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.

Saturday, October 30, 2010


Of course, he doesn’t say so in so many words – he’s clever enough not to – but from the way he has penned his latest piece of propaganda he might just as well have.

Writing in National Review Online on Friday, Goldberg asks: ‘Why isn’t Julian Assange dead?’ He then runs through a gamut of what he thinks are useful scenarios from Hollywood that parody black-ops murders and, of course, mocks the notions that other well-known assassinations are actually the work of security service organisations. And, just for good measure to complete the illusion that so-called conspiracy theories are, indeed, only ‘conspiracy theories’, goes on to suggest that; “The main evidence that the U.S. government didn’t bring down the World Trade Center on 9/11 is that no one has the ability to pull off a conspiracy like that”.

Now that’s what I call ‘Chutzpahbabble’.

Goldberg completes his piece of delusional wishful thinking by saying that “Assange is essentially hiding behind his celebrity and the fact that it wouldn’t do any good to kill him, given the nature of the Web.” And that: “Even if the CIA wanted to take him out, they couldn’t without massive controversy.” Goldberg then completes his piece with a bit of ‘Nudge, nudge, wink, wink’ inference that killing Assange would be against the law, ignoring entirely that killing anyone under such circumstances is against the law – though since when has that stopped the CIA who have been busy killing people for decades.

It’s clear what Goldberg’s intention is with this piece of nonsense; he’d like to see Assange murdered by the CIA. He concedes that Assange’s notoriety and the fact that he is a citizen of Australia, an ally of the US, that assassinating Assange couldn’t be done without “massive controversy” but, again, since when has that stopped them? Once done it would be fait accompli.

The likes of Goldberg couldn’t care less about any massive controversy.

Wednesday, October 27, 2010


Is it just a coincidence that the three men responsible for leading their respective countries in to committing the Twenty-First century’s first major war crimes are publishing their memoirs within just a few months of each other?

Tony Blair, who led the UK into an illegal war based on fabrications and lies and against the overwhelming wishes of the British people, released his self-aggrandising book, ‘Tony Blair: A Journey’, last month. On 1 November the just as egotistical John Howard, Australia’s ex-Prime Minister who took Australia to war also against the overwhelming wishes of his people and based on the same fabrications and lies, will be releasing his book, ‘Lazarus Rising’; while a bit over a week later, on 9 November, ex-President George W. Bush who led the ‘coalition of the willing’ into an unprovoked attack against the people of a sovereign nation will be releasing his memoir, ‘Decision Points’.

These three leaders were the criminals that led their nations and the Western world into an unprovoked attack against the people of Afghanistan and Iraq – wars that were planned long before 9/11 took place. None of these warcriminals have shown any sign of regret that so many lives have been lost and ruined as a direct result of their lies and actions.

John Howard’s ‘Lazarus Rising’ is the next memoir out of the blocks. The book is being published by the Rupert Murdoch-owned HarperCollins publishing house. There should be no surprises there; after all John Howard entertained Rupert Murdoch for dinner in Washington on Monday, 10 September 2001, the very eve of 9/11 itself, and Murdoch has been a staunch supporter of Howard and his conservative policies ever since.

Not so well known is Murdoch’s relationship with Blair which goes back to 1995, a relationship that was instigated by the influential Jewish-American neoconservative economist and writer Irwin Stelzer. In 1997, just a month before the UK general election which brought Blair to power, Murdoch ordered the ‘Sun’ newspaper to switch its support from the conservatives, who the ‘Sun’ had supported for some two decades, to Blair and his New Labour. In all subsequent general elections in the UK in which Blair led the Labour party, Murdoch’s ‘Sun’ newspaper has supported the Labour party. Since Blair’s departure, however, Murdoch has ordered the ‘Sun’ to revert its support to the conservatives.

Just as we have seen the three leaders take their respective nations to war based on the lies that originated from the neoconservatives, will we be treated to the same lies from each of them explaining the failures of their wars? It’ll be interesting to compare the detail of each of their explanations.

The devil is in the detail.

Sunday, October 17, 2010


It seems Pollard’s lawyers are appealing to Obama for Pollard’s release based on some deal that was made between the US and Israel whereby he would serve only 10 years in jail. According to the Jerusalem Post, Pollard’s lawyers are asking Obama to give Pollard clemency but the article is not connecting it to the possibility that Netanyahu will extend the freeze on settlement building in order to restart the so-called peace talks.

The way it’s being talked about at the moment is as though the two are not contingent on each other. Pollard’s release could be touted by the US as conceding to a deal made long ago while any extension of the settlement building freeze would more than likely be touted simply as Netanyahu having a change of heart in the pursuit of peace.

The proof of whether or not a deal was struck will be in the amount of noise the extreme right-wing Zionist politicians make over any reinstatement of the settlement building freeze. If there’s only a token noise, then you’ll know a deal was made – Pollard’s freedom in exchange for getting Abbas back to the table via a building freeze.

Saturday, October 16, 2010


Doesn’t anyone get it yet? Surely by now the world can see how farcical the so-called Palestinian statehood talks are and that the Zionists of Israel and their neoconservative supporters are never going to allow a proper sovereign Palestinian state exist.

Talks between Netanyahu and Abbas have now effectively come to an end and, even if they are revived, they are still likely to come to nothing. Netanyahu has refused so far to extend the freeze on settlement building in the West Bank, and, even if he did, it was only going to be for a couple of months.

What the Palestinians want is not a ‘settlement building freeze’ but for the Israelis in the West Bank to leave the West Bank for good. They also want them to take their wall and fence with them and, if they still feel the need to have their walls and fences, to put them on their side of the 1967 line and not on Palestinian land. But we all know that none of this is ever going to happen.

Israel is just treading water waiting for an opportunity to kick off a war against Iran that will provide them with an excuse to launch a wholesale assault on the Gaza Strip, south Lebanon and the full occupation of the West Bank on the pretext that they are acting to prevent retaliatory strikes against Israel by Hezbollah and Hamas.

Since Iran will not be attacking Israel and it is clear that Iran does not have a nuclear weapons program, despite the continuing rhetoric and relentless propaganda, Israel will now have to rely on somehow provoking Hamas and/or Hezbollah into war which they will hope escalates to include Iran and the US. As in 2006 when Israel provoked Hezbollah by launching mock air-raids over Lebanon which resulted in Hezbollah launching rockets against Israel, so Israel today is attempting to provoke Hamas into retaliation by flying mock air-raids over the Gaza Strip. These air-raids are barely being reported in the Western mainstream media though it can be guaranteed that if and when Hamas do retaliate, the Western world will quickly hear about it. By continuing their almost daily military jet overflights of both Lebanon and the Gaza Strip the Israelis hope to provoke Hezbollah and Hamas into responding thus providing Israel with the excuse they need to begin their war. Once war against Hezbollah has begun, Israel will then be seeking an excuse to attack Iran and the first rocket lobbed against Israel by either Hamas or Hezbollah with ‘Made in Iran’ written on it will likely provide that excuse. Once Israel attacks Iran the US will have little choice but to support Israel since Israel does not have the wherewithal to take on Iran fully and prevail. Israel will need the US to destroy Iran’s ability to strike Israel and induce regime change in Iran.

Such a war against Iran will be so horrendous that it is likely to distract the world’s attention from Israel’s aggression against Lebanon, the Gaza Strip and the West Bank and possibly Syria.

Once such a war starts – and just about anything can trigger it – the situation could well escalate very quickly and before the world knows it, we could find ourselves facing world war.

There is only one way in which this disaster can be avoided and that is for the entire world to demand that Israel and Palestine become one nation where Jews and Arabs alike live as equals in a state that extends from the Mediterranean Sea in the West to the Jordan River in the East, and from the Lebanon border in the North to the Sinai in the south. Those Jews and Arabs that cannot bring themselves to go along with this arrangement should then consider finding elsewhere to live. There must be right of return and there must be a process of reconciliation Jews and Arabs have managed to live together in relative peace before and there is no real reason with the help of the rest of the world why it cannot be done again.

The One State Solution is now clearly the only solution. The alternative is too horrific to contemplate.

Thursday, October 14, 2010


The desperately and somewhat ridiculously named neoconservative front organisation, the Emergency Committee for Israel, headed up by William Kristol, recently commissioned McLaughlin and Associates to conduct a poll to gauge American public opinion about the Zionists and neocons arch-enemy, Iran. One of the questions asked in the poll (Q28) was: Do you agree or disagree with the following statement? “I am strongly opposed to the use of military force by Israel or the United States to attack Iran”. According to the neocon’s poll 52.8% disagreed; in other words, according to the poll, a majority of American’s are not opposed to attacking Iran.

However, the results fly in the face of several other recent polls on American public opinion regarding whether or not America should attack Iran. The 60 Minutes/Vanity Fair poll found that very few Americans would support a war against Iran; only 25% - and that’s only if Iran attacked American soil.

Last months release of the prestigious Chicago Council on Global Affairs National Survey of American Public Opinion found that only some 38% of Americans would support America going to war against Iran even if Israel attacked Iran.

I’ll leave readers to link to the polls and discover for themselves the disparities between the neocon’s poll and the others. Suffice to say that the neocons poll results is so far out of whack compared with the others that one, at the very least, needs to question the credibility of the neocons’ pollsters, McLaughlin and Associates, while we all know that the neocons themselves, after nearly ten years of lies and wars started with false accusations, have no credibility left whatsoever anyway.

Tuesday, October 12, 2010


If Abbas and the Palestinian Authority concede to Netanyahu’s demands that, in exchange for a couple of months freeze on settlement building in the West Bank, the state of Israel be recognised as a ‘Jewish state’ – which, with twenty percent of its population being Arab, it clearly is not – and what with Israel demanding that all new Israelis swear allegiance to the ‘Jewish’ state, Abbas will effectively be abandoning any prospect of there ever being an eventual right of return of Palestinian refugees or having a truly Palestinian state.

Talks thus far have been farcical. Rather than being orientated toward seeking a solution to the problem of creating a viable Palestinian state, all the players involved have been far more intent of using the talks as a means of scoring political brownie points for each of the respective participants agendas.

For President Obama the talks have been used merely to score a few brownie points ahead of the US mid-term elections this coming November. Obama thinks that if he can just prevent the talks from breaking down entirely before the November polls he might just be able to get the Democrats across the line without such a great loss in the House as is so far predicted. For Netanyahu, aware of Obama’s predicament in desperately trying to hold the talks together before the approaching polls, the talks are an opportunity of getting the US to persuade Abbas to concede to Israeli demands. For Abbas, who has no real mandate to govern Palestinians and who knows full well that that there is never going to be a Palestinian state, it is simply a matter of clinging to power which he knows he can only do with US and Israeli support. As a result, Abbas plays a game of apparent willingness to continue talks while Netanyahu gradually eats away at all of the dreams Palestinians have aspired to. Meanwhile, Palestinians are kept divided and those in the Gaza remain completely isolated as Abbas continues to harass and arrest Hamas members in the West Bank.

So far, Netanyahu is in front with more brownie points than the other two put together and if, with Obama’s help, he can get Abbas to concede to recognising Israel as a Jewish state, all dreams of a proper Palestinian state for the future, whether it be the OneState Solution with right of return for refugees or a full-on real sovereign state of Palestine without settlers under Israeli rule and proper borders and without all this ‘land for peace’ nonsense, will be gone forever.