The lay of the land: Oil - Iraq - Libya - North Korea

From our source in the Middle East (from raw-communiques):

OIL

US: +$100/barrel

EU: +$115/barrel

[[[Iraq's largest oil refinery in Baji - significant long term damage from al-qaeda cell sponsored by [I]ran revolutionary guard]]]

==========================================================

LIBYA

US CARRIER STRIKE GROUP ENTERPRISE

US EXPEDITIONARY ST[I]RKE GROUP KEARSARGE

UK MISSILE FRIGATE CUMBERLAND

SOUTH KOREAN DESTROYER CHOI YOUNG

US/NATO SPECIAL OPERATIONS FORCES

+/- 6,000 KIA

Libyan military & mercenaries (African & former Russian special forces) striking anti-government forces

Elements of Sudan and Zimbabwe National Armies assisting Qadaffi

Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov: We will veto any U.N. No Fly Zone resolution

Venezuela President Chavez proposes peace talks

==============================================

NORTH KOREA

Preparation for third nuclear test

Preparation for missile tests into Sea of Japan or over Japan into Pacific Ocean

North Korea/South Korea border: US Pacific Comma[n]d Key Resolve/Foal Eagle exercises

(((+10,500 US Forces from outside South Korea in addition to +/- 28,000 US Forces from South Korea)))

===============================================

CNN reports dumb-assed Al Qaeda salad bar/buffet plot after GOP stalls Food Safety Act for months

Is there not a better sign of the end of an Empire and a nation in serious trouble? Just don't tell the Obama-holdouts, they might get upset. Who on God's gray earth would believe this horseshit but a Republican or a Libertarian, all of them with serious emotional and intellectual issues regarding reality? "Al-Qaeda plot threatens America's salad bars and buffets." You gotta be kidding, right?

It beggars the imagination that someone without the ability to imagine would believe something a ten year old could see through or do a better job of concocting.

Just as they did under Bush II, being a venerable asset of Empire and the GOP, CNN is selling a very lame-assed scare story to boost another war criminal's sagging popularity ratings as well as providing some cover for corrupt food growers and processors who wanted the Food Modernization Act. Apparently, high school never ended and life has now become Facebook. How is this different from all the times that George W. Bush cried "WOLF!" (not CNN's Blitzer, or even Donner) with the terror alert warnings to save his own ass, for political ends? It's not at all and it's not the only example, Obama's just less obvious about it than the last clown.

Seriously: President Barack Obama is the same as George W. Bush, wake up assholes, pull your heads out of your collective-ass and stop having this.

CNN's talking-neck was barely able to read the salad bar/buffet headline it was so stupid, so nebbish, so moronic and transparently unimportant pap that was probably lifted from a surveillance log of someone simply toying with the idea of joining a terror cell...after a few bong-hits or a lift from some meth. Get real, quit insulting our intelligence with your counterintelligence, your disinformation predicated on scaring the dummies that over-populate every nation so that we hand over even more of our rights to a predatorial establishment.

Great, someone was going to "poison" salad bars and buffets across America...and somehow they weren't American food growers and producers who routinely employ illegal immigrants, who then lobby the GOP all of the time for fewer regulations on food safety. Yes, it was a smart timing to run the bogus Al-Qaeda story just hours after the GOP had stalled the Food Safety Act for months, very wise, well-timed. How long did they stall its passage? Since March of this year, nine whole months, which is roundly un-American.

Besides the GOP's tail-dragging on to poison the public, or not to poison it, these were some of the major opponents of the very reasonable bill--unless some of us prefer a little e-coli with our spinach, watermelons and potatoes (take that Dan Quayle!), and TEA:

Freedomworks

Competitive Enterprise Institute

American Mushroom Institute

National Potato Council

National Watermelon Association

Produce Marketing Association

United Fresh Produce Association

The John Birch Society

National Cattleman's Beef Association

Western Growers

American Academy of Microbiology

Farm-to-Consumer Legal Defense Fund
(http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=s111-510)

Any familiar names here? It passed the Senate on November 30th of this year anyway, but there was more stalling from the GOP.

And you Democratic incumbents: You can stop with the good cop, bad cop act. We're on to you. We know this is all just political theater and we're about to call bullshit on this whole clown show. We're not having it anymore, you're done. For a moment, I thought they were saying that Jimmy Buffett was being targeted by terrorists, which makes just as much sense and is just as credible...

Arlen Specter surprises again: Reintroduces legislation to allow 9/11 lawsuits against Saudi ruling-class to move forward

Washington D.C.--If there's anything one can say about the senator from Pennsylvania, it's that he's unpredictable and probably really does have this nation's best interests at-heart--in his own mind at least. We'll set aside the magic-bullet theory for a moment...

This week--on December 21st--Specter called on the floor of the Senate for the passage of legislation that would allow lawsuits initiated by thousands of survivors (as well as the families of those killed and insurance companies) of the terrorists attacks on September 11, 2001 to move forward, and introduced the proposed bill with bipartisan support from no less a non-man than Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), although I'm sure it's purely a political move on his part since it's not likely to pass, at least not on his watch.

That would require will and real support, something Graham and others in both major parties aren't inclined to do since there's a lot of money at stake, never mind the destabilizing effects actual justice directed at the Saudi ruling-clans would have on the world's oil supply and the global economy. The coverage in the mainstream media--once again--has been virtually non-existent.

It's not his first time, and he began this road in late 2003 with roughly the same reaction, meaning indifference if not obstructionism. On October 25th, 2007, Specter introduced the "Saudi Arabia Accountability Act" that was designed to accomplish essentially the same aims, meaning dragging the Saudi government and various institutions and charities into the light and allowing lawsuits to proceed that are currently being barred by the State Department (the executive branch) and questionable Federal Circuit Court rulings, more recently in the 2nd Circuit:

Specter (D., Pa.) said the legislation would clarify that lawsuits by U.S. citizens could go forward without a sign-off from the State Department.

A federal appeals court in Manhattan last year dismissed claims against the Saudi government, saying such litigation can proceed only if the State Department finds that the Saudis provided financial aid and other assistance to terrorist groups.
Besides clarifying the law, the bill would reinstate those lawsuits.
The Philadelphia law firm Cozen O'Connor has sued Saudi Arabia, members of the Saudi royal family, and more than a dozen Islamic charities, alleging responsibility for the 9/11 attacks. The Cozen lawsuit, on behalf of dozens of U.S. and international insurers that lost billions of dollars at ground zero, accuses the Saudi government of financing charities that in turn laundered money into al-Qaeda. ("Specter looks to revive 9/11 suits against Saudis," Philadelphia Inquirer, 12.24.2009)

This is all very new since Americans have never been allowed to sue a foreign power without the permission of the executive branch through established channels at the State Department. In other words, this is a new right that Senator Specter is proposing, an expansion of legal recourse for the American people that should have been in-place generations ago.

Granted, this is just a new submission of essentially the same legislation he's been proposing since as early as 2003, but he's not giving up, and neither should anyone concerned at getting to the bottom of what happened. The problem for the "truther" movement is that this doesn't fit the anti-government agenda or many of their theories that go in the same direction (nowhere), so we can expect a general lack-of-enthusiasm let alone any noise over this from them. They're hardly alone in the business: there are extremely powerful players in the financial and political sectors whose ties to the Saudi regime run deep. Instead, hundreds-of-thousands are running around in denial with their science fiction theories that would never stand the legal test in a court of law.

This is why the last administration did everything it could to keep these things from going anywhere, and likewise for the new one. Rather than actually protecting the American people then, what we have is a sham in the so-called war on terror, making it blatantly reminiscent of that other failed war, the war on drugs. Who's side are they on anyway? Do we really want to get to the truth at all? If not, we need to stop talking about concern over the victims and using them as a political hot-potato, now. Frankly, it was always distasteful, but this is probably another reason that Graham signed-on with Specter as a co-sponsor, to cover his and the GOP's ass for the next elections hoping everyone's forgotten their real role in all of this.

Here are a few things remarked on by Specter when he introduced a similar bill in 2007 that "truthers" (their "truth" being highly-selective) tend to ignore:

Since the attacks of September 11, 2001, evidence has emerged indicating that support for al-Qaeda, Ramas, and other organizations has come from Saudi Arabia.

Testimony presented to several Congressional committees, including the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee, Judiciary Committee, and Intelligence committees in both houses, has indicated that Saudi Arabia is an epicenter for terrorist financing. These committees have also found the Saudi government's cooperation in investigations into the al-Qaeda terrorist network has been lackluster.

In the 108 Congress, as a member of the Governmental Affairs Committee and as a member of the Judiciary Committee, we worked to establish a basic point that anybody who knowingly contributes to a terrorist organization is an accessory before the fact to murder; so when people contribute to al-Qaeda or Hamas, knowing that both organizations employ suicide bombers, they are accessories to murder.

United Nations Security Council Resolution 1373, adopted in 2001, mandates that all States "refrain from providing any form of support, active or passive, to entities or persons involved in terrorist acts,'' take "the necessary steps to prevent the commission of terrorist acts,'' and "deny safe haven to those who finance, plan, support, or commit terrorist acts.'' There is mounting evidence that Saudi Arabia has not been compliant with this resolution.

The 9/11 Commission interviewed numerous military officers and government officials who repeatedly listed Saudi Arabia as a prime place for terrorists to set up bases and found that "Saudi Arabia's society was a place where al-Qaeda raised money directly from individuals through charities.''

The Council on Foreign Relations concluded in a 2002 report that "for years, individuals and charities based in Saudi Arabia have been the most important source of funds for al-Qaeda, and for years, Saudi officials have turned a blind eye.''

There are indications that, since the May 12, 2003, suicide bombings in Riyadh, the Government of Saudi Arabia is making a more serious effort to combat terrorism. That said, I would like to draw attention to the following findings recanted by organizations which have studied the record of the Saudis.

In a June 2004 report entitled "Update on the Global Campaign Against Terrorist Financing,'' the Council on Foreign Relations reported that "we find it regrettable and unacceptable that since September 11, 2001, we know of not a single Saudi donor of funds to terrorist groups who have been publicly punished.''

A joint committee of the Select Committee on Intelligence of the Senate and the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence of the House of Representatives issued a report on July 24, 2003, that quotes various U.S. Government personnel who complained that the Saudis refused to cooperate in the investigation of Osama bin Laden and his network both before and after the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.

It should be remembered that the Saudi regime executes their own citizens publicly in Riyadh with beheadings and amputations for violations of religious laws in what is a theocratic dictatorship. Interestingly, there's no entry for the legislation for either December 21st or the 24th (the date of the Philadelphia Inquirer coverage) on his own web page, but the story is gradually getting out there. This pretty much spells-it-out in a clear and basic form that should be understandable to anyone who can read and comprehend, and Specter is hardly a radical.

Neither is Charles Schumer (D-NY). What's radical in the current political culture, however, is for this legislation to go anywhere at all. Is this about justice or agendas? Go ask Alex Jones. Go ask the Obama administration. They're against any such moves that the senator from Pennsylvania is suggesting. But Specter appears to feel that the prospects for the bill and its main-thrust are good, stating, "I think it will pass." Let's hope so since the Saudis aren't about to stand down anytime soon without sanctions. Think what you want, but government is the only answer in all of this, surely not oil companies and trusts.

"Specter looks to revive 9/11 suits against Saudis," Philadelphia Inquirer, 12.24.2009: http://www.philly.com/inquirer/business/homepage/20091224_Specter_looks_to_revive_9_11_suits_against_Saudis.html

Arlen Specter's Floor Statement on the Saudi Arabia Accountability Act of 2007, introduced October 25, 2007: http://specter.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=NewsRoom.ArlenSpecterSpeaks&ContentRecord_id=f6853748-1321-0e36-baae-0e4b60c0cd96&Region_id=&Issue_id=bd50d272-7e9c-9af9-72de-559d0e9aeed9

WE TOLD YOU SO: SERBIA CLEARED OF GENOCIDE CHARGES BY THE HAGUE

"At the same time, though, where are the leaders of the international community who also helped to bring events in the Balkans about? Have we ever heard one word of apology or acknowledgment of failure or responsibility from anyone in leadership positions of Unprofor, the United Nations or the major governments that they got it wrong?"

--William D. Montgomery, former special representative of the U.S. president and secretary of state for Bosnian Peace Implementation in 1996-97. Also, U.S. ambassador to Croatia from 1998 to 2000 and ambassador to Serbia and Montenegro from 2000 to 2004. (IHT, 07.12.2005)


The Hague, The Netherlands--In a vote of 13-2, Serbia has been cleared of charges of genocide surrounding the Bosnian conflict of 1992-1995, with only 50 protesters outside of the court calling-for a guilty verdict. Where were you, almighty moralists and apologists for NATO? Nowhere near the Hague, that's for certain.

NATO (through German diplomatic channels) allowed for Croatia and Slovenia to break away from Yugoslavia, a move that was strongly-opposed by Serbs, and which likely would have prevented the cataclysm that ensued. Yet, looking at the reporting today, the West's role in all of this is imperceptible:

Bosnia's Muslims and Croats followed Slovenia and Croatia in breaking away from Yugoslavia in April 1992, against the wishes of Bosnian Serbs, who were left as a one-third minority in what had previously been a Yugoslav republic ruled from Belgrade. This triggered a war in which at least 100,000 people were killed. Backed by the Yugoslav army, the Serbs captured two-thirds of Bosnia and besieged Sarajevo. Tens of thousands of non-Serbs were killed and hundreds of thousands forced from their homes. (Reuters, 02.26.2007)

It must be an unpleasant an disorienting feeling to be someone who swallowed the line that it was all about the Serbs, when KLA (later to become Al-Qaida) was and is involved-in similar depredations.

Cognitive-dissonance is natural, however, and earned for those who wholeheartedly-embraced this notion, ignoring the facts, and accepting the hyperbole. Now you all have a tiny-piece of what it felt like to be a German after WWII.

The article still fails to mention that over 200,000 Eastern Orthodox Serbs were relocated forcibly during the conflict thanks to NATO policies, but our crimes don't exist. The Hague has done a disservice by ignoring these facts. But, if you follow the media closely, this isn't new. This is my favorite-part of the ruling:

The Serbian leaders "should have made the best effort within their power to try and prevent the tragic events then taking shape," in the U.N. enclave, the scale of which "might have been surmised," the ruling said. However, it rejected Bosnia's claim for monetary reparations. ...Serbia's claim that it was powerless to prevent the massacres "hardly tallies with their known influence" over the Bosnian Serb army, said the ruling. The ruling did not specify what Serbia could have done. (AP, 02.26.2007)

I think we know what Serbia could have done--attack the UN, NATO, and the KLA. That's fair, isn't it? Considering the total chaos of the conflict, it's unsurprising that the Hague "did not specify", because that would reveal Western-involvement in funding the KLA (particularly by the US State Department).

Again, our crimes don't exist...unless you do some digging in the margins of the known record of what occurred.

But, according to most in America, Hiroshima, Nagasaki, the bombings of Dresden, Munich, and the fire-bombings of Tokyo and nearly every Japanese city during WWII by Allied forces, were not war crimes. Yet, the reality is, there were. A winner's justice is never justice. The UN, and all the members of NATO are equally responsible for the what occurred during the Bosnian war, and inflicted heavier-casualties during the 1999 aerial-bombings.

During that same period, President William Jefferson Clinton's administration was committing a calculated act of genocide against Iraqi citizens through the no-fly zone, and aerial-bombardment of crucial infrastructure. This makes him and everyone who was involved in the expediting of these acts war criminals.

As a result of this, approximately 500,000 Iraqi children--almost an entire generation--died. Coupled with the invasion of Iraq--the thousands of murders, the cultural-looting, torture, rape, and more, we have all the ingredients of genocide as an ongoing-policy of the United States towards Iraq. That's attempted genocide, folks.

Someone should ask Rahm Emanuel why he did nothing to dissuade the president and the State Department from this course, and why he isn't today. But these facts escape most of the public, and certainly the majority of the intelligentsia in the West.

There is blood on our hands, and today's verdict--while fairer than expected--was still shot-through with irony and a hollowness that is typical of our daily rationalizations. We're not learning, as much as we would like to convince ourselves that we are. These are the seeds of our own destruction that might come sooner than we think, unless we change our foreign policy in a radical sense. This will require more involvement by the public.

Revised 08.31.2008

Reuter-rooters: http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070226/wl_nm/bosnia_serbia_srebrenica_dc

Our Beloved AP: http://www.wcfcourier.com/articles/2007/02/26/ap/headlines/d8nhcsl00.txt