Romney and Obama Battle For Israel Lobby

Source: Information Clearing House
Phillip Weiss

In Saturday night's Republican debate, Mitt Romney gave a defiant statement about Iran: he will stop it from getting nukes by any means, Obama won't. Yesterday Obama sought to parry Romney, saying that he is taking no option off the table. 

Are we witnessing a primary between Romney and Obama right now, for the support of the Israel lobby? 

I think so. Romney's braintrust includes neocons like Robert Kagan and Dan Senor, while David Brooks, David Frum and Bill Kristol have all said good things about Romney. Dennis Ross and Stuart Levey have both left the Obama administration, hurting his standing in the Israel lobby. Don't forget, the lobby defected from Bush to Clinton in '91 over settlements; and its fundraising abilities helped assure Clinton's election over the incumbent (as Max Blumenthal's post at AlAkhbar today points out).

Jews are sure to vote by a majority for Obama; but as a Forward package this week shows, Obama's polling numbers are sliding among Jews-- from 83 percent approval in early '09 to 54 percent in September. (Compared to overall #s going from 66 to 41.)

Neocons call on hawkish Jews, who tend to be older (p. 3 of that poll: overwhelmingly opposing a Palestinian state), and therefore wealthier.  The fundraising question is crucial. Slate's editor David Plotz has questioned the loyalty of Jewish donors. So have the Wall Street Journal and the New York Times, talking about "Jewish donors--a major fundraising constituency for the president." The Hill said that Obama's big Wall Street fundraisers were turning to Romney, and I pointed out that most of the donors named by the Hill care about Israel.

New York Magazine's John Heilemann echoes the point:

[A]mong the high-dollar Jewish donors who were essential to fueling the great Obama money machine last time around, stories of dismay and disaffection are legion. “There’s no question,” says one of the president’s most prolific fund-raisers. “We have a big-time Jewish problem.”

So again I ask, isn't this what the dogfight over Iran policy is? Obama and Romney are squaring off in an Israel lobby primary, to try and gain Jewish financial support, anticipating the big race ahead. The neoconservatives and J Street are arguing over who can deliver that support. Politics never stays in the same place, but somehow I fear that hawkish voices will dominate my community once again.

Corbett Report Interviews Wayne Madson

Source: Corbett Report
James Corbett

Today we talk to investigative journalist Wayne Madsen of WayneMadsenReport.com about his new article, “War Clouds Form over Iran,” detailing the latest indications that Washington is heading to open confrontation with Iran at the behest of Israel. We discuss the signs that a war with Iran is being prepared, talk about Israel’s interest in confronting Iran and explore how the Israeli lobby is attempting to stop any opposition to the strike.

Police State Crackdown: Second Raid On Occupy Oakland

Source: AbbyMediaRoots

Abby Martin of Media Roots went to Occupy Oakland at 4:00 am on November 14, 2011, to cover the second police raid on the encampment and crackdown against the peaceful protesters at Frank Ogawa Plaza. 

The footage shows the intensity in the air leading up to the raid and the insane amount of police presence that showed up to crackdown and destroy the camp.

Mayor Jean Quan's legal adviser resigned at 2 am in protest to the heavy police response.

Is the Israeli Mossad Conducting a Covert Assault on Iran?

Source: End The Lie

Madison Ruppert

The blast in Iran that killed 17 people and injured another 15, including a leading Iranian missile researcher, at the Bid Ganeh base is now being linked to the Israeli intelligence agency, Mossad.

This comes after the Israeli intelligence site, arguably a pure disinformation source, DEBKAfile claimed that the explosion was caused by a failed attempt at affixing a nuclear warhead to a Shahab intermediate range ballistic missile.

It now appears that this wasn’t the case, at least according to a Western intelligence official cited by Time and the former director of an Iranian state-run organization closely linked to the Iranian regime, also anonymous, quoted by the British Guardian.

The former Iranian official told the Guardian, “I believe that Saturday’s explosion was part of the covert war against Iran, led by Israel.”

The Israeli press seems to be echoing this sentiment, regardless of the fact that Iranian officials say that it was a purely accidental event that occurred when Revolutionary Guard troops were transporting munitions.

The anonymous Western intelligence official quoted by Time also rejects the Iranian’s explanation that it was an accident.

“Don’t believe the Iranians that it was an accident,” he told Time, while also claiming that other acts of sabotage are being planned in an attempt to slow the alleged Iranian nuclear weapons program.

If Mossad agents were indeed behind the blast, one could say that it was quite a successful operation.

Among the 17 killed in the blast was Major General Hassan Moqqadam, an individual that the Iranian state media has characterized as a pioneering researcher in Iranian missile development along with Mostafa Izadi, an Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) commander who was in charge of “ensuring self-sufficiency” in Iranian armaments.

Losing both of these individuals might be a considerable setback for the Iranian missile and weapons programs, especially given the international sanctions leveled against them which are likely to become increasingly harsh as time goes on.

It is worth noting that Moqqadam, also spelled Moghaddam, was allegedly trained in ballistic science in China and North Korea, according to the Guardian which would implicate both countries in the alleged Iranian nuclear missile program.

The Struggle For Syria: Syrians Sacrificed On Alter of US Imperialism

Source: Al Jazeera
Joseph Massad

As the uprising proceeded in Tunisia last December and January and as it picked up in Egypt in January and February, developments seemed clear. Despite attempts to suppress the press, much of the news of what was unfolding reached national and international audiences immediately. The situation changed dramatically when the uprisings began in Bahrain, Yemen, Libya, Syria, Oman, and Saudi Arabia. While a quasi news blackout suppressed coverage of the ongoing popular revolt and its violent suppression in Bahrain by Bahraini and Saudi forces (and only intermittent coverage of Oman was allowed), we continued to get important updates from Yemen. It was in Libya where the lies and propaganda started from the first week of the revolt. It was there that international forces, extending from the Gulf to Europe to the US, took charge of propagandising against Gaddafi (that he used his forces to strafe demonstrators, that his forces received Viagra and raped hundreds of women, that he used “African” mercenaries against his own people, that he was preparing to use chemical weapons against his people, that he had already killed 50,000 Libyans, etc. – all proved to be lies that international observers and agencies finally exposed as baseless fabrications) and ultimately of overthrowing Gaddafi’s dictatorship under the guise of the popular uprising led by NATO forces who actually bombed and killed hundreds of Libyan civilians.

We have seen similar developments on the Syrian scene with much propaganda by the regime and its international enemies who also began to speak for the popular revolt, whether in the Gulf-controlled press and satellite television stations, or by the Western media, and the Western “representatives” of the Syrian demonstrators.

In the cases of Tunisia, Egypt, Bahrain, and Yemen (not to mention Morocco, Jordan, Oman, and Saudi Arabia where less massive but substantial demonstrations have continued for months), the Arab League, under US instructions, made no move to intervene at all, while in the cases of Syria and Libya, following US instructions, the League moved swiftly. This is not the first time that the League moves against a member state to facilitate foreign invasions. The dress rehearsal for this was the Iraq situation in 1990/1991, when the Arab League (like the United Nations following the fall of the Soviet Union) became another arm of US imperial power. It was then that the League joined forces with US and European powers to invade the Gulf, which was the first step in legitimising the second American invasion in 2003 to unseat Saddam Hussein. Saddam was a brutal dictator that the US and France helped sponsor in the 1980s and who did their bidding when he invaded Iran, an invasion that led to the death of one million Iranians and four hundred thousand Iraqis. But Saddam was not fully obedient to imperial will and retained a measure of independence from US imperialism despite his valuable services to it. At the time, many cautioned the so-called Iraqi opposition in exile, which called for the invasion, that the US invasion would result in an imposition of a regime that is at least as bad as Saddam if not worse. The loss of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi lives and the total destruction of the country, the massive current repression and corruption of the American-installed regime, one would think, should be a cautionary tale to any Arab who seeks US help in overthrowing Arab dictators.

But if the story of Iraq is ignored, could anyone ignore the calamity that is hitting Libya as we speak under the guise of the new NATO-led government, and the first dose of violence and repression this government has unleashed on the Libyan people in the name of NATO democracy (more doses are in store of course)? Did the Libyan people revolt against the brutal dictatorship of Gaddafi to replace it with NATO-sponsored pillage and repression?

Corbett Report Radio - The Grand Chessboard with Michael Vail

Source: Corbett Report
James Corbett

Tonight we talk to Michael Vail of StratRisks.com, a website examining the geopolitics behind the headlines of the mainstream media. We discuss the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, the ramp-up to war in Iran and the collapse of the Eurozone. We also take your calls.

Works Cited:

Why China is setting up military bases in PoK – Analysis
Link To:	stratrisks.com

Clinton Says U.S. Turning East As Asia-Pacific Region Becomes World’s ‘Center Of Gravity’
Link To:	stratrisks.com

Pentagon planning Cold War against China
Link To:	stratrisks.com

Intel Source: Israel Behind Deadly Explosion at Iran Missile Base
Link To:	stratrisks.com

New Reports Link N. Korean, Iranian Nuclear Programs
Link To:	stratrisks.com

CIA operations in Iran underway to take out Tehran bigs in mission to dismantle weapons program
Link To:	stratrisks.com

Big Media's Double Standards on Iran

Source: ConsortiumNews.com
Robert Parry

The mainstream U.S. press corps is again pounding the propaganda war drums, this time over dubious accusations of Iran’s secret work on a nuclear bomb. It is a pattern of bias that Robert Parry calls the U.S. media’s worst — and most dangerous – ethical violation.

Arguably, the most serious ethical crisis in U.S. journalism is the deep-seated bias about the Middle East that is displayed by major American news outlets, particularly the Washington Post and the New York Times.

When it comes to reporting on “designated enemies” in the Muslim world, the Post and the Times routinely jettison all sense of objectivity even when the stakes are as serious as war and peace, life and death. Propaganda wins out over balanced journalism.

We have seen this pattern with Iraq and its non-existent stockpiles of WMD; with the rush to judgment about Syria’s supposed guilt in the killing of Lebanese leader Rafik Hariri; with the false certainty about Libya’s role in the Lockerbie bombing; and many other examples of what everyone just “knows to be true” but often turns out isn’t. [For more on these cases, click here.]

The latest example of this ethical failing relates to reporting about Iran on such topics as the buffoonish plot to assassinate the Saudi ambassador in Washington and a new set of dubious allegations about Iran’s nuclear weapons program.

In these cases, U.S. mainstream news media happily marshals sources with histories of credibility problems; treats implausible scenarios with utmost respect; jettisons crucial context; and transforms the grays of ambiguity into black-and-white morality tales of good versus evil.

Then, behind these war drums of the U.S. press corps, the American people are marched toward confrontation and violence, while anyone who dares question the perceived wisdom of the Post, the Times and many other esteemed outlets is fair game for marginalization and ridicule.

An example of this propaganda passing as journalism has been the recent writings of Joby Warrick of the Washington Post about a vague but alarmist report produced by the new leadership of the International Atomic Energy Agency.

On Monday, the Post put on its front page a story about Russian scientist Vyacheslav Danilenko, a leading expert in the formation of nanodiamonds who spent several years assisting Iranians develop a domestic industry in these micro-diamonds that have many commercial uses.

But Warrick’s story is fraught with spooky shadows and scary music that suggest Danilenko is really part of an ongoing drive by Iranian authorities to overcome technological obstacles for a nuclear bomb. Just like in that spy thriller “Sum of All Fears,” a greedy ex-Soviet nuclear scientist is helping to build a rogue nuclear bomb.

China, the U.S. and The Next Cold War

Source: Corbett Report  and Global Research
James Corbett


TRANSCRIPT AND SOURCES:

President Obama flew from this weekend’s APEC summit in Honolulu to Canberra, the Australian capital, to meet with Prime Minister Gillard on a range of bilateral issues. He is expected to give a speech on a “deepening of the alliance” between the two countries on Thursday, even as details begin to emerge about growing US/Australian military cooperation.

Diplomatic sources indicate that the plan for an increased American military presence in the region–including a marine task force of 2500 troops, more ships and nuclear-powered submarines, and a greater number of joint military exercises–have been conveyed to the other Asia-Pacific powers, including China.

The move comes as Secretary of State Clinton gave her own address to the APEC conference last weekend stressing that the Asia-Pacific region is becoming the world’s new “center of gravity.” Her remarks were interspersed with tough words for China regarding the valuation of its currency.

The increasing US military involvement in the region, combined with the tough talk on China’s economy, serve to highlight the growing turbulence in the region exemplified by China’s own increasing military presence in the South China Sea.

Now, Pentagon officials are warning of the early stages of a new Cold-War style era in US-Chinese relations, with one military official telling the Washington Times that the Pentagon’s new plan, known as The Air Sea Battle concept “is to China what the maritime strategy was to the Soviet Union.”

Eighty-Nine Seconds: Why The Media Hates Ron Paul

Source: AntiWar.com
Justin Raimondo

I was really looking forward to the Republican foreign policy debate, eagerly anticipating the clash I expected between Rep. Ron Paul’s anti-interventionist views and the rest of that warmongering crowd – but I didn’t count on the filtering tactics of CBS News. The televised debate went on for an hour, but Ron only got 89 seconds to make the case for peace. 

Paul’s supporters have consistently claimed the Texas congressman is being deliberately ignored by the “mainstream” media, and the amount of noise they’ve generated about this has been the subject of more than a few self-justifying media self-analyses, which usually conclude that, no, he’s getting what he deserves. Okay, fine, that’s debatable, although I have my own opinion on the subject: what isn’t debatable, however, is Paul’s rising level of support. 

According to a recent Bloomberg poll, among Republican voters in Iowa he’s currently in a four-way dead heat, a single point behind frontrunner and serial sex maniac Herman Cain. Among likely caucus voters who have already chosen a candidate, however, Paul is way out front, at a stunning 35 percent, leading “frontrunner” Mitt Romney by ten points. In financial terms, also, Paul is clearly in the top tier: he’s raised more money in a single hour than Newt Gingrich has managed to spend at Tiffany’s in a year, and spent more in Iowa than any of the others.

The shortchanging of Paul at the debate is inexplicable, in another sense, because giving him his due would have made for some good television. The contrast between Paul’s views and the rest of the pack would have provided more than a few dramatic examples of pandering, demagoguery, and exhibitionist blood lust in response to Paul’s provocative peace-mongering. 

What we got, instead, was a decidedly non-dramatic political advertisement for the media-anointed “frontrunners” – Mitt Romney, Herman Cain, and the supposedly “surging” Newt Gingrich. The lame-streamers don’t care about good television – they just want to maintain their control of the process. With the Internet cutting into their audience share, and the history of the last decade or so cutting into their credibility, the mandarins of the “mainstream” media are making their last stand on the battlefield of presidential politics. 

Media bias is ideological, to a certain extent, but it’s also about economics. Sure, they’re cheerleaders for the President, and have been ever since the Democratic primaries of 2007-08. There’s a political motive behind giving the buffoonish Rick Perry an inordinate amount of airtime, and creating a media phenomenon out of the clueless Cain, and they aren’t even bothering to hide it very well. 

Yet it’s also about what they’re selling, and I’m not just talking about the advertisements. Remember, these are for-profit enterprises, not political entities; and they’re media companies, which means their product is a narrative, a story they’re telling their audience, which is hopefully buying into it and tuning in for more.

Netanyahu Makes Unprecedented Statement to Israeli Parliament

Source: DEBKAfile

A short statement was read out to the Knesset (Israel’s parliament by cabinet member Michael Eitan Wednesday afternoon, Nov. 16. It read: “Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu informed the full Knesset plenum that all options are on the table when it comes to Iran’s nuclear program. The prime minister and the authorized bodies are acting to stop the nuclear armament of Iran. The efforts are ongoing and we will do everything possible to enlist states in the international community, “he continued “because the Iranian threat is adanger not only to the State of Israel but to world peace.”

The Knesset was due to devote a special session to the question of an attack on Iran.

DEBKAfile’s military sources report that this is the first statement of this nature the prime minister has ever delivered to Israel’s parliament. It was phrased notably in the present tense. “The authorized bodies” are thought to refer to the Israeli Defense Forces and its intelligence community.

Also worth noting is that Netanyahu sent a minister to read out his message. He himself absent from this key debate and so was the defense minister. For the first time too, there was no reference to sanctions which have figured hitherto in all Israeli official statements on the Iranian nuclear controversy.

The implication is that an operation against a nuclear Iran may be in the works. If so, a response from Tehran is to be expected shortly.

Earlier Wednesday, the supreme commander of Iran's armed forces Gen. Hassan Firouz-Abadi said Israel's cries of alarm about Iran's nuclear development bespeak shock and fear. But nothing will save the Zionist regime from its bitter fate – a hint at Iran's nuclear capability.

Firouz-Abadi said the massive explosion which killed Iran's missile chief Saturday "had nothing to do with Israel or America." It took place during "research on weapons that could strike Israel," adding that the blast had delayed by only two weeks the development of an undisclosed military "product."

The two statements together aroused lively speculation in the tense climate left by the latest nuclear watchdog agency's evidence of Iran's work on a nuclear weapon. Linking them might suggest that the Israeli prime minister had decided to refute the Iranian general's claim. By stating that "efforts are ongoing" to stop Iran's nuclear armament, he may have been implying that  the explosion at the Guards base Saturday was indeed a covert Israeli operation in line with those efforts.