Dick Cheney, A Controversial Vice-President

By Philippe Gélie
Le FigaroMonday 27 August 2007

After the resignation of the president’s main adviser, Karl Rove, pressure is growing in Washington against the Executive branch’s powerful Number Two. A year before the presidential election, the sulfurous record of 66-year-old Richard Cheney embarrasses the Republicans and stimulates the Democrats. Will the 46th Vice-President of the United States complete his term by George W. Bush’s side?
July 10th, the American Senate’s budget committee took an unprecedented decision: it refused to allocate the 4.8 million dollars proposed to cover the expenses of the vice-president’s functions for the coming year. Unless there is a compromise before the fall, Dick Cheney could lose his official residence at Washington’s Naval Observatory, his armored limousines, his bodyguards, and his collaborators, the exact number of whom no one in the United States knows.

The Senate’s gesture of displeasure is a riposte to the last skirmish between George W. Bush’s “éminence grise” and the Congress. In his morbid obsession with secrecy, Cheney has refused to submit to the decree that obliges administration members to archive the confidential documents that pass through their hands. To justify his auto-exemption, the vice-president advanced an unexpected argument: in a letter to the House of Representatives’ oversight committee, he explained that he was “not part of the Executive branch.” Certainly, the American Constitution makes him President pro tem of the Senate, but he nonetheless remains first in the order of succession, with offices in the West Wing of the White House, where the President of the United States is headquartered. The ploy is all the more blatant in that Dick Cheney has, in the past, frequently invoked “executive privilege” in order to refuse to communicate information to congressmen.

Read more

Why the US and Israel Should Lose Middle East Wars

By Bill Christison

Former CIA Analyst

08/27/07 “Counterpunch” — — George W. Bush has once again thrown down the gauntlet. The Mideast wars of the United States, he announced to the Veterans of Foreign Wars National Convention on August 22, must end only with a U.S. victory. He has not wavered in this position since September 11, 2001. The unspoken but real purpose of his efforts has been and will be to concentrate increasing power over the Middle East in the hands of the small group of rich and greedy elites who rule the U.S. and Israel today, and perhaps he will achieve this goal. The more important result, however, will be the elimination of any movement toward greater global justice, stability, and peace in the world for decades to come.

It is past time to challenge the arrogant Mr. Bush directly.

For overwhelming moral reasons, I do not want the U. S. and Israeli governments to be victorious in any present or future Middle East wars. I want them to lose such wars.

U.S. policies in the Middle East since 9/11 have already caused a million or so killings and have created more injustice in the world than existed formerly. Every day results in more killings, more injustice. Unless might does indeed make right, we have no right whatever to win these wars. We should lose them.

Read more

Crackpot Realists and Permanent War

by Ann Berg

While economic pundits point fingers at loose lending for the malodor in the housing market that is now filling the noses of financiers, they miss the primary cause: permanent war. Permanent war has caused the nation’s institutions – political, social, and economic – to be organized into an impervious structure without which war could not be tolerated or financed.

Although 9/11 pushed the war machine into high gear, political centralization and the structuring of American society around war first gained a foothold during World War II. In 1956, five years before President Dwight D. Eisenhower warned in his farewell address of the ascendancy of the military-industrial complex (a phrase that originally included the word congressional), the anti-imperialist C. Wright Mills described the triad of power in his book The Power Elite. Stressing how the military entered the political and economic spheres only temporarily during the First World War, he related how modern warfare and its need for massive industrial capacity – along with support from the technological and scientific communities – propelled the military to new heights of influence. Wrote Mills:

“For the first time in American history, men in authority are talking about an ’emergency’ without a foreseeable end. … The only seriously accepted plan for ‘peace’ is a fully loaded pistol. In short, war or a high state of war preparedness is felt to be the normal and seemingly permanent condition of the United States.

Read more

Dr. Michael Parenti: “Terrorism, Globalism and Conspiracy”

I love this speech and wanted to share it with you.

The Capitalist Conspiracy: An Inside View of International Banking by G. Edward

I’m sure this has done the rounds but some of you may not have seen it.

It is well worth watching

And no, I am not an avid Illuminati believer. It is a scary concept though and I do think that the money printing business should not be in private hands