THE NEW AMERICAN CENTURY is a compelling factual history of neoconservatism and its influence on US Foreign Policy in the Middle East during the first decade of the twenty-first century. Click on image above for details.

Tuesday, September 30, 2008


In America it took ten years before the economy got going again after the last Great Depression started on 29 October 1929. No one knows how long it would have gone on for had the Second World War not started.

This time it seems as though things are the other way around; we go to war first spending billions of taxpayers money on weapons and invasions, then we spend even more billions on pretending to patch up the stuff that got broken as a result of the invasions and then we wonder why there’s no money left to carry the cost of it all.

The wars have made the ultra rich even richer and, since there is only x amount of money around, that can only mean the poor got poorer but the banks were quite happy to create and perpetuate the illusion that credit was good because it gave everyone what they wanted even if they couldn’t afford it. We were even told that these were the sort of ‘values’ that the kiddies from the West were dying for in the Middle East and Central Asia. Meanwhile the kiddies in the Middle East and Central Asia who were being killed by the kiddies from the West just knew that the kiddies from the West were only in the Middle East and Central Asia in order to enrich the already ultra rich in the West. Now, however, the pigeons have come home to roost. Not only have the ‘values’ that the kiddies from the West have been fighting for been shown to be false but the monetary value of the real reasons why the kiddies from the West are dying for has also had its backside pulled from underneath itself.

Let’s hope that the answer to this potential disaster doesn’t involve even more war. Do we really want the kiddies of our planet to wipe each other out just so that the very rich can remain very rich?

The first decade of the twenty-first century isn’t even over yet and already we’re repeating the mistakes that the lunatics in the twentieth century made.

Will we ever learn?

Monday, September 29, 2008


The Israeli Ministry of Propaganda, better known as the Israeli National Security Council’s Counter-Terrorism Bureau, have been working overtime recently dreaming up ‘terrorist’ scenarios aimed at frightening the Israeli people and demonising the Lebanese militias known as Hezbollah. The idea is to work up enough enmity and hatred between the two so that the Israeli Zionists can feel justified in once again invading southern Lebanon in an attempt to kick start a war with Iran and, at the same time, secure south Lebanon up to the Litani River for themselves just as they have tried a couple of times in the past to do without success.

According to a report in the ‘Jerusalem Post’, the Counter Terrorism Bureau believe that Hezbollah are planning to infiltrate across the border and capture an Israeli community and then barricade themselves in one of the homes with Israeli civilians. The IDF apparently are also concerned that Hezbollah may attempt to ‘kidnap’ Israel soldiers ‘as they have done in the past’, presumably a reference to the capture of the two Israeli soldiers whose capture triggered the last attempt by Israel to invade Lebanon.

Meanwhile, extreme right-wing Zionists seem to be getting worried about the influence of the Israeli left who are increasingly moving toward the idea of a free Palestinian state and even the notion of a one state bi-national solution to the Israeli-Palestine conflict. Flyers have been discovered offering NIS 1 million to anyone that kills members of the growing Israeli left-wing Peace Now movement.

The Israeli right-wing is currently in turmoil after the demise of Olmert. However, if an election were to be held now it is likely that Likud under Netanyahu would prevail, a move that would not bode well for Palestinians nor those in Israel who are tired of the violence and the hatreds and the seemingly never-ending fearmongering that is the hallmark of the extreme rightwing.


You have to hand it to the extreme right-wing Murdoch bloggers – they’ll swear black is white regardless of the evidence presented to them saying the opposite. (They still think Saddam and Osama bin Laden did the 9/11 job between them.) Take ‘The Australian’ newspapers ultra right-wing commentator known, for obvious reasons to those familiar with her commentary, as ‘SS-Rantenfuehrer’ Janet Albrechtsen. She reckons the ‘Young messiah did not trounce the old guy’ because the ’old guy’ was the tough guy who was strong on victory in Iraq at any cost, strong on continuing to alienate Iran by not offering talks, and strong on Pakistan and Russia as potential world troublemakers. In other words, strong on all of the warmongering garbage that most Americans are now heartily fed up with.

Meanwhile, over at Murdoch’s other right-wing rag, the Sydney ‘Daily Telegraph’, Tim Blair and his band of right-wing loony bloggies think that McCain won because Obama couldn’t remember the name of the mother who had given him a bracelet in memory of her son killed in Iraq. (Never mind that Obama was actually wearing the one that he’d been given while McCain had left his somewhere else.) It was, perhaps, a rather embarrassing ‘me too’ moment for Obama but is the future of the planet really going to revolve around bracelets and remembering who gave it to them?

Interestingly, the vast majority of polls say that he ‘young messiah did indeed trounce the old guy’ so from where these right-wingers get the idea that McCain somehow won the debate is anybody’s guess. Wishful thinking more likely.

As I said, these right-wingers will swear black is white in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. How do they keep their jobs? Of course! They work for Murdoch!

Tuesday, September 23, 2008


The fact that both the Pakistan president and his Prime Minister were both scheduled to meet and dine at the Marriott Hotel together with many other senior government leaders at the time of the bomb blast that destroyed the hotel puts a new perspective on the notion that the blast was something more than just another so-called ‘suicide bomber’ attack by ‘Islamic extremists’.

While the US and their allies were quick to use the mainstream media to point the finger of blame at al Qaeda and the Taliban in Pakistan, who have denied any knowledge of the attack, the reality is that neither al Qaeda nor the Taliban had anything to actually gain from such an atrocity. Only the US and their allies would have gained from the deaths of Pakistan’s leaders in these circumstances. Had they been killed, the US and their allies would have had an opportunity to back a pro-US Pakistani to lead the country in its ‘war against terrorism’ which had now come to Pakistan. The US may even have used the event as an excuse to launch ground operations by US forces to secure Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal using the US-backed emergency leader to give authority to such action.

Other factors are also giving cause for greater suspicion about this event. Just days before the bombing, the US had launched a number of drone attacks against targets on Pakistani soil. The Pakistan government had told the US that all such attacks in future that infringed Pakistan’s sovereignty would be defended by Pakistan’s forces regardless of who was attacking them. The US head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Mike Mullen, had given his assurances personally to the President that such attacks would not happen again. But they did. Even as Mullen was giving the President his assurance, the Predator drone attacks were being planned. It was quickly becoming apparent that both the Pakistani government and, more importantly, the Pakistani people, were rapidly losing what little confidence they had left in being allied to the US as they had been. US and allied incursions into Pakistan were seeing Pakistanis becoming increasingly hostile toward the US to the point that the US was running the risk of becoming completely alienated by the Pakistan government.

An alienated nuclear armed Islamic Pakistan right next door to Iran is the last thing the US and their allies want.

Monday, September 22, 2008


Already the right-wing Zionists across the board of Israeli politics are calling for a national emergency government in order to cater for, as Ehud Barak the Israeli Labour leader puts it, ‘the political, financial and security challenges’ Israel faces. He has, it seems, the support of Benjamin Netanyahu of the Likud Party.

Such a move would deprive Israelis of a right to elect a new government if the leader-elect of the Kadima Party, Tzipi Livni, is unable to form a coalition government. According to a report last Wednesday, talks between Barak and Netanyahu have resulted in an agreement whereby Netanyahu would become the Prime Minister of such a national emergency government until such time as elections take place either at the end of 2009 or when they are due in 2010 when Barak would take over as premier.

So why the rush to form a ‘national emergency government?

The extreme right wing Zionists – and make no mistake here, despite being leader of what is supposed to be a ‘leftish’ party, Barak is an extreme right-wing Zionist – need to form a government before the Bush presidency ends in order to guarantee support for an attack against Iran, Hizbollah, Syria and Hamas. An Obama presidency will be of no use to a right-wing Zionist government. Obama is unlikely to support such moves and the Zionists can’t afford to wait and see if McCain becomes president.

As always when it comes to Israeli politics, a lot of water can pass under the bridge in a very short space of time and alliances between politicians and parties can be made one moment and switched again the next. One thing is for sure however; if Netanyahu and the extreme right Zionists get up a government before Bush leaves office then Israel, the Palestinians and the entire Middle East can look forward only to more war and more misery.

Sunday, September 21, 2008


Take a step back, have a look at the bigger picture and cast aside any preconceived subjective ideas that the western mainstream media propaganda machine may have instilled in you. After an objective and unbiased analysis of the events that preceded the bombing of the Marriott Hotel in Islamabad, Pakistan, there emerges a picture that is starkly different from what the people of the west have been told by their mainstream media.

Last Thursday a US Predator drone aircraft fired off four Hellfire missiles into Pakistan killing seven people. This was just hours after the US Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Mike Mullen, had personally assured President Asif Ali Zardari that the US would in future respect the sovereignty of Pakistan after previous US incursions both into Pakistani airspace and on to Pakistani soil that had resulted in the deaths of Pakistani civilians. Relations between the US and Pakistan immediately floundered. Just a couple of day’s later, right on cue, there’s this massive blast at the Marriott Hotel that virtually destroys the hotel and kills scores. ‘Terrorists’ are blamed – the same Islamic extremist ‘terrorists, so we and the Pakistani government are told, who the US was trying to get just a couple of days earlier. And now there’s US National Security Advisor (and one of the few warmongering ultra neocons that is still in the Bush administration), Stephen Hadley, trying to tell the Pakistanis that they need the US to go into Pakistan to get these ‘terrorists’ because Pakistan hasn’t got the wherewithal to do it themselves.

We know, of course, that the Americans and their allies are not above this kind of false flag attack, (USS Liberty, Lavon Affair, Operation Northwoods, Gulf of Tonkin, etc.). And, since there is no evidence whatsoever to suggest that the explosion was caused by a suicide bomber as claimed, or even that the perpetrator was from one of the so-called Islamic extremist organisations, one can, considering the circumstantial evidence, come to the conclusion that it may more than likely have been a false flag attack perpetrated by the US or their allies than one carried out by Muslim extremists who would, incidentally, have absolutely nothing to gain, especially at that time, from such an attack.

We should get over this ‘our government would never do a thing like that’ mentality and take a good hard look at the geo-political reality of what is actually happening in our world and has been happening for some considerable time.


The head of Palestinian Authority (PA) forces in the West Bank, General Dhiab al-Ali, has told Israeli newspaper ‘Ha’aretz’: “If Gaza remains mutinous, the Palestinian Authority will have no choice but to use force against it”.

It goes without saying that any such operation by the PA in the West Bank against Hamas in the Gaza will need more than just a nod from the Israelis to go ahead. The Israelis will need to supply the PA forces with the logistics of, firstly, moving PA forces from the West Bank to Gaza and, secondly, provide the kind of armaments needed for such an operation – something the PA forces simply do not have.

So far al-Ali denies that there has been any consultation with the Israelis on the matter but the idea that the PA and Israel have not discussed the possibilities is very unrealistic.

In January of next year President Mahmoud Abbas’ presidency ends. There should then be an election to find the next President but it is unlikely that Hamas will be allowed to put up a candidate since the organisation has been declared a ‘terrorist organisation’. This would lead to unrest in the West Bank. In all likelihood Abbas will then declare a state of emergency and extend his presidency with the possibility of then ruling by decree, effectively making him a dictator over the Palestinian people and thus running the risk of a civil war.

From Israel’s point of view, it needs to resolve the ‘Gaza problem’ – preferably before Abbas’ presidency ends. However, Hamas is a formidable military force in the Gaza and also has a strong political power base among ordinary Palestinians who had voted them into government before the PA led by Abbas usurped Hamas power for themselves. Contrary to al-Ali’s assertion that the Gaza under Hamas is ‘mutinous’, it was Fatah that mutinied against Hamas’ democratically elected yet unrecognised government.

The reality is that, if there is to be an invasion of the Gaza to overthrow the Hamas government, it will be undertaken by Israeli forces who would likely ‘soften up’ the Gaza with air strikes prior to a full on invasion that would include PA forces. Naturally the propaganda and rhetoric would be that it was the PA that had planned the assault and carried it out playing down Israel’s role in any such an attack.

The short term gain for the Israelis is that they get immediate security in the Gaza provided by forces that are no longer hostile to Israel. This will result in the cessation of rocket attacks across into Israeli townships close to the Gaza, though rocket attacks have all but ceased already.

For the intermediate term gain, it could be – and this only speculative – that Israel and the PA could come to a deal whereby Israel withdraws all the settlements from the West Bank and realigns some, if not all, of its so-called ‘security barrier’, in exchange for the PA transferring all Palestinians from the Gaza Strip for annexation to Israel where the settlers could then move to. The Israelis then end up with the Gaza Strip with it having been given to them by the Palestinians. Later, of course, there will be further ‘disturbances’ in the West Bank when the Israelis will then feel the need to re-enter the West Bank to start the process of occupation all over again gradually whittling down Palestinian resistance to Israeli colonisation and another round of settlement building.

Friday, September 19, 2008


It seems that Jenny Hume over at Webdiary still has absolutely no idea of what racism is all about.

She and her husband may be intrigued to learn that racism is not just about blood and biology as their simplistic upbringing may have taught them but also is about religion and culture, a new racism that they themselves are a part of.

Jenny Hume and Ian McDougall really have no idea about progressive politics in Australia and are simply at Webdiary to promote their own ideas about how they would like to see their ideal of a racist and inclusive ‘Australia’. Their idealistic dreamlike Australia bears no resemblance to the real world that Australia actually needs to be a part of. Their heads are firmly buried in the sands of their own restrained vision of the world that precludes entirely the reality of what is going on around them. To suggest that racism is simply a blood and biology thing without religious or cultural considerations is totally delusional.

Wednesday, September 17, 2008


Israel’s recently approved order of 1000 GBU-39 bunker buster bombs has put the prospect of an attack against Iran firmly back on the front burner after having been shoved to the back while the Georgia affair and the current financial meltdown in the US dominated the news.

While no one can be really sure of what’s going on behind the scenes in the US and Israel, it certainly seems as though there is a convergence of circumstances that indicate that there are some moves afoot for the US and/or Israel (more likely ‘and’ rather than ‘or’) to strike not just Iran militarily, but also Hizbollah in Lebanon, Syria and possibly Hamas in the Gaza as well.

The GBU-39, while comparatively not a particularly big bomb carrying only some 23 kgs of high explosive, is, nonetheless, a very sophisticated weapon. Launched from height the bomb is capable of gliding to its target which, if the launch height is high enough and the weather conditions are right, can be up to 100 kms away. It is guided to its target via a GPS assisted inertial navigation system and is said to be accurate to within 8 meters. It can also penetrate reinforced concrete up to 1.8 meters thick. A thousand of these bombs will do a lot of damage, especially when used in conjunction with Israel’s other munitions and ordnance arsenal.

Apart from the order for these bombs there are other factors that tend to indicate that something is in the offing – not least of which is senior retired ultra neocon warmonger David Wurmser’s ’assurances’, published today in the ‘Jerusalem Post’, that Bush will not attack Iran before his term finishes in January. Considering Wurmser’s involvement in the weaving of the web of lies that led to the invasion of Iraq one can easily understand why Wurmser’s words should be treated with extreme scepticism; there is nothing like trying to lull your enemy into a false sense of security.

It also seems that there is a lot of wheeling and dealing going on behind the political scenes in Israel itself with the right-wing Zionists jockeying for position in a post-Olmert Israel. Regardless of who gets the thumbs up for the Kadima leadership, it seems that Ehud Barak and Benjamin Netanyahu together with the ultra right Shas party are scheming to snatch government away from Kadima to form a new rightwing coalition to be initially headed up by Netanyahu.

Netanyahu is one of the regions most dangerous politicians and is unlikely to hesitate to attack Iran and any of Israel’s other enemies given any opportunity – especially if he becomes Prime Minister. Netanyahu is also a great friend of vice-president Dick Cheney who is also known to want to bomb Iran and take on Israel’s other enemies. But, even if either Tzipi Livni or Shaul Mofaz of Kadima are able to maintain a coalition government, the likelihood of an attack against Iran is will be increased as both these leaders are known to be less hesitant than Olmert was. Furthermore, once the change has been made, regardless of who it is, the so-called ‘peace process’ with Abbas of Palestine will, for whatever it has been worth, end as none of the alternative potential Prime Ministers are interested in continuing with negotiations.

The Israeli hawks are coming to power and the bombs are virtually ‘off the shelf’ and ready to use. Russia will not support further sanctions against Iran (much to the relief of some rightwing Zionists who now see no point in delaying an attack against Iran; which, in turn, makes one wonder what the Georgia thing was all about in the first place), and, of course, time is simply running out. There’s unlikely to be an attack against Iran with Obama in the White House so the big question now is; can they take the risk of waiting to see if McCain gets up?

Unfortunately for Iran, the Middle East, Americans and the entire world, the warmongers seem to have everything aligned and in place to ensure that the world in the very near future will not be a better place because of them.

Thursday, September 11, 2008


Back in May 2008 neocon extremist Edward Luttwak wrote an article about how Barack Obama would be viewed by the Islamic world as an apostate; a Muslim that has made a deliberate move to no longer be a believer within the religion of Islam. The piece, published in the New York Times, was a transparent attempt to connect in the minds of the dumb and gullible the idea that Obama would not be an appropriate person to have as an American president due to his father being a Muslim. This, in turn, subliminally reinforces the notion that a Judeao-Christian America is at war with the world of Islam which is the reason why, so Luttwak suggests, it is inappropriate for Obama to become President.

Juan Cole, a noted professor of modern Middle Eastern and south Asian history at the University of Michigan, was quick to point out how ludicrous Luttwak’s argument was in a rebuttal to Luttwak’s assertions that Cole published on his own website just a few days after Luttwak’s piece appeared in the NYT.

Fortunately – and one has to wonder if it wasn’t as a result of Cole’s scholarly rebuttal – The New York Times public editor, Clark Hoyt, had the good sense to also publish a rebuttal of Luttwak’s ignorant argument.

Hoyt not only pointed out how Luttwak had just got it plain wrong, but also berated the NYT op-ed editor, David Shipley, for not having vetted Luttwak’s original copy for accuracy in the first place. Desperation set in and the neocons at The Weekly Standard were quick to step in to defend their hero. The bottom line remained, however, that Islamic scholars both in the US and the throughout the Islamic world refuted Luttwak’s nonsensical claims.

But Luttwak wasn’t the first neocon crazy to attempt to demonise Barack Obama. In January 2008 the quintessential Islamophobe, Daniel Pipes, wrote a piece titled: ‘Confirmed: Barack Obama Practised Islam’, as though in having done so, he had committed some heinous crime – which, of course, is what the likes of Pipes and Luttwak hope that the people of America and elsewhere will actually think. Pipes, though, is an extremist and not one who easily gives up despite being made a complete fool of by those that have debunked his lunatic assertions. Only recently, August 2008, he wrote an article in similar vein that was published in the Jerusalem Post titled: ‘Obama through Muslim eyes’ in which he again attempted to assert that Obama was a Muslin apostate this time citing fellow neoconservative Shireen K. Burki of the University of Mary Washington, Virginia, as an ‘expert’ in these matters and who actually wrote in May 2008, shortly after Luttwak’s piece appeared, that, “Osama bin Laden must be chuckling in his safe house. After all, the 2008 campaign could very well give Al Qaeda the ultimate propaganda tool: President Barack Hussein Obama, Muslim apostate.”

What all this demonstrates, apart from the obvious and transparent attempt by the neocons to demonise Obama, is the way in which the neocon pundits use each others work to reinforce their own when in many cases the propaganda actually goes full circle as in this case where Pipes kicks off his garbage then Luttwak follows up followed by Burki and then, to complete the cycle, Pipes uses Burki to reinforce his argument again.

It’s pure desperation from the neocons.

Wednesday, September 10, 2008


Sarah Palin once told an audience in Alaska that the invasion and destruction of Iraq was a “task from God”. This is the same Sarah Palin that is now the vice-presidential candidate for the Republican Party who could conceivably one day be the President of the United States and, therefore, become the most influential and most powerful person on the planet. And she thinks that the invasion and destruction of Iraq was a “task from God”!?

One has to wonder how she perceives the issues that the US has with Iran and with Russia. Will the destruction of these two nations also be seen as “tasks from God”? And how will a US under President Sarah Palin deal with the Palestinians and the Lebanese and the Syrians or, indeed, any other nation that has a majority of their peoples of a religion that she detests as much as she adores her own religion?

The present President is currently the most despised man on the planet. His approval ratings have been, and still are, among the very lowest of any US President. His lies and wars have cost the American people greatly in both blood and treasure. But, despite all this, here we are at the dawn of a new era that may begin with the election of a new President but with the polls and mainstream media telling us the opposite of what might be expected regarding the outcome of this upcoming election.

There is something terribly wrong here. How can the American people, fully aware now of much the crimes and lies of this Republican Presidency has cost them, go to the polls and vote for exactly the same kind of people into government all over again?

Are you really going to vote for John “Bomb, Bomb, Bomb, Bomb Iran” McCain and Sarah “Task from God” Palin?

The world is relying on the American people to rid us of these lunatics from power once and for all.

Tuesday, September 09, 2008


One of the reasons the mainstream media are so intent on supporting McCain and Palin in the up-coming Presidential election is because they realise that with the demise of Bush and a Democrat president-elect, there is far more likelihood of the mainstream media’s role in the Bush presidency’s lies being revealed by those that, in many cases, were themselves part of the mainstream media machine at the time.

The problem with the moguls of the mainstream media is that they just can’t help themselves when it comes to money-making opportunities. They are even happy to shoot themselves in the foot if they can be assured that there’s a quid in it for them. Of course, they’d prefer not to shoot themselves in the foot but, if there’s enough in it for them, they will.

The American mainstream media, and, more importantly, the moguls that own them, support the rightwing of politics, and in America that’s the Republicans. They support them because Republican goals coincide with the goals of big business and the mainstream media is a part of big business. Those in charge of big business tend to live in each others pockets. They help and support each other. They sit on each others boards of directors and belong to the same clubs and mix in the same social circles. As well as being chief honcho in their own business they also often have large share and stake-holdings in other big businesses to hedge against any disaster that may befall their own business. They share the same political, economic, social and value belief systems and ideologies. In this way they generally are able to maintain control of the political system of America by using the mainstream media to manipulate a compliant and often gullible public into making certain decisions that tend to work in favour of big business and their political supporters.

However, when a given set of circumstances occasionally goes against the best interests of big business and their supporters, despite the best efforts of the mainstream media to prevent such circumstances arising – like, for example, the people of America electing a Democrat for president – then the mainstream media accepts the fait accompli of the situation and then goes all out to make as much money as possible by selling newspapers and advertising space via stories that would otherwise have not been tolerated when big business had greater control of the direction the nation was going.

The mainstream media has a tendency to follow popular trends as well as make a concerted effort to create them. And if the trend is for the people to demand answers to questions, only this time without being lied to, then mainstream media are happy to oblige even if, as I said, it means occasionally shooting themselves in the foot.

The problem this time around for the Republicans, and the mainstream media that support them, is that, if there is a dramatic change in government, there is likely to be a powerful demand for answers to questions that the American people feel have never honestly been answered and the mainstream media, driven by the desire to continue creating wealth for themselves, will feel obliged to provide those answers even at the detriment of themselves. They’ll apologise if they have to; they’ll blame the government and various government departments who they’ll say misled them; maybe even the odd head will roll as they attempt to back out of taking on any of the responsibility of all those things that were wrong and rotten throughout the George W. Bush presidency.

This time though, the mainstream media have bitten off a lot more than they are prepared to swallow. For eight long years they have been so deeply enmeshed in the dispensing of lies and propaganda on behalf of the Bush presidency and his neoconservative administration that they have been left with no choice now but to do all in their power to maintain control even if it means practicing further outrageous deceit to ensure maintenance of Republican power. This time around the mainstream media fears more than loss of income; they fear the idea that they may even be accused of complicity in war crimes perpetrated by the President and the administration. Just the stigma of their complicity in those crimes will set them back years in terms of regaining the confidence of the American people.

The demise of the Republican Bush era in the event of an Obama Democrat win at the next election is the mainstream media’s greatest fear because what they fear most is the revelation of the truth of what happened during the G. W. Bush years and their part in it.

If Obama wins then the truth will begin to trickle out and then it will snowball and the mainstream media will not be able to stop it. They will, instead, abuse the truth, just as the abused the lies of the Bush administration, in order to create greater wealth and power for themselves.

They just can’t help themselves.

Tuesday, September 02, 2008


Of course, it’s not so much about babies and pregnancies and who had whose child; it is, however, very much about hypocrisy and the ability of the Republican combination of John McCain and Sarah Palin to give the American people an honest accounting of themselves because if they can’t even do that, how are they going to be trusted to govern the US, the worlds most influential nation?

This business is likely to blow up in the Republicans faces. The chances of Sarah Palin surviving as the vice-presidential candidate until 4 November are very slim if there is any chance at all. The only way out for them is to provide the proper documentary evidence supporting their claims. It’s something they should have done the instant any question was raised. They didn’t. Why?

We’ll be hearing next that the emotional pressure for the seventeen year-old Bristol, Sarah Palin’s daughter who claims to be pregnant, has been too much to sustain and that she has suffered a ‘miscarriage’.

Are the American people really going to fall for this stuff? Is McCain really fit to be President if he makes these kind of judgements? And what on earth was his advisors thinking of when they let him go ahead with this nonsense?

The only people I feel sorry for here are the Palin’s kidz and the American people – all of whom have been duped and abused for long enough.


Reports are now coming in of Israeli naval vessels firing on unarmed Palestinian fishing boats with human rights workers on board. The fishing boats were several miles off the Gazan coast and inside Palestinian territorial waters when the Israeli Navy opened fire on them with live ammunition. There have been no reports of injuries.

One wonders if this will ever be a story that sees the light of day in the mainstream media. As I post this at 10.20am Adelaide, Australia local time, there has nothing mentioned at all in the mainstream media. The report originated directly from two of the multinational human rights workers on board the fishing vessels who have been in contact with the Australians For Palestine and Women For Palestine groups in Australia.

Please call the Israeli authorities now and tell them to stop firing on unarmed Palestinians and human rights workers. Here are a few numbers to call:

The Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs Tel. +972 2 530 3111
The British Embassy in Tel Aviv +972 3 725 1222
The US Embassy in Tel Aviv +972 2 625 5755
The Australian Embassy in Tel Aviv +972 3 693 5000


There are reports that at least two Gazan fisherman were injured when the Israeli Navy fired on the fishing vessels.


The ‘Jerusalem Post’ is reporting that the Israeli Navy had fired ‘warning shots’ at the Gazan fishing boats. The fact that two unarmed fisherman had been wounded indicates that they were not warning shots but shots designed to kill and injure.

Monday, September 01, 2008


For the benefit of my US readers, a friend has pointed me to some stuff that may be of interest including this and this about the ongoing and terrifying tactics of the police in Minnesota.

Many thanks to Bob Wall whose comments can be read at the No More of the Same blog.