Withdrawal of US Troops From Iraq Highly Suspect

Think-tank designs for Iran leave only Israeli attack & coaxed provocation for total war on table.
analysis by Tony Cartalucci

October 22, 2011 - For ten months the Obama administration has presided over the "Arab Spring," a geopolitical gambit years in the making, and executed simultaneously in multiple nations throughout the Middle East and North Africa in the beginning of 2011. The regional conflagration was stoked by a steady stream of first, denial, even feigned surprise, with covert support for US-backed opposition groups, then more overt support, and finally NATO airstrikes, weapons, training, and special operations forces lent to the rebellion in Libya and weapons and support sent to Syria's militants. These collective efforts stretching from Tunisia and leading up to Iran's doorstep serve a singular agenda -that is, to contain and ultimately overturn the reemergence of Russia as well as containing the rise of China.


Toppling Iran

Integral to this stated agenda, is the toppling of Iran's government and its integration into the Wall Street-London "international order." Efforts to topple Syria's government by US-backed and now apparently armed opposition groups aim to isolate and even provoke the Islamic Republic into a suitable justification for US or Israeli (or both) retaliation. As reported on extensively, the literal playbook from which these stratagems are drawn is the Fortune 500-funded Brookings Institution's "Which Path to Persia?" report. In it, it specifically states:

"...it would be far more preferable if the United States could cite an Iranian provocation as justification for the airstrikes before launching them. Clearly, the more outrageous, the more deadly, and the more unprovoked the Iranian action, the better off the United States would be. Of course, it would be very difficult for the United States to goad Iran into such a provocation without the rest of the world recognizing this game, which would then undermine it. (One method that would have some possibility of success would be to ratchet up covert regime change efforts in the hope that Tehran would retaliate overtly, or even semi-overtly, which could then be portrayed as an unprovoked act of Iranian aggression.) "

The 2009 "Green Revolution" was just such an attempt at "covert regime change" to "goad Iran into such a provocation" though it ignominiously failed. It appears that in addition to funding, arming, and harboring the terrorist Mujahedin-e Khalq Organization (MEK), the US has also taken to entirely fabricating "such provocations." The recent DEA-Saudi bomb plot announced by Attorney General Eric Holder stands on tenuous grounds, even more so now that Iran has counterclaimed that the supposed Quds Forces member the US implicated may in fact be a member of the above stated US-backed MEK terrorist organization. The US has done all in its power to coax Saudi Arabia into taking a harder line against Tehran. The Brookings report had this to say about that in 2009:

"For instance, Saudi Arabia is positively apoplectic about the Iranians’ nuclear program, as well as about their mischief making in Lebanon, Iraq, and the Palestinian territories. Yet, so far, Riyadh has made clear that it will not support military operations of any kind against Iran. Certainly that could change, but it is hard to imagine what it would take."

"...it is hard to imagine what it would take." Perhaps MEK terrorists posing as Quds Forces, entrapping a drug addicted used-car salesman to arrange a bomb plot against a Saudi ambassador and then blaming it on Iran.

With the fate of Libya hanging in the balance, with US troops still occupying both Iraq and Afghanistan, and with renewed vigor aimed toward Syria after the alleged fall of Libyan leader Muammar Qaddafi, it is incredibly unlikely that the US has abandoned its plans to ultimately topple the Iranian regime as the crescendo to this ongoing regional campaign. In fact, many amongst Obama's own administration have been the most rabid supporters of executing the final leg of this long-term strategy started under the Bush administration. The 2008 presidential runner-up John McCain, and of course the same collection of unelected, corporate-funded policy makers from the halls of Brookings Institution, the Foreign Policy Initiative and the American Enterprise Institute (AEI) have also been more than eager in pushing this agenda along.

That these policy makers, who have helped engineer and support the current course Obama is on, are now sulking over Obama's decision to pull troops out of Iraq when in fact Obama doesn't, never has, and never will make such decisions, is highly suspect. Kenneth Pollack, one of the co-authors of the "Which Path to Persia?" report, recently expressed dismay in his article titled, "With a Whimper, Not a Bang." Frederick Kagan, the corporate-funded AEI architect behind the Iraq "troop surge" also lamented in a piece titled, "Obama abandons Iraq." Kagan explicitly claims that the withdrawal would be "giving Tehran the single most important demand it has pursued for years—the complete withdrawal of U.S. military forces from Iraq."

Possible Scenarios

The US is at least peddling the illusion it is clearing out its holdings in Iraq, leaving a symbolic force for a reason - a reason that has to do with a final gambit to be played against Iran, the last domino to fall in the US-contrived "Arab Spring." These are two possible scenarios:

1. Leave a small symbolic force for the Iranians to attack in Iraq after a "unilateral" Israeli airstrike. Whatever Iran decides to do, it may not be able to do sustainably, but will do viciously in the opening phases. By leaving a symbolic force in Iraq, the US can garner the necessary sympathy and anger politically at home to launch a wider operation against Iran in "retaliation."

2. Feign as if the US is disengaging from the Middle East so when a false flag terror attack or other provocation is perpetrated against the US, it will look like an egregious act of war by Iran. While a shrinking US presence in the Middle East would logically engender even more patience in Tehran, the script writers of the latest DEA-Saudi bomb plot took special care to ensure the "Iran has become bolder" talking-point made it repetitively on air and into the minds of unsuspecting Americans.

This is more than mere idle speculation. In the Brookings Institution report, "Which Path to Persia?" nearly all but the most extreme measures proposed in the report have been executed. The only options left on the table unused include a unilateral Israeli airstrike designed to provoke a significant retaliation thus bringing the US into war with Iran and a variety of options to provoke a full-scale invasion.

In a section of the report titled, "Leave it to Bibi: Allowing or Encouraging an Israeli Military Strike," (page 89, page 102 of the .pdf) it appears that Israeli intelligence is also working with the terrorist organization MEK:

"Israeli intelligence operations against Iran were stepped up even earlier and have included use of third parties to publicize the Iranian threat without revealing the Israeli hand. Iran's secret enrichment and heavy-water reactor programs were publicly exposed in August 2002 by an Iranian dissident group (the Mujahedin-e Khalq), which reportedly was unwittingly fed the information by Israeli intelligence."
The report goes on to say of an American approved Israeli airstrike:

"However, as noted in the previous chapter, the airstrikes themselves are really just the start of this policy. Again, the Iranians would doubtless rebuild their nuclear sites. They would probably retaliate against Israel, and they might retaliate against the United States, too (which might create a pretext for American airstrikes or even an invasion.)"

Allowing the Israelis to attack by air, and sacrificing US troops on the ground in Iraq as a pretext for greater war is most certainly a possibility. The report continues on by stating the necessity of maintaining a certain level of plausible deniablity regarding the Israeli airstrikes. US troops in Iraq would by default implicate America in any Israeli airstrike that would need to pass over Iraqi airspace. US troops "in retreat" in Iraq could possibly mitigate such implications as well as make an Iranian retaliation seem all the more "outrageous, deadly, and unprovoked."

We can be sure that after years of carrying forth an agenda that proceeded his presidency, Obama has not all the sudden decided to unilaterally pull troops from Iraq. His administration's duplicity and eagerness throughout the US-contrived "Arab Spring" all but assure us that the overarching agenda still includes encircling and toppling the government in Iran. It has not escaped the attention of the White House that a withdrawal from Iraq would give Iran its greatly desired breathing room and would greatly diminish America's influence throughout the Middle East.

Just like the false rapprochement of the West with Libya's Qaddafi before the US rearmed, reorganized, and let loose the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG), when the West returns to torment Tehran, it will come back with a vengeance. Keep an eye on Israel for their attack and the complicit United States waiting to once again "lead from behind." And if you have someone you know in the US military stationed in Iraq staying behind, prepare for the absolute worse. As Henry Kissinger once so bluntly stated, "military men are dumb, stupid animals to be used as pawns for foreign policy." (Woodward and Bernstein The Final Days in chapter 14). Certainly, a few dead G.I.s in Iraq after an Iranian retaliation for an Israeli airstrike would be just the pawns needed for "foreign policy" to move forward.

One can only hope this pessimistic analysis is entirely wrong, and that the US has overreached and has simply decided to withdraw from the battlefield and ultimately from empire. However, if unrest continues to unfold in Syria, which is essentially a low-intensity US proxy war against Damascus, and in turn against Tehran, we can be sure any optimism will be quickly dashed against the rocks by the Wall Street-London corporate-financier oligarchs.

Iran Links US-funded Terrorists to Saudi-DEA Bomb Plot

Baseless US accusations countered with more likely Iranian allegations.
by Tony Cartalucci

Gholam Shakuri, who the US has claimed is a member of Iran's elite Quds Force, and behind a bungling plot involving a used-car salesman and undercover US DEA agents to assassinate a Saudi Ambassador in Washington DC, thus serving as an impetus for a war with Iran the US has been desperately pursing for the greater part of a decade, is now being accused by Iran of instead being a member of the French/Iraqi-based Mujahedin-e Khalq Organization (MEK), the Guardian reports.

MEK. Admittedly a terrorist organization, listed by the US State Department as being such, it is fully funded, armed, and backed by the United States, based in France and US-occupied Iraq, and allowed to conduct terrorist operations against the Iranian people. The "War on Terror" is a fraud.

Number 28 on the US State Department's list of "foreign terrorist organizations," MEK has conducted terrorist operations against both the United States and Iran for decades. Readers may be shocked then to realize that MEK has been considered by the Fortune 500-funded Brookings Institution as a prime candidate for US-backing in an effort to undermine and remove the Iranian government. In Brookings' 2009 report, "Which Path to Perisa?" it is stated:

"Perhaps the most prominent (and certainly the most controversial) opposition group that has attracted attention as a potential U.S. proxy is the NCRI (National Council of Resistance of Iran), the political movement established by the MEK (Mujahedin-e Khalq). Critics believe the group to be undemocratic and unpopular, and indeed anti-American.

In contrast, the group’s champions contend that the movement’s long-standing opposition to the Iranian regime and record of successful attacks on and intelligence-gathering operations against the regime make it worthy of U.S. support. They also argue that the group is no longer anti-American and question the merit of earlier accusations.
Raymond Tanter, one of the group’s supporters in the United States, contends that the MEK and the NCRI are allies for regime change in Tehran and also act as a useful proxy for gathering intelligence. The MEK’s greatest intelligence coup was the provision of intelligence in 2002 that led to the discovery of a secret site in Iran for enriching uranium.

Despite its defenders’ claims, the MEK remains on the U.S. government list of foreign terrorist organizations. In the 1970s, the group killed three U.S. officers and three civilian contractors in Iran. During the 1979-1980 hostage crisis, the group praised the decision to take America hostages and Elaine Sciolino reported that while group leaders publicly condemned the 9/11 attacks, within the group celebrations were widespread.

Undeniably, the group has conducted terrorist attacks—often excused by the MEK’s advocates because they are directed against the Iranian government. For example, in 1981, the group bombed the headquarters of the Islamic Republic Party, which was then the clerical leadership’s main political organization, killing an estimated 70 senior officials. More recently, the group has claimed credit for over a dozen mortar attacks, assassinations, and other assaults on Iranian civilian and military targets between 1998 and 2001. At the very least, to work more closely with the group (at least in an overt manner), Washington would need to remove it from the list of foreign terrorist organizations."
page 117-118 of "Which Path to Persia?" Brookings Institution, 2009

Readers may also be shocked to find out that not only has this been proposed, but long ago approved. This was revealed in Seymour Hersh's 2008 New Yorker article "Preparing the Battlefield," which stated:

"The M.E.K. has been on the State Department’s terrorist list for more than a decade, yet in recent years the group has received arms and intelligence, directly or indirectly, from the United States. Some of the newly authorized covert funds, the Pentagon consultant told me, may well end up in M.E.K. coffers. “The new task force will work with the M.E.K. The Administration is desperate for results.” He added, “The M.E.K. has no C.P.A. auditing the books, and its leaders are thought to have been lining their pockets for years. If people only knew what the M.E.K. is getting, and how much is going to its bank accounts—and yet it is almost useless for the purposes the Administration intends.”

Moves have also been made to get MEK de-listed as a terrorist organization by the US State Department so that even more aid can be rendered to this admitted terrorist organization. Seymore Hersh in an NPR interview, also claims that select MEK members have received training in the US.

Readers, in the absence of evidence provided by America's gun-running Attorney General Eric Holder, must consider which is more plausible; that the DEA entrapped a patsy arranged by MEK who has been training literally inside the United States for years, or that Iran's elite Quds Forces lapsed into insanity, contradicting years of Iranian foreign policy, noted even by America's conspiring warmongers as wanting to avoid any justification for Western aggression against their nation.

Libya: Confirmation Could Take Days

US & Gullible Americans Celebrate Apparent Fortunes of Al Qaeda in Libya
by Tony Cartalucci

At face value, the tenuous narrative of a struggling, desperate NATO confounded by months of fierce resistance on all fronts and an increasingly brutal and transparently atrocious proxy army on the ground in Libya, suddenly wringing victory from what was essentially a catastrophic failure, is difficult to believe. This, especially as NATO desperately needs to turn its full attention toward Syria as the window of its imperial ambitions quickly closes forever. Already, claims that Muammar Qaddafi's son Saif al-Islam had been captured have turned out to be admittedly false, Reuters finally admits [1], even after an elaborate tale had already begun spreading through the biased, irresponsible corporate-driven Western media.

Photo: It's all smiles and laughs in Tripoli as McCain, a chief proponent and driving force behind the US intervention in Libya, literally glorifies Al Qaeda's exploits in the now ruined nation. Miles away, the very rebels he was praising were purposefully starving the civilian population of Sirte in an effort to break their will, while they and NATO indiscriminately used heavy weapons aimed at crowded city centers.

It must also be kept in mind that bold lies have punctuated NATO's impotent attempts at sweeping their proxies into power, including perhaps the most brazen war propaganda in modern history, the NATO bombardment of Tripoli. Similarly, Qaddafi's entire command structure was reported either dead or captured. Most notably was the "confirmation" of Saif al-Islam Qaddafi's capture by the International Criminal Court [2], who claimed not only was his capture confirmed, but that the ICC was already in the process of preparing his transfer to the Hague. The propaganda operation succeeded to a limited extent, allowing otherwise incapable rebel forces to sweep into the capital and gain permanent holdings there. However Saif al-Islam would turn up very much free, and still leading efforts to defend his nation from NATO aggression in the heart of Tripoli.

To add insult to injury, the duplicitous criminals populating the ICC would later claim they never "confirmed" Saif al-Islam's capture [3], a blatant lie that will forever forfeit the already corporate-contrived "international institution's" legitimacy. Given such circumstances, one would be wise to reserve judgement on events unfolding in Libya until Qaddafi's own people confirm or deny the reports. Nothing can be put past NATO and their proxies who have exhibited for over half a year barbarism and duplicity on an unprecedented scale.

What is confirmed, is the jubilation coming from the West's leadership and their ghoulish propagandists throughout the corporate-media, celebrating the apparent death of Qaddafi, and the apparent fortunes of NATO's proxy rebel forces. As reported earlier, NATO's proxies, the "National Transitional Council" is led by the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG) [4] an Al Qaeda affiliate and listed by both the US State Department [5] and the UK Home Office [6] as a "foreign terrorist organization," and a "proscribed terrorist group" respectively. LIFG fighters, led by Abdul Belhaj [7], now the NTC military commander, had fought and killed US and British troops in Afghanistan, while other LIFG fighters waged war against the West in Iraq. Supporting listed terrorist organizations with US and British blood on their hands may seem bad enough, but LIFG's conduct since February 17, 2011 when they began their foreign-sponsored bid to seize power in Libya, has been marked by verified atrocities beside which Qaddafi's alleged crimes pale in comparison.

The entire city of Tawarga, Libya, with a population of 10,000 has verifiably been exiled or exterminated [8] by NATO-backed rebel fighters, and various refugee camps set up by its fleeing residents attacked and scattered. The cities of Sirte and Bani Walid, likewise have been surrounded, cut-off with the declared intention of starving its civilian population into submission [9], and systematically destroyed by both rebels and NATO through indiscriminate use of heavy weapons and airstrikes.

It is also now revealed, the tenuous, duplicitous nature of the very claims used by NATO to justify its intervention in Libya in the first place. Human-rights imposter, Sliman Bouchuiguir flagrantly admitted to journalists that the accusations made against Qaddafi in the lead up to NATO operations were fabricated, unverified, "estimations" that came directly from leading members of the NTC itself. Hardly objective, and clearly agenda driven, Bouchuiguir and his "human rights" organization would also be revealed as having ties to both the NTC and US-funded organizations including the International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH). His shameless explanations can be seen in in the documentary, "Lies Behind the "Humanitarian War" in Libya: There is No Evidence!" [10]

In essence, NATO invaded and destroyed a nation, through the use of proxies listed as terrorists and who verifiably have US and British blood on their hands. It is also now clear that the pretext used to invade Libya was entirely contrived. When Obama ironically claimed "the rule of an iron fist inevitably comes to an end," it is quite clear that no iron fist must inevitably be brought to an end more than the Wall Street-London oligarchs who have perpetrated this grievous crime against the Libyan people and whom Obama represents.

In the coming days, weeks, and months the true measure of NATO's multiple-claims of victory will be put to the test, as will claims of Qaddafi's command structure once again being "dismantled." What is certain is that America and the European Union are ruled by callous, calculating hypocrites who have thrown their people into the crucible of war for nearly a decade against people "sworn" to be the enemies of civilization, only to hand them an entire nation in Northern Africa. Such reckless megalomania may seem removed from the daily lives of Western people, but as economic conditions slide into oblivion, and the number of nations the West can turn its parasitic war machine against dwindles, it will be Americans and Europeans fed next into its ever-hungry maw.

[1] "Saif Al-Islam Gaddafi believed still in desert: NTC" Reuters, October 20, 2011
[2] "Libya: Saif al-Islam Gaddafi detained by rebels, ICC confirm" Telegraph, August 22, 2011
[3] "ICC never had arrest of Gaddafi's son Saif confirmed" Reuters, August 23, 2011
[4] West Point Combating Terrorism Center (CTC) report, Al-Qa'ida's Foreign Fighters in Iraq, A First Look at the Sinjar Records 2007
[5] US State Department, List of Foreign Terrorist Organizations, #2 Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG)
[6] UK Home Office, List of Proscribed Terrorist Groups, page 5, Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG)
[7] "Libya's Powerful Islamic Leader" The Daily Beast, September 2, 2011
[8] "Empty village raises concerns about fate of black Libyans," McClatchy, September 13, 2011
[9] "Libya crisis: Rebel leaders hoping to starve Gaddafi stronghold of Sirte into submission," Telegraph, August 28, 2011
[10] "The Humanitarian War in Libya: There is no evidence!" laguerrehumanitaire.fr/english

Lies Behind the "Humanitarian War" in Libya: There is No Evidence!

The Immense Criminal Enterprise Known as "Responsibility to Protect."
Foreword by Tony Cartalucci

October 19, 2011 - Meet Dr. Sliman Bouchuiguir, the man behind the verified pack of lies used to justify NATO's intervention in Libya. This amazing piece of investigative journalism reveals not only how tenuous these fabrications were, but have produced Bouchuiguir himself admitting flagrantly that the allegations he made were contrived, baseless, unconfirmed, and designed specifically to give the necessary requirements for NATO's intervention.

Furthermore, Bouchuiguir reveals his ties to both the Libyan rebel "National Transitional Council," particularly NTC Prime Minister Mahmoud Jabril (also spelled "Gibril") whom he cites as a source for his allegations, and the US government-funded International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH). These associations paint a dark picture of the depths of depravity from which this war was prosecuted from. This is the justification for a "humanitarian war" where self-serving foreign interests masquerading as "international institutions" arrange for a disgruntled opposition vying for power whom they are supporting, funding, arming, and whose leaders they are harboring, to manage the perception of a given conflict to provide a predictably slanted pretext for "international intervention." This immense criminal enterprise, referred to as "responsibility to protect" or "R2P" is a subject now being covered in depth at colorrevolutionsandgeopolitics.blogspot.com, and a subject the public must be educated on as "R2P" is the pretext these same interests are attempting to use against Syria and beyond.

Please visit the website of the makers of this documentary, here. For an in depth, documented look at the subject matter, please see Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya's excellent article titled, "Lybia: Human rights impostors used to spawn NATO's fraudulent war."

Please visit www.laguerrehumanitaire.fr/english for more information regarding this documentary.

US State Department Funded Agitator in DC Advising #OWS

Egypt's US funded, trained, equipped, and backed agitator of April 6, back in US to "advise" Occupy Wall Street crowds.
by Tony Cartalucci

October 19, 2011 - Wired Magazine has just reported that Ahmed Maher, of the infamous US-funded Egyptian "April 6" revolutionary movement that helped the US topple Egypt's government early in 2011, is now back in Washington D.C. "advising" Occupy Wall Street protesters, face-to-face in McPherson Square. The article claims that protesters throughout the US movement have cited (ironically) protests in Cairo as their "inspiration" to rise up against corruption in their government and financial institutions.

From the US to Serbia, to Egypt and back again, US State Department-funded, trained, and equipped agitator Ahmed Maher poses at the scene of "Occupy D.C." Ironically, Americans claim Maher and his "April 6" movement have inspired them to rise up against their corrupt government, unaware that his movement was insidiously created by the US government. Photo: courtesy Ahmed Maher, Spencer Ackerman

While the Wired piece doesn't explain where Maher honed his "revolutionary" skills, it does mention vaguely that he was in D.C. on invitation from an unnamed university professor and that next he would be headed to New York City to "advise" protesters there.

This of course isn't Maher's first trip to the United States. Years before the Egyptian revolution, the United States was quietly preparing a global army of youth cannon fodder to fuel region wide conflagrations throughout the world, both politically and literally. Maher's April 6 organization had been in New York City for the US State Department's first "Alliance for Youth Movements Summit" in 2008. His group then traveled to Serbia to train under the US-funded "CANVAS" organization before returning to Egypt in 2010 with US International Crisis Group (ICG) operative Mohamed ElBaradei to spend the next year building up for the "Arab Spring."

Considering the depth of planning and preparation by the US State Department, with the cooperation of other US agencies, departments, and corporations, including the mainstream-media, we can now see the full measure of collective duplicity throughout America's establishment. As many may remember, the United States acted with total surprise as the "Arab Spring" unfolded, despite having engineered it years in advance and having financial and tactical contacts with all the leading opposition groups.

In Egypt's case, Mohamed ElBaradei and his "April 6" organization led by Maher, were in direct contact with some of America's most influential power brokers, including Zbigniew Brzezinski and George Soros and to a lesser extent, Samuel Berger, Kenneth Adelman (Freedom House), General Wesley Clark, and Richard Armitage via the ICG. Additionally, ICG includes Shimon Peres, President of Israel, as well as Stanley Fischer, governor of the Bank of Israel. Israel too feigned great displeasure, uncertainty, and surprise over a regional gambit they most certainly played a role in.

Maher's return to the United States may or may not hold any significance depending on just how much "advising" he does and the intended duration of his stay. It also depends largely on whether or not the corporate-media leaps on the story and sensationalizes it. However it is rather alarming that Americans who claim Maher and his April 6 Movement as an inspiration for their bid to rein in a corrupt government and financial system, are ignorant of the fact that Maher and his movement are both products of that very corrupt, insidious system.

For those wondering where the US-funded revolution led Maher's fellow Egyptians, the answer is a military dictatorship and Maher's American sponsors parading through Cairo preparing to ransack it with "economic liberalization" and the spread of Wall Street-London economic hegemony over Egypt. While some may consider that a failure - in reality that is exactly what the US State Department and the corporate-financier interests that fund and steer US policy had intended all along. Maher, for his part, may have been naive enough to believe he was receiving help to usher in real change for Egypt, and maybe not.

If Egypt should inspire any American participating in the Occupy Wall Street movement, it should be because it serves as a reminder to always follow the money, identify the associations between groups and personalities, name names, use logic and reason ahead of emotions, and understand exactly what your goals are and where they will lead you. More specifically, these goals must be pragmatic more than anything else. A very specific program with a timetable and enumerated means to carry it out would be a start.

However, boycotting and replacing Wall Street while using local and state government to reclaim our sovereignty from the overreaching tyranny of the Federal government would be far more effective than simply congregating in the streets and hoping for a completely compromised system, with the audacity to sow revolution across the globe, to somehow be hoist with its own petard. Egypt's fate may not be far off from that of America. There is a very real threat of a military dictatorship riding in under false "heroic" pretenses in the US as well. Street mobs are this government's specialty, no one understands them better, and no one on earth is better prepared to deal with them - especially mobs that are disorganized, aimless, and incapable of discerning that those walking amongst them, inspiring them, even leading them, are literally agents of the very system they seek to reform.

For more solutions, please see the Solutions Archives.

Oligarchical Rulers to Host GOP Debate

Seeking best representative for debate's corporate sponsors.
by Tony Cartalucci

October 19, 2011 - It's no secret, at least to those who bothered to check, that GOP candidates Mitt Romney and Rick Perry share identical foreign policies because they share identical, corporate-funded policy makers. A Foreign Policy Magazine article recently revealed that notorious "Neo-Cons" including Douglas Feith, William Luti, Andrew McCarthy, Charles Stimson, and Daniel Fata, with the help of certified warmonger Donald Rumsfeld, had been introduced to Rick Perry to help him "brush up" on foreign policy. Also meeting with Perry was Dan Blumenthal of the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), Peter Brookes of the Fortune 500-funded Heritage Foundation (page 35), and Zalmay Khalizad, a PNAC signatory and a member of the extraterritorial meddling National Endowment for Democracy's board of directors, to help Perry define his "hawk internationalist" foreign policy stance.

By "hawk internationalist," Foreign Policy indicates that it means, "embracing American exceptionalism and the unique role we must play in confronting the many threats we face." This of course is the same "American exceptionalism" promoted by the corporate-financier funded American Enterprise Institute (AEI) along with the Heritage Foundation, the Brookings Institution, the Council on Foreign Relations, and the Foreign Policy Initiative and is nothing more than a misleading way to describe modern day imperialism pursued by these organizations' various corporate sponsors. It is also verbatim the policy spelled out in the Bush era "Project for a New American Century" whose signatories are all members of the various organizations mentioned above.

Foreign Policy would then announce Mitt Romney's promised "American Century," in their article aptly titled, "Mitt Romney promises an “American Century”," where it states Romney, in an upcoming speech will accuse President Barack Obama of, "sacrificing America's strength and leadership in the world, and will promise to restore American preeminence through increased defense spending and a more aggressive international stance." In other words, "American exceptionalism and American preeminence as envisioned by the now notorious Neo-Con "Project for a New American Century." That Obama is already conducting war on over 8 different fronts begs one to wonder what Romney means by "more aggressive." Who exactly is Romney's foreign policy team? See if any of these names seem familiar, as reported in another Foreign Policy article:

Michael Chertoff
Eliot Cohen
Paula Dobriansky
Eric Edelman
Robert Kagan

If these names seem familiar, it is because these are the same names that pushed America into war with Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, a covert proxy war in Pakistan, and perhaps soon with Iran. An excellent article covering this more in depth can be found on ThinkProgress.org. Many of these same names were just in fact, recently covered in "Corporate-Fascists Clamor for Iran War."

Interestingly enough, Obama's foreign policy advisers and his most avid supporters also lead back to the same corporate-funded organizations shaping Perry and Romney's campaign. No example could make this clearer than an open letter to US House Republicans calling on them to support more vigorously the current US military campaign in Libya. The signatories were plucked directly from the AEI, Heritage Foundation, Foreign Policy Initiative, the Brookings Institution, the Council on Foreign Relations, and most notably, the semi-defunct Project for a New American Century.

Herman Cain literally worked for Wall Street during his stint in the disingenuously labeled "Federal Reserve," which in reality is nothing more than a criminal syndicate consisting of the world's biggest private banks masquerading as a government institution - a crime nearly a century in the making. Cain's foreign policy has also been drudged up from the foulest depths of America's corporate-fascist oligarchy, embodied by his cheif foreign policy adviser and campaign spokesman, Jeffrey Gordon.

Gordon served in the Navy, under Donald Rumsfeld and Robert Gates, and was a Pentagon spokesman. After leaving his government post, Gordon became a consultant/lobbyist for several Washington-based "think-tanks" including the Atlas Economic Research Foundation, Americas Forum, the now defunct Atlantic Bridge, Neo-Con Frank Gaffney's PNAC enclave Center for Security Policy, and the Liberty & Freedom Foundation. Each of these "think tanks" in turn represent the collective interests of their political and corporate sponsors. An immense conflict of interest exists, and clearly Cain's foreign policy adviser gravitates around the same unsavory agenda that his GOP opponent's do. That Cain himself cites warmongering PNAC card-carrying John Bolton as an influence on his foreign policy stance should give us all pause for thought, wondering just why exactly they are even debating - aside from providing absolute utter theater to the public to ensure them they still live in a "democracy."

As ridiculous as this may seem, it becomes all the more ludicrous when considering the corporate-media works for these very same interests, and shamelessly skews the presidential campaign in favor of the most accomplished sycophant, with secondary considerations given to how well they are able to convince the people they are not the eager establishment footstools they really are.

But perhaps to illustrate just how absolutely obtuse "democracy" is in America, and perhaps to also illustrate how such a bankrupted, corrupt, elitist system is impossible to "export" worldwide as anything other than empire, we should consider the upcoming GOP foreign policy debate.

At face value - for the average American - they will probably never even question the mechanics of the debate, who is hosting it, or the interests attempting to be subtle as they orchestrate the results. For the somewhat more observant, they may gloss over the Washington Post's article, "GOP debate: Heritage, AEI and CNN to host foreign policy debate," perhaps recognizing the Heritage Foundation and American Enterprise Institute as "good Conservative" organizations.

In reality, they are looking at the real oligarchical rulers of the United States, running potential puppets through their paces while sabotaging potential threats. Surely for the corporate-financier interests running America, Rick Perry, Mitt Romney, or Herman Cain would be all equally ideal, so would another four years of Obama, that is, if the people's gullibility was able to hold out that long. The only real factor that distinguishes these candidates from each other is how well they are accepted by the unsuspecting public.

The Heritage Foundation and AEI have both supplied advisers to Rick Perry and Mitt Romney. While Cain's foreign policy is fairly nebulous, it clearly accepts the narrative of the "War on Terror," a necessity to engage militarily around the world to counter the reemergence of Russia and the rise of China (i.e. American preeminence), and has outright stated that he favors a unilateral, unprovoked strike on Iran.

Such a foreign policy, while bleeding America's troops dry literally, and American tax payers financially, despoiling nation after nation based on false pretenses to expand American economic, financial, and military hegemony, would be a goldrush for the military industrial complex, big oil, banks, and other multinational corporations that thrive on exploiting newly opened markets previously protected by the vestiges of national sovereignty that exist outside the ever expanding Wall Street-London "international order." Would one be surprised then, to learn that it is exactly the military industrial complex, big oil, banks, and other multinational corporations that fund and dominate the leadership of both the Heritage Foundation and AEI?

The Heritage Foundation

The Heritage Foundation claims to be a think tank "whose mission is to formulate and promote conservative public policies based on the principles of free enterprise, limited government, individual freedom, traditional American values, and a strong national defense." While this sounds great in principle, in practice it is nothing more than lip service to mask the corporate-financier interests that both steer and fund its agenda.

The Heritage Foundation's 2009 Annual Report is clear enough. Its "associates" include Boeing, Exxon Mobil, Google, Dole, Philip Morris, UPS, 3m, and Chevron. It's directed by an array of individuals with ties both current and former to the US government and Fortune 500 banking and corporate interests. Whatever it is they claim to be, the vector sum of their efforts and associations over the years has been decidedly in favor of the failed direction America is headed. A recent report titled, "5 Steps to Save Americas Defense Industrial Base" proposes somehow that America's arms industry is not big or unhindered enough and that further restrictions be taken from its path, including regulations restricting weapon exports.


The AEI makes the Heritage Foundation look tame in comparison. The Heritage Foundation is more of a "moderate" institution used to lure in genuine conservatives to support non-conservative policies. AEI literally engineers, promotes, and oversees America's wars. Frederick Kagan, along with other "resident scholars" at AEI, had developed the Iraq "troop surge," the current strategies being employed in Afghanistan, and a blueprint for future war with Pakistan.

AEI's board of trustees represents a wide variety of corporate-financier interests including those of the notorious Carlyle Group, State Farm, American Express, and Kohlberg Kravis Roberts & Co (also of the CFR). Dick Cheney also acts as a trustee. AEI’s “research staff” includes notorious warmongers Frederick Kagan, Newt Gingrich, John Bolton (who has influenced Herman Cain's foreign policy stance), Richard Perle, John Yoo, and Paul Wolfowitz. AEI's work is done entirely with the concept of "American exceptionalism" in mind, or in other words, American global hegemony. The AEI's own annual report is rife with talk of US strategic preeminence and its assertion over the sovereignty of foreign nations in the form of sanctions, military operations, invasions, and occupations. The AEI, in tandem with the Heritage Foundation, Foreign Policy Initiative, and many others, all with interconnecting memberships and corporate-financier sponsors, are literally the "Project for a New American Century (PNAC)" in motion.


It is quite clear that America's agenda is already predetermined by these unelected, unaccountable corporate-financier interests. That they exercise such sweeping control over the media, and even both sides of America's political aisle, makes their "hosting" of the GOP debate a mockery out of the alleged "democracy" we are constantly reminded we live in. These two "think tanks" in particular have provided or influenced the foreign policy of at least three of the GOP's current candidates for 2012, and yet they will disingenuously preside over a debate most viewers will assume is being conducted impartially.

It is essential that we understand who these corporate interests are and how badly they've compromised our nation. We need to stop fooling ourselves and believing Perry, Romney, or Cain are prepared to do anything at all for America's best interests. They aren't. They do not serve the American people, nor do they promote policies that serve our best interests. They, like all of their predecessors, both Republican and Democrat, will even betray many of the already wayward policies they are proposing to the public during their respective campaigns.

Search for the candidate who the Fortune 500 corporate-financier interests aren't putting the spotlight on, the candidate that is being stifled, attacked, ignored, dismissed, and otherwise misrepresented and sabotaged. Search for the candidate who has not been peddling the typical left/right agenda clearly controlled by the same corporations, for the corporations, by the corporations.

We know who these corporations are, we see the effects their unchecked, unwarranted influence has had on our Republic, we see that it is we the people who feed it on a daily basis growing it ever stronger, bolder, and more difficult to constrain. Boycott and replace these corporations and start looking inward at ourselves as the solutions to our problems, and our elected representatives as merely one of many means to implement these solutions.

Corporate-Fascists Clamor for Iran War

Unelected corporate-funded policy makers constitute the greatest threat to US national security.
by Tony Cartalucci

October 16, 2011 - While US politicians grapple over the credibility of using the US DEA's bomb plot to assassinate a Saudi ambassador as a pretext to escalate tensions with Iran, America's unelected, corporate-funded policy makers have already announced their long, foregone conclusion. The DEA's entrapment case is decidedly to be used as a pretext for war with Iran.

The Foreign Policy Institute (FPI), just one such unelected, corporate-funded think tank, has released two statements calling on President Obama to use force against Iran. FPI director William Kristol states:

"It’s long since been time for the United States to speak to this regime in the language it understands—force.
And now we have an engraved invitation to do so. The plot to kill the Saudi ambassador was a lemon. Statesmanship involves turning lemons into lemonade.
So we can stop talking. Instead, we can follow the rat lines in Iraq and Afghanistan back to their sources, and destroy them. We can strike at the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), and weaken them. And we can hit the regime’s nuclear weapons program, and set it back."
Likewise, FPI's executive director Jamie Fly claims, in tandem with Kristol's unqualified, corporate-funded opinion, "It is time to take military action against the Iranian government elements that support terrorism and its nuclear program. More diplomacy is not an adequate response."

Image: Just a sampling of Wall Street-London corporate-funded think tanks. Those that believe America's policy is created within the offices of our elected legislatures will be sadly disappointed to know that it is in fact produced by these unelected, nebulous private institutions. Despite the different logos and rhetoric wielded by each of these institutions, they consist of the same members and same corporate-financier sponsors and merely specialize in executing different aspects of the corporate-financier agenda. For more information, please see "Naming Names." (click on image to enlarge)

Ironically, Jamie Fly, who believes it is time to take "military action" against Iran for supporting terrorism, is a signatory of a letter imploring House Republicans to support the US war in Libya where NATO forces are literally handing an entire nation over to rebels led by the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group, listed by both the US and British government as a foreign terrorist organization, and is confirmed to have fought and killed US and British troops in both Iraq and Afghanistan. It should also be noted, that fellow policy makers at the Brookings Institute proposed that the US arm, train, and even go as far as de-list as a terrorist organization, MEK (Mujahedin-e Khalq), in covert efforts to wage war against Tehran. MEK is acknowledged by Brookings to not only be a bona fide terrorist organization, but also has American civilian and military blood on its hands.

Image: Know your enemy. It is not turban-wearing cave dwellers that threaten America. It is unelected, corporate policy pimps like those found lurking within the halls of the Foreign Policy Initiative. They seek to mislead Americans into supporting an agenda that literally bleeds them to death while they and their corporate-financier sponsors continue to consolidate both wealth and power on a global scale. (click on image to enlarge)

It is safe to say that Jamie Fly, William Kristol, and the rest of the policy wonks populating FPI and similar corporate-funded think tanks harbor less than genuine "concerns" regarding "terrorism," - concerns which are voiced purely for public consumption.

As reported previously, the official, though rarely spoken about policy toward Iran is one of purposefully provoking the regime into a war it desperately wants to avoid. The Brookings Institution, like FPI, is a corporate-funded think tank full of unelected policy makers who literally steer America's destiny. In its report "Which Path to Persia?" it is clearly stated that not only does Iran want to avoid war, but any potential aspirations to acquire nuclear weapons are driven only by a desire to defend its sovereignty, not use unilaterally against its neighbors nor to proliferate such weapons into the hands of non-state actors.

Despite this admission, the Brookings Institution claims that American extraterritorial ambitions across the Middle East cannot be impeded by strong, independent nation-states and spells out a criminal conspiracy to remove such impediments. Such tactic include funding terrorist organizations to wage a covert war against Tehran, funding opposition groups to rise up against the Iranian government, sanctions, and even provoking a war through covert means.

Masking this criminal conspiracy is a narrative repeated ad naseum by the corporate media, literally sponsored and steered by the same corporations and banks that fund the above mentioned think tanks. The American people are presented with a belligerent, irrational enemy, so entirely fictitious it challenges the archetypes produced by Hollywood. Should Americans know the truth about America's real policy regarding Iran, war not only would not take place - those who have pushed so hard to shed American treasure and blood in Iran would be ferreted out as criminals and permanetnly removed from society.

US foreign and domestic policy is not produced by our legislatures as we are meant to believe. John Kerry and John McCain don't sit behind their desks twelve hours a day penning the 1,000 page policy papers they present to Congress to be rubber stamped. President Obama is not sitting in the Oval Office churning out reams of policy papers either. It is the unelected, corporate-funded policy think tanks and their army of policy makers, lawyers, scribes, and media personalities the produce, promote, and ram through an agenda that serves not the American people, but the corporate-financier interests that fund their work.

While many Americans scratch their heads at what appears to be a profound mystery - a Democratic president carrying the torch of a Neo-Conservative Republican's global war, not only maintaining all previous wars, but expanding the battlefront - in reality this linear, continuous policy that is being executed piecemeal by both sides of the American political aisle is the direct result of these corporate-funded think tanks successfully commandeering both political parties.

John Kerry and John McCain's love for sending Americans to their deaths in foreign nations and spending American tax money to destabilize countries around the world is not an anomalous convergence of some political ideal, but rather the result of absolute, naked corporate fascism overrunning America's political institutions and co-opting politicians of inferior human character. As in Nazi Germany, this unchecked power, not foreign enemies, presents the gravest risk to national security imaginable. Those that serve this system and fail to speak out against it, and worse yet, willingly collaborate with it, are America's true enemies and a self-evident threat the American people can no longer afford to tolerate.

Vote out of office any and all public servants that promote extraterritorial meddling, including wars, funding foreign opposition movements, arming foreign militants, and funding foreign propaganda networks. Vote out of office all representatives that peddle 1,000 page pieces of legislation produced by corporate lawyers and their vast array of "think tanks." And above all, identify and expose the actual corporate-financier interests driving this destructive agenda, then boycott and replace them. The vast influence and unwarranted power these corporate fascist monopoly men have garnered is a direct result of our apathy, ignorance, and decades of paying into their system with our money, time, energy, and attention.

America is being brought to the precipice of a war neither the American nor the Iranian people want by a cartel of corporate-financier interests that admit the nation of Iran poses to threat to the United States. This is purely a war to enhance US hegemony in the Middle East, not protect the American people and our way of life at home. It is a war that the American people will pay for in both trillions of dollars in public funds, as well as the blood of our soldiers, sailors, Marines, and airmen. It is up to the American people to end this cycle of parasitic exploitation before it ends America.

US Policy Toward Iran One-Way Ticket to War

Policy Wonk Plays Dumb Over Role in Iranian Escalation.
by Tony Cartalucci

Editor's Note: For those not familiar with the "Which Path to Persia?" report, more information can be found here, and part II here.

October 15, 2011 - Kenneth Pollack helped literally co-author the blueprints for America's current policy toward Iran. Titled, "Which Path to Persia?" and published in 2009 for the Fortune 500-funded Brookings Institution, much of what was covered in the report had already gone operational before it hit the press. This included training, arming, and supporting terrorists within Iran, sanctions, US-funded uprisings, and covert attempts to provoke Iran into war.

While pundits in the media and politicians behind their podiums talk about "extending hands," "carrots and sticks," and other trite, and ultimately contrived policies the US is supposedly pursuing in regards to Iran, there is in reality only Brookings' plan - and it leads only to war.

Recently, Pollack penned a column for the Daily Beast titled, "Iran’s Covert War Against the United States." In it, Pollack, addressing a readership almost assuredly ignorant of his work on "Which Path to Persia?," claims that Iran appears to be irrationally wandering down a misguided path, waging what might be a "covert war" against America, highlighted by the contrived "Iran terror plot" targeting a Saudi ambassador. Pollack, a former analyst for the CIA, seems to humor the recent allegations against Iran as plausible despite his own cautionary words regarding jumping to conclusions and despite the growing factual basis that exists to entirely dismiss the plot. Additionally, Pollack's feigned astonishment over why Iran has been taking a tougher stance against the US recently is a case study in duplicity, as he was one of the chief architects of the various provocations Washington has used to provoke Iran into such a stance. Pollack's disingenuous editorial does however lend us some insight into the current mindset of the "Which Path to Perisa?" co-authors, and ultimately into the mindset of those for whom the report was prepared for and who are eager for war.

To understand American policy toward Iran, one must understand who the authors are of such policy and what their motivations are. The Brookings Institution itself was created by and for the corporate-financier elite. It is a policy think-tank that represents the collective interests of the big oil corporations, banks, and military contractors that fund it. Quite obviously then, policy toward Iran, or any nation for that matter, from within the halls of the Brookings Institution will revolve around expanding the global financial, social, political, and military hegemony of its corporate sponsors.

Iran is a nation of 70 million, has a developed infrastructure, as well as a tremendous wealth in natural resources, including oil and natural gas. A Western dominated banking system lording over 70 million people, telecommunications companies supplying services to this vast population, and the immense consumerist troughs that could be laid out before these people alone serves as a compelling incentive to attempt to domineer Iran. War against such a nation would be a trillion dollar endeavor, utterly bankrupting the American people, but enriching the military industrial complex beyond imagination. Of course, construction firms such as war-profiteering Halliburton and Bechtel would make fortunes rebuilding amidst the destruction of such a vast nation - as untold of billions have already been made by these same corporations in Iraq, a nation with but a fraction of the land area and population of Iran. Iran's oil fields flowing once again into the tankers, pipelines, and coffers of Anglo-American oil companies also serves as an attractive incentive, as do the geopolitical implications.

China would be essentially dependent entirely on oil controlled by the Wall Street-London "international order," as would all nations. The development of the modern nation-state is dependent on energy. By controlling access to energy, one controls the development of nations. While many analysts suggest the continental United States contains enough energy to meet America's needs for the foreseeable future, tapping into this supply and abandoning holdings overseas would catapult the developing world into direct competition with America on almost every front. It would also allow nation-states worldwide to defend themselves against what has essentially been a free reign of financial piracy perpetrated by the International Monetary Fund, World Bank and other Western contrived "international institutions" used to manipulate and exploit the planet.

Image: Just some of Brookings Institution's corporate & institutional financial sponsors. For the full list please see Brookings' 2010 annual report (page 19 of .pdf). It should be noted that many of the managing directors, chairmen, and CEOs of these corporations also populate Brookings' Board of Directors producing a conflict of interests of monstrous proportions. Boycotting these corporations is an absolute necessity for anyone seriously interested in stopping the global corporate-financier elite's agenda. (click image to enlarge)

With this in mind, it is quite clear why the corporate-financier interests that fund Brookings have thrown their support behind executing the recommendations made in "Which Path to Persia?" and continue marching the United States ever closer to war with Iran. The report itself, most likely never intended to reach the American public on a large scale, and using language and length inaccessible to the average "bread and circus" crowds, fully acknowledges that Iran's leadership may be aggressive, but not reckless. The report also notes that Iran would use its nuclear weapons only as an absolute last resort, considering American and even Israeli nuclear deterrence capabilities. Even weapons ending up in the hands of non-state actors is considered highly unlikely by the report.

Similar reports out of the RAND corporation note that Iran has had chemical weapons in its inventory for decades, and other reports from RAND describe the strict control elite military units exercise over these weapons, making it unlikely they would end up in the hands of "terrorists." The fact that Iran's extensive chemical weapon stockpile has yet to be disseminated into the hands of non-state actors, along with the fact that these same elite units would in turn handle any Iranian nuclear weapons, lends further evidence to this conclusion.

Brookings notes on pages 24 and 25 of the report, that the real threat is not the deployment of these weapons, but rather the deterrence they present, allowing Iran to counter US influence in the region without the fear of an American invasion. In other words, the playing field would become level and America may be forced to recognize Iran's national sovereignty in regards to its own regional interests. The report also acknowledges on multiple occasions that Iran is not looking to provoke the West, and that the West, or Israel would have to proactively work to provoke Iran into war instead.

In one breathtaking quote, the Brookings report states in regards to initiating a large scale airstrike against Iran:

"...it would be far more preferable if the United States could cite an Iranian provocation as justification for the airstrikes before launching them. Clearly, the more outrageous, the more deadly, and the more unprovoked the Iranian action, the better off the United States would be. Of course, it would be very difficult for the United States to goad Iran into such a provocation without the rest of the world recognizing this game, which would then undermine it. (One method that would have some possibility of success would be to ratchet up covert regime change efforts in the hope that Tehran would retaliate overtly, or even semi-overtly, which could then be portrayed as an unprovoked act of Iranian aggression.)"
This quote alone, not to mention the entire content of this report, compiled by some of America's most prolific policy makers and funded by America's largest corporations and banks, demonstratively executed over the past several years, makes everything that follows regarding the sanctions, covert military operations, US-funded uprisings, US-funded terrorism via the MEK (Mujahedin-e Khalq), and now these most recent, entirely contrived allegations regarding a supposed "bombing plot," all unjustified acts of war on America's behalf. The reckless self-serving nature of this gambit puts in danger the lives of hundreds of millions of people as these craven megalomaniacs edge us ever closer to war with Iran.

Pollack, in his Daily Beast op-ed, seems to almost relish the converging paths bringing us closer to war. While he fills his editorial with disclaimers regarding the believability of the recent Iranian plot allegations, his infinite duplicity is exhibited by omitting the role he has played in developing policy designed to purposefully provoke a war with Iran it had actively sought to avoid. Should readers know this, they would not only dismiss him as a meddling, treasonous, warmonger, but dismiss the latest allegations against Iran as yet another contrived attempt to stoke the fires of war.

Readers need to take a good look at Brookings' sponsors. These are the people conspiring to send your sons and daughters, brothers and sisters, mothers and fathers off to war. These are the people that intend to bleed you dry financially as you pay them to wage a war you neither want nor will benefit from. These are the ones that will ultimately profit while both America and Iran suffers immeasurably.

These corporations need to be put out of business, and instead of wringing our hands and hoping for salvation from our clearly compromised, corporate-fascist government, we can begin today by boycotting these corporations and putting our money instead into local businesses, entrepreneurship, and solutions that benefit we the people. Even just beginning to boycott them, cutting back in our daily life and working toward the eventual goal of complete local self-sufficiency will scale down both the reach and ambitions of these corporations. It will also spur change within, as sagging profits motivate individuals within these corporations to abandon those advocating exploitative, parasitic agendas and business models.

We can speak up to expose the fraud, speak out to stop the war, but it is essential, above all, to begin changing the balance of power that has allowed for our nation to be led to the edge of such a precipice in the first place.

Obama Sends US Troops to Uganda

Nobel Peace Prize-President quietly opens 8th US battlefront.
Tony Cartalucci

While America occupies Iraq and Afghanistan, wages covert war on Pakistan, conducts drone attacks on Yemen and Somalia, bombards Libya, and positions for a wider confrontation with Iran and Syria, Nobel Peace Prize Laureate President Obama has now quietly, without much fanfare, sent 100 US troops to help Ugandan President Yoweri Museveni crush rebels threatening his 25 year dictatorship.

In what is essentially a "reverse-Libyan-style" intervention, the US is sending troops to crush, not assist rebels rising up against their despotic ruler. Ironically, just as with Libya's rebels, Uganda's rebels are also listed as a foreign terrorist organization by the US State Department. Instead of the corporate-financier contrived International Criminal Court issuing fictitious warrants for Uganda's head of state, as was done with Qaddafi in Libya, it is the Ugandan rebel leader, Joseph Kony, who is being targeted.

Both the Ugandan government (with US assistance) and the rebels, known as the Lord's Resistance Army (LRA), are accused of perpetrating heinous atrocities against their enemies and civilian populations in their decades long conflict. In particular, Ugandan President Yoweri Museveni has just recently presided over the mass murdering and displacement of 20,000 of his own people on behalf of British corporations who sought to construct tree plantations on their land. US and British military assistance and business deals with the Ugandan government have been a ubiquitous feature throughout Museveni's perpetual, unending term as president.

While mutilated victims of the LRA are just now being paraded in front of the public to frame the recent US troop deployment as another "humanitarian intervention," it is more than likely that geopolitical aspirations, not humanitarian concerns, are driving this agenda. This is especially so considering just how equally abhorrent the Ugandan government's human rights record is.

The LRA has often been harbored by the Sudanese government (now the South Sudanese government). Sudan has served as a proxy battlefield between the West and China for control over of its vast oil holdings and ultimately as part of a greater battle to control Africa's resources. Sudan appears to have used the LRA as a sort of armed buffer between them and their neighbors, in particular, Uganda, ruled by an eager servant of the Anglo-American agenda.

Surely, as Africa, a forsaken continent, is already written off in the minds of many Americans, little concern and few eyebrow will be lifted as their Nobel Peace Prize-wearing president sends yet more troops off to war there, in a global military expansion quickly and alarmingly approaching the scale and scope of Adolf Hitler's expansion across Europe and Northern Africa during World War II. This is difficult to deny when the final tally is done - the United States is conducting either covert or overt military operations in at least 8 nations - Iraq, Afghanistan, Yemen, Somalia, Iran, Libya, Pakistan, and now Uganda - and has 820 military installations in at least 135 countries. As Wall Street and London seek global hegemony, the price Americans pay as this tally grows will only increase. However far flung Uganda may seem, every inch of expansion by the globalists is one inch less for free humanity.

Identify the corporate-financier interests engineering and driving this agenda, boycott and replace them.

Fighting Erupts in Tripoli

NATO claims of 'victory" in Libya up in smoke as fighting erupts in Tripoli and rebel "final assault" of Sirte drags on past one week.
by Tony Cartalucci

October 15, 2011 - Pro-Qaddafi protesters took to the streets in Tripoli carrying aloft the green flags synonymous with Libya's sovereign government. The demonstration quickly unraveled into a two-hour firefight when the city's supposed rulers, NATO-backed rebels, confronted them with machine guns. The violence underscores just how tenuous the rebel's grip is on the capital, while ongoing battles in Bani Walid, Sabha, and Sirte illustrate how flimsy NATO's premature claim of victory was 2 months ago after their bombardment of Tripoli.

Image: "Well done NATO!" "...the Alliance can finally chalk up an unequivocal success." Two months later, battles are breaking out in Tripoli, entire cities still fly Libya's green flag, and NATO bombards populated civilian centers with scores of strike sorties a day, taking out a catastrophic toll on Libya's civilian population. In other words, an unequivocal failure. (click image to enlarge)

Twenty to thirty strike sorties have been flown by NATO over Libya everyday since. "Key hits" by NATO have focused almost entirely on the southern city of Bani Walid and the coastal city of Sirte. Sirte is now facing the fourth "final assault" launched against it by rebel forces and has held up its defenses since this latest push began last Friday. City residents and government troops sent rebels in retreat and prompted them to return with tank columns to confront what the London Guardian claims is only "100" fighters.

Additional sources of humiliation for both NATO and the corporate-media attempting to keep afloat the increasingly incompetent rebel brigades, include the false report made by rebels earlier this week of having captured Qaddafi's son, Mutassim, and Soros-funded Amnesty International finally providing a watered down "warning" to rebels for brutalizing prisoners, many of whom have been arrested arbitrarily. Between this, and over optimistic claims that Sirte would fall before last week's end, the truth appears to be that the rebel's forces are stretched well beyond their operational capacity, engaged in atrocities far beyond what NATO accused Qaddafi of as a pretext for their intervention in the first place, and that protracted resistance to NATO's campaign has begun across Libya, even in areas thought to be "secured" including Tripoli itself.

The facade of victory the corporate-media has constructed in the past two-months made early reports of violence in Tripoli and fierce counterattacks against NATO's proxies across Libya seem almost impossible to believe. However, the fortunes have turned from bad to worse for Libya's rebels, and while private contractors and NATO special forces are increasing in number across Libya and amongst the rebels' ranks, it may not be enough to save the dwindling, demoralized fighters, especially as the "fruits" of revolution begin to look more and more like servitude to foreign powers.

Agitator Nominated for Next US “Ambassador” to Russia

Nominee is establishment stooge, steeped in organizations renowned for extraterritorial meddling and subversion.
by Tony Cartalucci

am-bas-sa-dor (n.) A diplomatic official of the highest rank appointed and accredited as representative in residence by one government or sovereign to another, usually for a specific length of time.
Ideally, such a representative would “represent” the ideals and aspirations of their respective nation’s people. Assuming that the average American believes in living and letting live, and in an adherence to the US Constitution which is the common thread that binds Americans and the very foundation of what it means to be American, their ambassadors would best execute their posts by representing this paradigm.

Photo: Michael McFaul stands to be confirmed as the next US Ambassador to Russia. He is a card carrying member of both Freedom House and the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), two organizations notorious for extraterritorial meddling in the foreign affairs of sovereign nations. His nomination indicates the US will continue with its disingenuous front of “resetting” with Russia, while simultaneously subverting the Russian government with US-funded political unrest.

In reality, America’s ambassadors represent neither the American people, nor the US Constitution, and in fact stand in stark contrast to the will of the American people and the norms codified within the Constitution. Instead, these “ambassadors” work ceaselessly to execute American foreign policy, as dictated by elitist corporate-financier oligarchs, generally as subversive agitators. No example of this is clearer than US Ambassador to Syria, Robert Ford, who has actively taken sides with US-funded opposition groups and meddled publicly in Syria’s sovereign affairs amidst an armed uprising.
In this same vein, Michael McFaul is also a subversive agitator, not a potential “ambassador.” And it is for this very reason he is being considered as the next US “Ambassador” to Russia. To understand why McFaul stands contra to the American people’s interests and therefore the collective interests of America as a nation, but why he will be confirmed regardless, we must understand the recent history of US-Russian relations, what drives US foreign policy regarding Russia, and just what McFaul intends to do – which assuredly will not be merely “representing” the United States.

In the wake of the fall of the Soviet Union, the US quickly moved in to capitalize on a weak Russia. It fomented foreign-funded revolutions in former-Soviet states, including the “Orange Revolution” in Ukraine and the “Rose Revolution” in Georgia, installing Western puppets along with the Anglo-American imperial network of “NGOs” often referred to as “civil society.” Additionally, political operatives such as Russia’s Mkhail Khodorkovsky attempted to displace national institutions within Russia itself with clearly Western sponsored “civil society” networks, not the least of which was Khodorkovsky’s own “Open Russia Foundation” modeled after George Soros’ “Open Society Foundation” and even chaired by Washington’s Henry Kissinger and London’s Jacob Rothschild.

Khodorovsky’s goal was to consolidate both political power and Russia’s immense wealth, and transfer it to Wall Street and London receivership, while simaltanesouly creating a Western designed “civil society” network that would ensure Anglo-American preminence over Russia for the foreseeable future. Khodorovsky and other “oligarchs” working for Wall Street and London were eventually either imprisoned or forced to flee from Russia during the rise of Vladamir Putin. To this day, Khodorovsky resides in a Siberian prison, but is still playing a leading role, with the help of Toronto/London laywer Robert Amsterdam, to leverage claims of “human rights abuses” and “injustice” against Russia in the court of international public opinion.

Currently, the US is conducting a campaign of destabilization not only across the Middle East, but along both Russia and China’s peripheries as well. This includes efforts to destabilize and overthrow the government of Belarus, which faces Moscow across the Russian border. This, along with an aggressive NATO campaign to expand into Russia’s traditional spheres of influence, is clearly a stratagem of encirclement, while more covert operations are being conducted within Russia to foment political unrest.

Coordinating this political unrest, in the Middle East, throughout Eastern Europe, and even as far as Southeast Asia, is a network of US agencies branching out from the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), including Freedom House, Reporters Without Borders, and International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH). This network also receives considerable support from tax-free corporate foundations, including George Soros’ Open Society foundation which funds Amnesty International (page 10) and Human Rights Watch. While these organizations pose as “human rights advocates,” in reality they exist to exploit crackdowns on their own subversive, foreign-funded sedition within target nations while allowing Western sanctioned atrocities to pass by without notice, such as recent mass murdering in Uganda by British corporations, or the exile and extermination of 10,000 Libyans in the city of Tawarga by NATO-backed rebels.

Considering that America’s foreign policy, as crafted by corporate fascist-funded think tanks like the Brookings Institution (page 19), the American Enterprise Institute, the Council on Foreign Relations, and others, consists of subverting and dominating foreign, sovereign nations instead of engaging with them as equals, it makes perfect sense that Michael McFaul has been nominated as US Ambassador to Russia.

McFaul’s biography provided by Standford University, indicates that in addition to being a member of the corporate-funded Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, yet another unelected, unaccountable institution turning out and implementing US foreign policy on behalf of the Fortune 100, he also serves on the board of directors of Freedom House and the National Endowment for Democracy. That Freedom House and NED spend the entirety of their time undermining the sovereignty of foreign nations behind the veil of “democracy promotion” and McFaul’s association with these two organizations, it in and of itself casts grave doubts over his agenda and intentions if appointed ambassador to Russia. However, it is his own supporters that fully out him as a subversive agitator, who fully plans on meddling in Russia’s sovereign affairs and using American tax dollars to marshal political unrest in a foreign nation.

The Brookings Institution recently published a “letter of recommendation” of sorts for McFaul, titled, “Give the Next Russian Ambassador a Powerful Tool to Guard Human Rights.” Already out of the gates, the article is disingenuously using the concept of “human rights” to leverage US interests over Russia. Written by Brookings’ own arch-Neo-Conservative Robert Kagan and Freedom House President David Kramer, the piece begins by immediately calling on the US Senate to confirm McFaul.

Kagan and Kramer claim the US should then arm McFaul with a bill to “sanction” Russian officials accused of “human rights abuses.” Judging from previous US-Russian relations, and in particular, Robert Amsterdam’s transparent, almost cartoonish crusade for his jailed client, Mikhail Khodorovsky, it can be assumed these “abuses” are referring to the jailing of political operatives for grave criminal activities while in the process of serving US corporate-financier interests.
The Brookings piece goes on to enumerate McFaul’s “merits” which include, “democracy promotion” (read: extraterritorial meddling), meeting with “civil society” representatives both in Russia and in neighboring nations (read: conspiring with US-funded NGOs and political opposition leaders), as well as having a good rapport with Russian opposition activists operating in Washington. Brookings notes in particular how important it is to have McFaul in Russia, on the ground to give his “assessment” of up-coming Russian elections. Unspoken, but sure to trickle through the headlines in coming months will be McFaul’s “democracy promotion” on behalf of select opposition parties in Russia’s political landscape.

As if to alleviate any doubt regarding just what Brookings means by “human rights abuses,” Kagan and Kramer then cite the case of UK financier operative Sergei Magnitsky of Hermitage Captial Mangement, a criminal enterprise that while operating primarily in Russian markets, maintained its headquarters in the global financial mafia’s “pirate bay” – the Cayman Islands.

Magnitsky was arrested and imprisoned over tax evasion and tax fraud, and would die of illness while in prison. The US and UK would predictably trump up the circumstances surrounding the death of Magnitsky, with corporate foundation-funded Redress (page 28) of the UK submitting a “report” to the UN in yet another classic example of leveraging issues of “human rights” against a target nation to serve Western interests. This is but a taste of what is to come with McFaul presiding over the next leg of Anglo-American global destabilization.

Brookings’ Kagan and Freedom House’s Kramer have nominated McFaul with the intention of further meddling in Russia’s sovereign affairs, as well as destabilizing its neighbors in a bid to hedge Russia’s reemergence as a sovereign world power, or perhaps even in an attempt to play a grand strategy of global tension, forcing the besieged developing world to consolidate under the West’s more overt attacks, only for the “union” to be co-opted and integrated into the Wall Street-London “international order” at a later point in time. Either way, McFaul does not represent the ideals, principles, or laws of the American people or the US Constitution, nor does he represent universal values of respecting national sovereignty.

His confirmation by the US Senate will indicate duplicity amongst the US Senate Committee on Foreign Relations and a further divergence between their actions and the will and aspirations of the American people who put them in office. McFaul represents a corporate-financier elite and their agenda of building an “international order” (read: empire) at the cost of yet more American treasure and lives, leaving an immensely wealthy elite lording over a destitute American majority.

By exposing both McFaul’s true “credentials” and intentions, as well as who he really works for and why, and by systematically boycotting and replacing the consumerist troughs that fuel this corporate-financier oligarchy we can rectify this obvious and ever-expanding divergence between what is best for America and what is pursued by the oligarchs that presume dominion over us.