Kamikaze Christians on the March!

Last week, an insurgency of radical lobbyists descended on our nation's capitol, pressing lawmakers to encourage Israeli expansion in the West Bank, ditch any Israeli-Palistinian peace plan, and launch a pre-emptive strike against Iran. Led by Christian ayatollah John Hagee, the jihadists of CUFI (Christians United for Israel), are hell-bent on fulfilling the Biblical prophecies of Revelations. (See Max Blumenthal's first-hand report, including video, here.)

Logic has never been a strong point of the faith-based brigades, and they demonstrate a profound deficiency of it here:

The Rapture will only occur after the climactic battle of Armageddon, when Jesus returns as mayor of Jerusalem. And this is why we must pre-emptively attack Iran--to prevent the Persian infidels from threatening Israel and kicking off Armageddon. Which leads to the question: do they really want it, or don't they?

I guess there may be some merely strategic calculation here, like the Japanese imperialists thought--if a big war is inevitable, might as well start if off with a sneak attack and get the upper hand. Compounding their crippled sense of logic, the faith-based zealots also wallow in historical ignorance--Tojo's gambit proved a disaster, almost resulting in total nuclear annihilation of his nation. And one glance at the developing trends in the Middle East should give the warmongers in both the U.S. and Israel qualms about igniting a wider war.

Mushariff's days are numbered in Pakistan, which already has the bomb, with an ineradicable Muslim fundamentalist insurgency in Waziristan. Another unprovoked Western attack on a Muslim nation--by Christians and/or Jews--would most probably crumble Mushariff's eroding foundation of support, and unite (at least temporarily) the Shiites and Sunnis worldwide in hatred for the heathen aggressors. That includes Hezbollah, still bunkered down and unbowed on Israel's northern frontier. Plenty of kamikaze fanatics willing to strap on a suitcase nuke in the event of all-out war.

For 4 years, the Iraqi insurgency has been learning how to defeat a technologically superior military force. Just as Hezbollah learned in Lebanon--lessons now being adopted by the Palestinians. The U.S. military--Israel's ultimate guarantor of security--is close to bankruptcy. Still plenty of hardware, but getting desperate for manpower.

In Israel, there are some religious zealots , convinced that the U.N. grant of 60% of Palestinian land in 1948 was insufficiently generous--the real deed to the whole property is registered in the Old Testament. But it is mainly secular Zionists in the both the U.S. and Israel, devoted to the concept of Jewish lebensraum, who are thrilled to employ the goofy CUFI crowd as useful idiots.

But they are dangerous idiots as well--their mission is mass suicide, embracing the horrors of the Apocalypse as desiderata, contemptuous of the higher brains God gave us (do nothing about global warming--it's His will), and absolutely thrilled with the prospect of a holocaust of Jews, Muslims, and Christians from non-sanctioned denominations alike. Their sick delusions are most blatantly manifest in this article of faith: that the Anti-Christ will be a peacemaker. Whereas the Prince of Peace, in his next incarnation, will be as merciless and bloodthirsty as a Mongol horseman.

I would give them, all of them--Christian, Jewish and Muslim fundamentalists alike--this advice: in a hurry to see the Savior, or the Mahdi? Just can't wait for it? And suicide is a sin? Fine. Go base jumping with a surplus WWII parachute. Go diving with sharks, a Sushi snack packed in your wetsuit. Sample some pet food from China. Whatever. You have the right to your own primitive, self-destructive beliefs. But you don't have the right to take the rest of us down with you.

Spanish Cartoon Scandal

The cover of a Spanish satirical magazine, El Jueves, has sent one Spanish judge into a Franco-like frenzy, sending gendarmes across the country to confiscate the whole edition. The offending cartoon, depicting the Royal couple, refers to a initiative by the Spanish government giving financial help to young couples who have children, to the tune of EUR 2500 (roughly US $3450) per child, in the form of tax discounts, etc. The caption reads: "Do you realize? If you get pregnant... This will be the closest thing to work I will have ever done in my life!"

The judge ordered all printing plates of the cover confiscated, unknowing that plates have not been used in modern digital printing for years. The cartoonist, Guillermo, joked: "The best thing would be for them to cut off my right hand."

Praying for Pearl Harbor III

“Unless Congress immediately impeaches Bush and Cheney, a year from now the US could be a dictatorial police state at war with Iran.

"Bush has put in place all the necessary measures for dictatorship in the form of "executive orders" that are triggered whenever Bush declares a national emergency. Recent statements by Homeland Security Chief Michael Chertoff, former Republican senator Rick Santorum and others suggest that Americans might expect a series of staged, or false flag, "terrorist" events in the near future.”

—Paul Craig Roberts
Counterpunch, 7-16-2007

These refreshingly blunt words come from a former Asst. Secretary of the Treasury under Reagan, former Associate Editor of the Wall Street Journal, and—former Republican. Roberts has been speaking and writing passionately about the Neocon criminals and imbeciles who’ve hijacked his party. He is joined by Bruce Fein, Pat Buchanan, William Normann Grigg and many other paleo-conservatives and former high-ranking government officials who are convinced that 9-11 was orchestrated or allowed to happen, answering the prayers of the Neocons for “a new Pearl Harbor” to ignite their imperial war. (see their testimony here: Patriots Question 9-11

And, Roberts argues, given that their train has nearly derailed, the Neocons desperately need a booster shot of terrorism:

"If the Bush administration wants to continue its wars in the Middle East and to entrench the "unitary executive" at home, it will have to conduct some false flag operations that will both frighten and anger the American people and make them accept Bush's declaration of "national emergency" and the return of the draft. Alternatively, the administration could simply allow any real terrorist plot to proceed without hindrance.

"A series of staged or permitted attacks would be spun by the captive media as a vindication of the neoconsevatives' Islamophobic policy, the intention of which is to destroy all Middle Eastern governments that are not American puppet states. Success would give the US control over oil, but the main purpose is to eliminate any resistance to Israel's complete absorption of Palestine into Greater Israel."

Indeed, the Republicans are virtually Praying for a Terrorist Strike, as conservative commentator William Norman Grigg writes, quoting Rick Santorum:

"Between now and November, a lot of things are going to happen, and I believe that by this time next year, the American public’s going to have a very different view of this war, and it will be because, I think, of some unfortunate events, that like we’re seeing unfold in the UK. But I think the American public’s going to have a very different view."

And Arkansas Republican Party chairman Rick Milligan:

"At the end of the day, I believe fully the president is doing the right thing, and I think all we need is some attacks on American soil like we had on [Sept. 11, 2001]."

And dark horse Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul recently opined:

"A contrived Gulf of Tonkin- type incident may occur to gain popular support for an attack on Iran.”

But the leading indicator is Homeland Security Fuehrer Michael Chertoff’s gut, rumbling with intimations of a terrorist strike, based on… nothing specific he can cite.* Chertoff should undergo a colonoscopy to give us a better picture of this nebulous threat. Or maybe he should heroically fall on his sword, enabling a soothsayer to read his entrails for greater detail.

But that would be dangerous, not only to Mr. Chertoff, but to his sponsors and confederates—his bloody bowels might foretell this about the imminent strike: “Made in U.S.A.” Or “Made in Israel.”

* In a recent speech at the USC, Chertoff’s gut belched forth a speculation about a simultaneous L.A./San Francisco dirty bomb attack “that our enemy is surely planning.”

PS: Oregon representative Peter DeFrazio, a member of the House Homeland Security Committee, recently attempted (as he is authorized to do) to review secret White House plans for operating the government after another terrorist attack. The answer, no doubt from Dick Cheney, who already may be hunkered in his bunker, was ACCESS DENIED.

Nancy Pelosi vs. Cindy Sheehan

The punditocracy may laugh now at this possible match-up (Sheehan announcing that she may run against the Speaker), a titled heavyweight against a scrawny street punk on the scales of campaign funding. But as a majority of the public demands, with increasing stridency, the end of this hemorrhaging in Iraq, Pelosi’s and Reid’s approval ratings are hovering near Dick Cheney’s—elected to abort the war, they have presided over its escalation. Meanwhile, Sheehan is hardly an unknown, has a massive base of support among Democrats, and after camping outside the fantasy ranch in Crawford during the blistering Texas summer, it’s not likely she’ll wilt under the heat of King George’s stubborn smirk.

Pelosi makes all the good gestures, but then capitulates in the final quarter. In March, yet another war funding bill ($100 billion) was about to be approved by the House that included a provision forbidding military operations against Iran without congressional approval (“You may continue this bollixed war, but don’t start another one!”). A few days later, Pelosi attended the annual conference of one of her and her party’s largest investors—AIPAC—where her speech defending the bill was roundly booed. I don’t know if the runny mascara was from nervous perspiration, or actual tears, as she hurriedly fled to Capitol Hill for emergency surgery. By dawn, she had removed the offending tumor about Iran, and stitched up the bill with a realpolitick rationalization: “Of course, we’re not really going to attack Iran. Mercy, no! I abhor any kind of unseemly aggressiveness. But to prod Iran forward, we must not take the stick off the table.”

If only Ms. Pelosi would apply this same strategem to the domestic front, she might successfully contain our own fundamentalist megalomaniac—but no, the impeachment stick is off this table. Here, too, she is bucking the trend: 46% of the public, in a recent poll, is all for impeaching the Evil Cretin. But it will never happen with this reverse Teddy Roosevelt philosophy: Speak loudly, and drop your stick.

The House did just pass a resolution for withdrawal by Spring 2008 (CNN, almost as “fair and balanced” as Fox, megaphoned this belligerent headline: “Bush Blasts the House!”). The King will certainly veto it. Then Pelosi and Reid will dance another mournful jig, pleading, “Oh, we tried. We really, really tried!”

Nancy, dear, your heart’s in the right place, but your purse is plumped by foreign lobbies who would like nothing better than a perpetually escalating Crusade in the Middle East, whatever the cost in American blood and treasure. But the nation is begging for a virgin warrior with the moxy to wield the big sticks in the Homeland—defunding the war, impeachment. As has been said about many of our adversaries, "Force is the only language he understands." There is no better candidate than Cindy Sheehan to lead that insurgency, for many reasons, but one overriding one. His name is Casey.

Whatever Cindy Sheehan's prospects for election, her candidacy just may be the stick to prod Nancy Pelosi forward, or at least arrest her unseemly backpedaling.

Two Posthumous Confessions: JFK and Roswell

Perhaps the favorite shibboleth wielded by skeptics or “debunkers” against conspiracy theorists is this: “No conspiracy could endure this long without exposure. Surely, somebody would have spilled the beans by now”—typically uttered by the average Clueless Clark who has never bothered to crack a single tome in the often vast literature generated by certain conspiratorial subjects. The elusive inside bean-spiller can be found in many of these pages—and that’s where he stays, quarantined from broader exposure by the powerful clergy of American mainstream media editors. If the panjandrums of the NY Times do not hear the tree falling, then it has not been felled.

Two recent cases in point, totally blacked out by our presshood: 1) E. Howard Hunt’s posthumous confession about the JFK assassination. 2) Lt. Walter Haut’s posthumous affidavit about the alleged Roswell UFO crash (reported in the British Daily Mail). First:

Lt. Walter Haut
who died last year (2006), and whose sworn affidavit dated Dec. 2002, to be opened only after his death, was so revealed this June. (read it here) Lt. Haut was the public relations officer at the Roswell Army Air Field in 1947, year of the infamous crash. He issued the original press releases about the crash being no more than a weather balloon, on the order of the base commander, Col. William Blanchard. Haut’s affidavit now claims that was a cover story, and that he observed the recovered wreckage in a tightly guarded hangar:

“It was approx. 12 to 15 feet in length, not quite as wide, about 6 feet high, and more of an egg shape. Lighting was poor, but its surface did appear metallic. No windows, portholes, wings, tail section, or landing gear were visible… Also from a distance, I was able to see a couple of bodies under a canvas tarpaulin. Only the heads extended beyond the covering, and I was not able to make out any features. The heads did appear larger than normal and the contour of the canvas suggested the size of a 10-year-old child. At a later date in Blanchard's office, he would extend his arm about 4 feet above the floor to indicate the height…

“I am convinced that what I personally observed was some type of craft and its crew from outer space… I have not been paid nor given anything of value to make this statement, and it is the truth to the best of my recollection.”

The hardcore debunker will aver that the affidavit could have—or must have—been forged. Or that the whole hangar scene was staged to bedazzle Haut and others in some kind of psywar/disinfo campaign by Army intelligence (the UFO phenomenon was a serious concern within the Cold War defense establishment, with documented discussions of how to either exploit it, or defend against possible mass hysteria). But the debunker himself becomes a conspiracy theorist himself at this point, and may be hoisted on his own petard: where’s your proof?

The reflexive skeptic often argues from certain faith-based presumptions: Aliens do not exist. Political assassinations are impossible in God’s country. Hence evidence of either is, ipso facto, fraudulent or misconstrued. A standard accusation, or slander—that the conspiracy/cover-up author is a charlatan, retailing sensationalist fables for fame and profit—is hard to pin on Lt. Haut. He avoided all publicity about the matter during his lifetime, the affidavit is not generating any profit, and the only fame accruing to him is in the afterlife.

E. Howard Hunt
has been an alleged conspirator in the JFK assassination almost since the beginning, when he was accused of being one of the three tramps arrested in Dealey Plaza on Nov. 22. In 1985, he lost a libel trial—Hunt vs. Liberty Lobby—that was successfully turned into a virtual trial of the JFK assassination by defendant attorney Mark Lane, who also represented Lee Harvey Oswald before his untimely murder by mobster Jack Ruby. Lane brilliantly dissected Hunt on the witness stand, exposing the multiple, contradictory lies about his whereabouts on Nov. 22 (in Dallas, acting as paymaster of the hit, according to witness Marita Lorenz), and convincing the jury that the CIA (Hunt’s longtime employer before he joined Nixon’s plumbers’ squad) participated in the assassination.

It should be one of the most famous trials in American history, but it also was successfully quarantined by our own Pravda poodles, never making headlines beyond the local Miami news (see Lane’s book about the trial, Plausible Denial).

Hunt died in January of this year. In April, his handwritten and taped confession, delivered to his son, was published in Rolling Stone, alleging a chain of command with LBJ at the top, and CIA operatives Cord Meyer and David Atlee Phillips as the two main capos organizing the JFK hit. Hunt’s own role, according to the confession, was only as a “benchwarmer.”

True believers have heralded the confession as the long-awaited lost gospel, while the debunkers and MSM have simply ignored it, diverting the public’s attention to Vincent Bugliosi’s massive defense of the Warren Commission, the just published Reclaiming History. Like the 16 volumes of the Warren Commission, it attempts to awe by sheer weight (1600 pages!), but it must struggle against the Himalayan mass of pro-conspiracy literature (much of it exceptionally well-researched) over the last 45 years. I have yet to read his account of the Magic Bullet theory (concocted by Arlen Specter), but I’m sure it’s as risible as all the other absurd rationalizations.

As a longtime student of the JFK assassination, I judge Hunt’s confession to be a mixture of truth and disinformation—typical of spook work, and typical of Hunt himself, who published numerous James Bond-like novels, and forged documents to implicate JFK in the Diem assassination. LBJ and Phillips—I would rate their involvement as 90% certain (along with Hoover and a few other characters from military intelligence and the radical anti-Castro exile community). But Cord Meyer’s involvement, and Hunt’s role as “benchwarmer” are doubtful. Meyer was a liberal, accused of Communist sympathies by McCarthy, while Hunt evinced a visceral hatred of JFK, even claiming years after the event that the Soviet missiles were never removed from Cuba after the October crisis.

Hunt asserts the affair between Mary Pinchot Meyer, Cord’s ex-wife, as a motive for his involvement, but the Meyers were divorced in 1958 and the affair began in 1960. Mary was murdered in 1964 and the case remains unsolved. In a 2001 interview with writer David Heymann, Cord was asked about Mary’s murder—who could have done it? Cord replied, “The same sons of bitches that killed John F. Kennedy.” (Read the full story about Mary Meyer including her acid trips with JFK here.)

One of those SOBs was probably E. Howard Hunt. I credit the information brought out in the Hunt vs. Liberty Lobby trial. Replace Hunt himself for Cord Meyer at some level, and the amended confession rings true.