officially recognized the disappearance, the probable kidnapping, of a man who holds - in his head - the secrets of the nation of Iran.
Azkari's plane originated in Damascus, Syria and touched down in Istanbul, Turkey. He was either grabbed from the airport or from his hotel. He was a former Iranian deputy defense minister. And for many years Ali Reza Azkari was the highest ranking Iranian intelligence officer in Lebanon.
Who would do such a thing? The Mossad.
I'll tell you who else -- the good ol' red, white and blue CIA, in a plan coordinated with the Mossad. The CIA has a vast set of resources and a large operation working out of Istanbul. The Mossad has the language skills and the cultural ease and know-how necessary to do the job.
That goes against what I regard as the fundamental reason for the war: the war was led by neoconservatives and fought in the interests of Israel, at least as Likudniks envision Israel's interests. It is all well-documented, though the neocons imply that Israeli interests coincide with those of the United States. But as I point out in my article on the subject — and this fact is on the public record, too — the original idea for the war was conceived in Israel. Moreover, the war achieved the goal hoped for by the Likudniks — destabilization of the Middle East.
Saturday, February 17, 2007
This means that by 2008, Bush’s wars in the Muslim world will have cost each American man, woman, and child $2,300.
by Donald L. Barlett and James B. Steele March 2007
One of the great staples of the modern Washington movie is the dark and ruthless corporation whose power extends into every cranny around the globe, whose technological expertise is without peer, whose secrets are unfathomable, whose riches defy calculation, and whose network of allies, in and out of government, is held together by webs of money, ambition, and fear. You've seen this movie a dozen times. Men in black coats step from limousines on wintry days and refer guardedly to unspeakable things. Surveillance cameras and eavesdropping devices are everywhere. Data scrolls across the movie screen in digital fonts. Computer keyboards clack softly. Seemingly honorable people at the summit of power—Cabinet secretaries, war heroes, presidents—turn out to be pathetic pawns of forces greater than anyone can imagine. And at the pinnacle of this dark and ruthless corporation is a relentless and well-tailored titan—omniscient, ironic, merciless—played by someone like Christopher Walken or Jon Voight.
To be sure, there isn't really such a corporation: the Omnivore Group, as it might be called. But if there were such a company—and, mind you, there isn't—it might look a lot like the largest government contractor you've never heard of: a company known simply by the nondescript initials SAIC (for Science Applications International Corporation), initials that are always spoken letter by letter rather than formed into a pronounceable acronym. SAIC maintains its headquarters in San Diego, but its center of gravity is in Washington, D.C. With a workforce of 44,000, it is the size of a full-fledged government agency—in fact, it is larger than the departments of Labor, Energy, and Housing and Urban Development combined. Its anonymous glass-and-steel Washington office—a gleaming corporate box like any other—lies in northern Virginia, not far from the headquarters of the C.I.A., whose byways it knows quite well. (More than half of SAIC's employees have security clearances.) SAIC has been awarded more individual government contracts than any other private company in America. The contracts number not in the dozens or scores or hundreds but in the thousands: SAIC currently holds some 9,000 active federal contracts in all. More than a hundred of them are worth upwards of $10 million apiece. Two of them are worth more than $1 billion. The company's annual revenues, almost all of which come from the federal government, approached $8 billion in the 2006 fiscal year, and they are continuing to climb. SAIC's goal is to reach as much as $12 billion in revenues by 2008. As for the financial yardstick that really gets Wall Street's attention—profitability—SAIC beats the S&P 500 average. Last year ExxonMobil, the world's largest oil company, posted a return on revenue of 11 percent. For SAIC the figure was 11.9 percent. If "contract backlog" is any measure—that is, contracts negotiated and pending—the future seems assured. The backlog stands at $13.6 billion. That's one and a half times more than the backlog at KBR Inc., a subsidiary of the far better known government contractor once run by Vice President Dick Cheney, the Halliburton Company.
Chalmers Johnson told Mark Dankof, among other things, that there were only two options for dealing with Mr. Bush's Neo-Conservative War for Empire: Congressional de-funding, and Impeachment.
Tom Englehardt's TomDispatch.com contains a great deal on Chalmers Johnson including the following piece. Click here.
Monday, January 22, 2007
While the neoconservatives were the driving force behind the American invasion of Iraq and the consequent efforts to bring about regime change throughout the Middle East, the idea for such a war did not originate with American neocon thinkers but rather in Israel. An obvious linkage exists between the war position of the neocons and what has long been a strategy of the Israeli Right and, to a lesser extent, of the Israeli mainstream.
The idea of a Middle East war had been bandied about in Israel for many years as a means of enhancing Israeli security. War would serve two purposes. It would enhance Israel's external security by weakening and splintering Israel's neighbors. Moreover, such a war and the consequent weakening of Israel's external enemies could help resolve the internal Palestinian demographic problem, since the Palestinian resistance has derived material and moral support from Israel's neighboring states.
A brief look at the history of the Zionist movement and its goals will help to provide an understanding of this issue. The Zionist goal of creating an exclusive Jewish state in Palestine was complicated by the fundamental problem that the country was already settled with a mostly non-Jewish population. Despite public rhetoric to the contrary, the idea of expelling the indigenous Palestinian population (euphemistically referred to as a "transfer") was an integral part of the Zionist effort to found a Jewish national state in Palestine.
Washington's New World Order Weapons Have the Ability to Trigger Climate Change by Michel Chossudovsky
The important debate on global warming under UN auspices provides but a partial picture of climate change; in addition to the devastating impacts of greenhouse gas emissions on the ozone layer, the World's climate can now be modified as part of a new generation of sophisticated "non-lethal weapons." Both the Americans and the Russians have developed capabilities to manipulate the World's climate.
In the US, the technology is being perfected under the High-frequency Active Auroral Research Program (HAARP) as part of the ("Star Wars") Strategic Defence Initiative (SDI). Recent scientific evidence suggests that HAARP is fully operational and has the ability of potentially triggering floods, droughts, hurricanes and earthquakes. From a military standpoint, HAARP is a weapon of mass destruction. Potentially, it constitutes an instrument of conquest capable of selectively destabilising agricultural and ecological systems of entire regions.
Saddam Hussein was empowered, fashioned to serve US interests, manipulated, and finally mercilessly discarded.
“As an American strike in Iran is essential for our existence, we must help him pave the way by lobbying the Democratic Party (which is conducting itself foolishly) and US newspaper editors,” declares Israeli Brigadier General Oded Tira. “We need to do this in order to turn the Iranian issue to a bipartisan one and unrelated to the Iraq failure.”
It is refreshing, in a sadistic sort of way, so little translation is required here. First, Tira, a former IDF chief artillery officer, has cut to the chase, not belaboring us with the sort of platitudes uttered by a Binyamin Netanyahu or Ehud Olmert. In order for Israel to exist, so the reasoning goes, it is required for the United States to attack Iran and kick off world war three, or as the neocons call it, world war four. Of course, by “existence” the former IDF officer means Israel must continue the illegal occupation of Palestinian land, continue killing and torturing the Palestinian people, and mucking around in the domestic affairs of its Arab neighbors.
I believe the second point, however, is not necessary, as in many ways the Democrats are more pro-Israel than the Republicans, if that is possible. Killing large numbers of Muslims—650,000, by conservative estimates, in Iraq alone as the year ends—is indeed a bipartisan affair. Both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, while dissing the neocon occupation of Iraq in the name of political expediency, have called for invading Iran. But the likely Democrat presidential selectee, John Edwards, is even more pro-Zionist than either Clinton or Obama.
“Edwards has been one of Israel’s strongest and most consistent supporters in the U.S. Senate, and as President, he will work in the tradition of Democratic Presidents like Harry Truman, John Kennedy and Bill Clinton to strengthen the special relationship between the United States and Israel and the Jewish people. He will work tirelessly to strengthen America’s economic and political ties with Israel—the region’s only democracy—and will ensure that America will do what is necessary to ensure Israel’s security, including through economic and military aid,” declares the American-Israeli Cooperative Enterprise, billed as a “non-partisan” organization established “to strengthen the U.S.-Israel relationship by emphasizing the fundamentals of the alliance,” that is to say disseminate propaganda through the Jewish Virtual Library, a sprawling online encyclopedia.
Throughout history, "wars of religion" have served to obscure the economic and strategic interests behind the conquest and invasion of foreign lands. "Wars of religion" were invariably fought with a view to securing control over trading routes and natural resources.
The Crusades extending from the 11th to the 14th Century are often presented by historians as "a continuous series of military-religious expeditions made by European Christians in the hope of wresting the Holy Land from the infidel Turks." The objective of the Crusades, however, had little to do with religion. The Crusades largely consisted, through military action, in challenging the dominion of the Muslim merchant societies, which controlled the Eastern trade routes.
Friday, January 12, 2007
In her 1997 autobiography, the late Katharine Graham of the Washington Post described her father as an assimilating Jew who didn't talk about his Jewishness to his Episcopal-church-going children. He was "involved in Jewish charities, causes, and international issues.
"He was not a Zionist, however, believing strongly that he was an American citizen first and foremost."
That's odd. Her father, the financier Eugene I. Meyer Jr., who bought the Washington Post in the 1930s, is a figure in Zionist history. Behind the scenes, Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis turned to Meyer again and again for money to support the Jewish settlement in Palestine. Meyer met with Brandeis's Zionist klatches, personally lobbied his friend FDR on their account, and agreed to head the University Zionist society—an organization to build support among Jews on campus (per Brandeis's letters, edited by Melvin Urofsky and David W. Levy, and Peter Grose's Israel in the Mind of America).
So was Katharine Graham lying about her father?
Thursday, January 11, 2007
A former United Nations weapons inspector and leading Iraq War opponent has written a new book alleging that Jerusalem is pushing the Bush administration into war with Iran, and accusing the pro-Israel lobby of dual loyalty and “outright espionage.”
In the new book, called “Target Iran,” Scott Ritter, who served as a senior U.N. weapons inspector in Iraq from 1991 to 1998 and later became one of the war’s staunchest critics, argues that the United States is readying for military action against Iran, using its nuclear program as a pretext for pursuing regime change in Tehran.
“The Bush administration, with the able help of the Israeli government and the pro-Israel Lobby, has succeeded,” Ritter writes, “in exploiting the ignorance of the American people about nuclear technology and nuclear weapons so as to engender enough fear that the American public has more or less been pre-programmed to accept the notion of the need to militarily confront a nuclear armed Iran.”
Later in the book, Ritter adds: “Let there be no doubt: If there is an American war with Iran, it is a war that was made in Israel and nowhere else.”
The CINCPAC/Fallon Appointment to CENTCOM: Ominous Sign of a Wider War: Michael T. Klare for Truthout
Why? Because combined air and naval operations are his forte. Fallon began his combat career as a Navy combat flyer in Vietnam, and he served with carrier-based forces for twenty-four years after that. He commanded a carrier battle wing during the first Gulf War in 1991 and led the naval group supporting NATO operations during the Bosnia conflict four years later. More recently, Fallon served as vice chief of naval operations before becoming the head of Pacom in 2005. All this means that he is primed to oversee an air, missile and naval attack on Iran, should the President give the green light for such an assault - and the fact that Fallon has been moved from Pacom to Centcom means that such a move is very much on Bush's mind.
The recent replacement of General Abizaid by Admiral Fallon, along with other recent moves announced by the Defense Secretary, should give deep pause to anyone concerned about the prospect of escalation in the Iraq War. Contrary to the advice given by the Iraq Study Group, Bush appears to be planning for a wider war - with much higher risk of catastrophic failure - not a gradual and dignified withdrawal from the region.