Many Voices Calling for War with Iran by Philip Giraldi
"Wanting to go to war with Iran has created some very strange bedfellows. Leading neoconservative Daniel Pipes’ assertion that President Barack Obama can salvage his presidency and get reelected by attacking Iran is about as low as it gets, suggesting as it does that an act of war can and should serve as a diversion from a failed domestic agenda. The soldiers and civilians who would inevitably die in such a conflict might not agree with Pipes that all is fair in politics. They would no doubt consider themselves betrayed and manipulated by a venal and disconnected political leadership, but no matter. It would not be a first time a neocon would consider a non-neocon casualty little more than a disagreeable statistic."
New issues push Iraq off radar for Obama, press By Joseph Curl
"Despite persistent violence and a critical election coming up, President Obama hardly ever mentions the war in Iraq - where more 110,000 U.S. troops remain - and leading American news outlets have drastically scaled back coverage of the conflict, moving on to domestic issues such as health care and the troubled economy."
You'd have to look really hard through history to find a better example of manipulation by a "news" propaganda machine then this. First it got in front of unleashing the invasion of Iraq, and now it's in front of it's retreat from prominence.
No doubt they consider themselves masterful in the art of deception, but anyone with half a brain and Internet access can readily see what's happened. If there were a case that illustrates collusion among the handful at the top of the broad-strokes editorial control center who gets to define and frame the issues that matter to us, this is right up there at the top.
Nowadays we read a lot about the flight of people from newspapers and TV to the Internet for their news. Nowhere in material on this subject is the above mentioned, perhaps because people don't even realize why they are walking away from the "news" propaganda machine, but they should know. Why? Because if the truth is not made plain they will find some way to stay in charge of our "news", i.e. deciding the framework of issues that matter to us.
Unfortunately, there are ways they could accomplish staying at the helm, but I'm not going to help them by giving any ideas on how to do it, suffice to say that it can be done. Indeed, we can expect it to be done. They will not give up their power without a major fight.
Sliding Backwards on Iraq? Raed Jarrar and Erik Leaver
Underscoring the above discussion on Iraq being moved to the back-burner, the subject matter, Iraq itself, refuses to cooperate.
The Iraqi people want the occupier out. That's their job # 1. This just can't be that hard to understand! Just imagine foreign troops in your neighborhood, and how you'd feel.
Beyond that, when the occupier is gone, which will happen, they will decide their own future. I can't see what that future holds, but I am quite assured there will be no love lost on the ousted occupier who brought death and destruction to their country on a scale not seen since Vietnam. Who, besides the Neocons, can even imagine those people being our friends for a long time to come. No, we'll be out and they will solve their own problems and fashion their own future with little or no regard for any of the bullshit we've been fed.
It's easy to guess some things, though. The majority Shites, with Iran's support and assistance, will be in charge of the political system, the minority Sunni's will fight them, perhaps with the assistance of other countries in the area, and the Kurds will take their autonomy as far as they can, likely in the form of an independent state.
This being the case, Iran is the obvious winner of the invasion, because in the end they will rule not only Iran, but effectively Iraq as well.
And America gets to be the loser. Not overnight, though. The gang behind the invasion will see to it that our pockets will be picked dry with payoff money to push the inevitable as far into the future as possible, so as to muddy and dilute the connection between what they've done and the results.
The Pentagon’s Runaway Budget by Carl Conetta
"Taking the new budget into account, the Defense Department has been granted about $7.2 trillion since 1998, when the post-Cold War decline in defense spending ended.
Looking forward, the Obama administration plans to spend more on the Pentagon over the next eight years than any administration since World War II.
Measured in 2010 dollars, the Korean War cost $393,000 per year for every person deployed. And the Vietnam conflict cost $256,000. By contrast, the Iraq and Afghanistan commitments have cost $792,000 per year per person.
The factors outlined above have converged to give America a historically unique predominance in military spending. The United States today is responsible for nearly half of all military expenditure worldwide. In 1986, it claimed only 28 percent."
Is the Recovery Real? By Paul Craig Roberts
"The economy, in other words, is going nowhere.
As I have emphasized for years, an economy that moves its high productivity, high value-added jobs offshore is going nowhere but down. Except for the super-rich, there has been no growth in people’s incomes for a decade. To substitute for the missing income growth, consumers took on more debt. The growth in consumer debt kept the economy going. However, most consumers have now reached their maximum debt load, and millions went beyond their limit, resulting in foreclosures and lost homes.
There are no jobs to which people can be called back to work. The jobs have been given to the Chinese and Indians.
The economy is set for a “double-dip,” that is, renewed decline. This, of course, means larger federal, state, and local budget deficits. The U.S. federal deficit is now so large that it can no longer be financed by the trade surpluses of China, Japan, and OPEC.
The reason is that the dollar’s role as reserve currency is at stake. If the Federal Reserve has to monetize the federal deficit, the world will turn its back on a rapidly depreciating dollar. The minute the dollar loses the reserve currency role, the U.S. can no longer pay its bills in its own currency, and its days as a superpower come to a sudden end. Wars can’t be financed, and Washington’s pursuit of world hegemony will hit a brick wall.
The power-mad denizens of DC will do anything to further the expansion of their world empire."
As you can see, there are 2 realities: one fed us by the "news" propaganda machine, and the other described by people like Mr. Roberts. Which do you believe?