By Michael Rectenwald, The CLG Newsletter

The parties not only kick each other when they are down, but they also pick each other back up, because each needs its opponent in order to continue the farcical show of difference in order to contain real opposition within their bifurcated fraudulence. The object is to contain all differences within the party system in order to keep real opposition from mounting from without.

The conventional political wisdom holds that presumptive Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney picked Wisconsin Congressman Paul Ryan to energize the conservative base. Republican voters remained unsure about Romney’s conservative credentials, both fiscally and socially. Ryan is a Catholic, social conservative and a fiscally draconian “entitlement” cutter of the first degree. He helps Romney draw the clearest “contrast” with Obama administration. Thus, the choice of Ryan provides the basis for a real contest.

But with the endless attacks on Romney’s wealth and wealth-protecting measures — he’s a billionaire who refuses to release more than two tax returns, and who, according to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, actually paid zero taxes for ten years — Ryan is a truly preposterous choice. Ryan contributes no electoral viability to Romney. Anyone who still wonders whether or not Romney favors the rich will be left with no doubts now. The choice of Ryan provides the “opposition” with a ready caricature – so ready as to be distrusted as prefabricated. This caricature will be brandished to scare independents into the Democratic column and otherwise disaffected Democrats into the voting booth.

But the Ryan choice does help both parties redraw their party lines and re-establish the supposed “stark contrast” that true believers are supposed to take as real. That is, the Ryan choice works to legitimate the electoral system itself, a system that really provides no access to political power for the vast majority, but rather contains their choices within a sham opposition. The parties not only kick each other when they are down, but they also pick each other back up, because each needs its opponent in order to continue the farcical show of difference in order to contain real opposition within their bifurcated fraudulence. The object is to contain all differences within the party system in order to keep real opposition from mounting from without.

The Ryan choice sets up the possibility for “winning” voters to feel that they had a choice, and that they chose the lesser evil. They can now rest assured that less evil things will happen. Meanwhile, they will have voted for the very evil that they believed they were averting. They will breathe a sigh of relief, while Republicans will continue to rail for another four years. At the same time, President Barack Obama will proceed to enact austerity measures that Democrats would rail against if enacted by Romney (and which Romney would have enacted had he been elected). The Democrats will sit silent as Obama cuts Social Security and Medicare (to say nothing of his policies of drone bombing, domestic surveillance, secret renditions, and maintaining a list of American citizens targeted for assassination without so much as charges let alone a trial).

“But what if Romney wins?” cry the Democratic faithful. His policies would be worse! Millions would suffer because you mistook the election for a farce! We must support Obama to avoid that possibility!

That’s exactly the conclusion we are meant to draw.

Rest assured, the ruling elite will not let it happen. On the other hand, the threat had to be posed (as unlikely and unreal as it is). The threat was necessary for the legitimation of Obama’s austerity measures. (“At least it’s not the Ryan Plan!”)

Yet the social spending cuts that Obama has promised, and that the Ryan Plan includes to a greater degree, are inevitable. The cuts are inevitable not because greedy Republicans demand them, or because Obama is a Republican in sheep’s clothing, or because Obama has character flaws, but because along with Republicans, the Democrats voted for every war funding bill, the increased military budget, bailouts to the tune of trillions of dollars, and the tax breaks for the wealthy. We can expect nothing but more service of the corporate, military and imperialist elite by Obama in his second term. His austerity plans will be masked in the rhetoric of FDR-like reform, but they will not be anything of the sort–any more than ACA is actually a progressive reform and not the gratuitous bailout of the insurance industry that it is.

Austerity measures are in store, no matter which party controls the White House, because they are needed by the ruling elite to maintain their position and identity as a class. Obama is simply the better choice for the ruling elite because the majority will sit unsuspecting as he enacts the cuts, while the rightwing provides cover by calling him a socialist.

The Ryan choice is the choice of a ruling elite banking on a second Obama term. Romney and Ryan make Obama appear genial and generous by contrast, and that is exactly the goal.

Michael Rectenwald, Ph.D. is Chair and Chief Editorialist of Citizens for Legitimate Government. More of his writings can be found here and here.

Let’s keep this award-winning site going!

Yes, audiences applaud us. But do you?If yes, then buy us a beer. The wingnuts are falling over each other to make donations…to their causes. We, on the other hand, take our left media—the only media that speak for us— for granted. Don’t join that parade, and give today. Every dollar counts.
Use the DONATE button below or on the sidebar. And do the right thing. Even once a year.

Use PayPal via the button below.

THANK YOU.

 

By John Rosenthal, Transatlantic Intelligencer

There has recently been a small stir in the American media, as media organizations from the New York Times to the Wall Street Journal to the Associated Press have finally gotten around to acknowledging a “presence” of al-Qaeda and like-minded jihadist groups among the Syrian rebel forces seeking to topple the regime of Bashar al-Assad.

It is difficult to see what the cause of the excitement is. After all, such a presence has been blindingly obvious for many months: whether as a result of the dozens of suicide attacks that have plagued Syria or the numerous videos that have emerged showing rebel forces or supporters proudly displaying the distinctive black flag of al-Qaeda.

But observations made by German journalist Daniel Etter during a recent visit to rebel-controlled towns near the embattled city of Aleppo suggest that there is no mere “presence” of jihadists among the rebels: religiously-inspired mujahideen is what the rebels are. The real question is whether there is a presence of anything else. Etter’s report, which appeared in the leading German daily Die Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, also provides evidence that rebel authorities are subjecting civilians to arbitrary detention and torture and summarily executing captured members of the regular Syrian armed forces.

In the town of Maraa, north of Aleppo, Etter saw some 120 prisoners, apparently civilians, “herded into a large classroom” in what had previously been a school. Many of the prisoners showed signs of abuse. The prison director, whom Etter identifies only as “Jumbo,” refused to allow Etter to speak with them alone. Etter notes that Jumbo “looks like his name.” “Jumbo is not someone with whom you would like to pick a fight,” Etter writes:
[N]ot someone whom as a prisoner you would like to have as your jail keeper. Thus the detainees say that their wounds and bruises are the product of falls or shrapnel. They say how well they are treated here, and they swear loyalty to the Free Syrian Army. Much of what they say is not credible.

The most gruesome wounds that Etter describes involve a certain “Tamer” from Aleppo: until recently an enthusiastic supporter of Assad – so enthusiastic that he had a portrait of the Syrian president tattooed on his chest. In the meanwhile, the tattoo has been excised from Tamer’s body with a razor blade. Tamer insists that he did the deed himself after rebel forces entered Aleppo. He says that he ran to the rebels’ headquarters and sliced at the tattoo while yelling, “I give my blood for the Free Syrian Army!”

In a remarkable journalistic leap of faith, Etter writes, “Tamer’s story cannot be independently verified either, but it is unlikely that Jumbo would have let a journalist speak with him if his scars were the result of abuse.” As made clear by Etter’s own description of the circumstances under which he was able to speak with the detainees, it is surely far more unlikely that Tamer would have accused his captors with “Jumbo” present.

Moreover, even supposing that Tamer did indeed inflict his own wounds, why would he commit such an act of self-mutilation if he did not expect worse from the “new authorities,” as Etter puts it, if the tattoo was discovered? Rebel groups have repeatedly made clear that they feel entitled to target any and all supporters of the ancien regime.

Jumbo says that Tamer was a member of a pro-Assad militia: a so-called “shabiha”. But there is no evidence presented for this in the article. “I have no proof that he killed anyone,” Jumbo concedes.

It is equally unclear what “crimes” the other detainees are supposed to have committed. But their daily routine makes clear, at any rate, the ideological orientation of their captors. “They pray five times a day,” Etter writes:
[A]nd study the Quran. Perhaps out of a sense of remorse, perhaps to please their jailers, perhaps because they are forced to do so. Jumbo seems to be convinced that their turn to God is doing good. “They are happier and they are changing their attitude,” he says.

In the neighboring town of Azaz, Etter encountered a less didactic form of Islamism: namely, in the person of rebel commander Abu Anas. Etter describes meeting Abu Anas in his office: a Koran and a “silver sword” were lying on his desk and a black flag hung over it. An Arabic inscription on the flag proclaimed, ‘There is no God but God. Mohammed is his Prophet” “It is the flag that al-Qaeda also used,” Etter remarks.

Seemingly taking his cue from Western supporters – or perhaps indeed advisors – Abu Anas emphasized that the black flag was also used before al-Qaeda. But if it is the distinctive black flag with the circular white “seal of Mohammed” in the middle, there appears to be no evidence that this is the case.

This is the flag made famous by Abu Musab al-Zarqawi’s al-Qaeda in Iraq: notably, as a result of the group’s notoriously harrowing videos documenting the executions of captured Iraqi security personnel and American and other hostages. Indeed, even Zarqawi’s group went through various versions of its flag before settling on the version that has since become the standard banner of al-Qaeda affiliates around the world.

In any case, it is not only the choice of flag that appears to have been inspired by al-Qaeda in Iraq. The rebel leader tells Etter that his forces captured Syrian government troops in the battle for Azaz. Asked what became of the government soldiers, Abu Anas responds, “We could not take care of them. Most of them are dead.”

“Earlier,” Etter explains, “when Abu Anas was not yet in the room, a smiling subordinate of his showed with gestures how they bound prisoners and shot them.”

While there is not much he can do to put a positive spin on the actions of Abu Anas and his men, Etter labors mightily to try at least to cast “Jumbo” and his prison in Maara in a more positive light. In one somewhat surreal paragraph, he even praises the rebels for their supposed efforts to build a “fairer” system of justice in Maara – after he has raised the specter of prisoner abuse in Jumbo’s prison.

Jumbo tells him about one case involving a group of Alawites who were detained by the rebels, but then later released since “we had no evidence against them”. Etter does not ask: evidence of what? But even supposing that Jumbo’s claim is true, it amounts to an admission that Alawites are being detained in rebel-controlled territories simply because they are Alawites.

In the language of international humanitarian law, what Etter has described in his article are clearly war crimes and probably too crimes against humanity. But when it is a matter of the crimes of the Syrian rebels, the West’s otherwise supposedly so acute moral sensibilities appear to have become dull.

John Rosenthal is a journalist who specializes on European politics and transatlantic security issues. His website is Transatlantic Intelligencer

(Copyright 2012 John Rosenthal.)

Let’s keep this award-winning site going!

Yes, audiences applaud us. But do you?If yes, then buy us a beer. The wingnuts are falling over each other to make donations…to their causes. We, on the other hand, take our left media—the only media that speak for us— for granted. Don’t join that parade, and give today. Every dollar counts.
Use the DONATE button below or on the sidebar. And do the right thing. Even once a year.

Use PayPal via the button below.

THANK YOU.

 

Ayn Rand has had a huge influence among those temperamentally predisposed to “conservative” politics. But it helps to row with the country’s most powerful currents. Considering the dismal historical track record of laissez-faire capitalism, it takes enormous intellectual dishonesty to pretend that the evidence did not exist. —Eds

Jan Frel, Alternet

“The reason I got involved in public service, by and large, if I had to credit one thinker, one person, it would be Ayn Rand [3].” That’s freshly minted GOP vice-presidential candidate Paul Ryan talking — statements he would eventually [4] recant — at a party celebrating what would have been the prolific author’s 100th birthday,

Rand’s books are a big driver in the long-term right-wing campaign to delude millions of people into believing that there’s no such thing as society — that everyone must look out only for themselves. Lately, Rand’s work has enjoyed a major revival of interest. Besides Ryan, she’s inspired yoga-wear company Lululemon [5] to publish her quotations on its products, and she’s even made inroads into the North American semi-socialist enclave of Canada [6].

AlterNet has kept the pace with Rand’s resurgence, doing our best to educate people about what a nutcase she was and how harmful her ideas are. These 10 articles, previously published on AlterNet, shed light on why Rand’s influence on Ryan is so dangerous.

1. How Ayn Rand Seduced Generations of Young Men and Helped Make the U.S. Into a Selfish, Greedy Nation [7]

“When I was a kid,” AlterNet contribuer Bruce Levine writes, “my reading included comic books and Rand’s The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged. There wasn’t much difference between the comic books and Rand’s novels in terms of the simplicity of the heroes. What was different was that unlike Superman or Batman, Rand made selfishness heroic, and she made caring about others weakness.”

Bruce Levine’s explanation of how Rand has captured the minds of so many is a must-read. “While Harriet Beecher Stowe shamed Americans about the United State’s dehumanization of African Americans and slavery, Ayn Rand removed Americans’ guilt for being selfish and uncaring about anyone except themselves. Not only did Rand make it ‘moral’ for the wealthy not to pay their fair share of taxes, she ‘liberated’ millions of other Americans from caring about the suffering of others, even the suffering of their own children.”

2. Rand’s Philosophy in a Nutshell [8]

The bloggers at ThinkProgress explain that the philosophy Ayn Rand laid out in her novels and essays was, “a frightful concoction [9] of hyper-egotism, power-worship and anarcho-capitalism. She opposed [10] all forms of welfare, unemployment insurance, support for the poor and middle-class, regulation of industry and government provision for roads or other infrastructure. She also insisted [10] that law enforcement, defense and the courts were the only appropriate arenas for government, and that all taxation should be purely voluntary. Her view of economics starkly divided the world into a contest between ‘moochers’ and ‘producers,’ with the small group making up the latter generally composed of the spectacularly wealthy, the successful, and the titans of industry.”

3. Ayn Rand Railed Against Government Benefits, But Grabbed Social Security and Medicare When She Needed Them [11]

AlterNet’s Joshua Holland has the goods: “Her books provided wide-ranging parables of ‘parasites,’ ‘looters’ and ‘moochers’ using the levers of government to steal the fruits of her heroes’ labor. In the real world, however, Rand herself received Social Security payments and Medicare benefits under the name of Ann O’Connor (her husband was Frank O’Connor).

4. Rand Worked on a Movie Script Glorifying the Atomic Bomb [12]

According to author Greg Mitchell,  Rand called the nuclear weapon capable of incinerating entire cities “an eloquent example of, argument for and tribute to free enterprise.”

5. Billionaires and Corporations Use Rand’s Writings [13] To Brainwash College Students [13]

Pam Martens reported that Charles Koch, who pushes “millions of dollars through his foundation into economic programs at public universities and mandating approval of faculty and curriculum in some instances,” partnered with the “southern banking giant BB&T … mandating that Ayn Rand’s book Atlas Shrugged [14] is taught and distributed to students.”

6. H [15]ow Rand Became the Libertarians’ Favorite Philosopher [16]

Author Gary Weiss explains how the “Rand movement, which was little more than a cult when the Atlas Shrugged author died 30 years ago, has effectively merged with the vastly larger libertarian movement. While many differences are likely to remain … this means that Objectivism, Rand’s quasi-religious philosophy, is going to permeate the political process more than ever before.”

7. Ayn Rand in Real Life [17]

Author Hal Crowther writes, “For an eyewitness portrait of Ayn Rand in the flesh, in the prime of her celebrity, you can’t improve on the ‘Ubermensch’ chapter in Tobias Wolff’s autobiographical novel Old School.  Invited to meet with the faculty and student writers at the narrator’s boarding school, Rand arrives with an entourage of chain-smoking idolaters in black and behaves so repellently that her audience of innocents gets a life lesson in what kind of adult to avoid, and to avoid becoming. Rude, dismissive, vain and self-infatuated to the point of obtuseness — she names Atlas Shrugged as the only great American novel — Rand and her hissing chorus in black manage to alienate the entire school, even the rich board member who had admired and invited her. What strikes Wolff’s narrator most forcefully is her utter lack of charity or empathy, her transparent disgust with everything she views as disfiguring or disabling…”

8. Red-State ‘Parasites,’ Blue-State Providers [18]

Ayn Rand loved to throw around the word “parasite.” If you aren’t a psychopath billionaire, in Rand’s eyes you’re a parasite. It’s a psychology totally in keeping with the myths of blue-state/red-state America, as AlterNet’s Sara Robinson explains [18].

9. Ayn Rand Was a Big Admirer of a Serial Killer [18]

No exaggerating here. Mark Ames writes, “Back in the late 1920s, as Ayn Rand was working out her philosophy, she became enthralled by a real-life American serial killer, William Edward Hickman, whose gruesome, sadistic dismemberment of a 12-year-old girl named Marion Parker in 1927 shocked the nation. Rand filled her early notebooks with worshipful praise of Hickman. According to biographer Jennifer Burns, author of Goddess of the Market, Rand was so smitten with Hickman that she modeled her first literary creation … on him.”

10. We’ve Already Had a Randian in High Office (Alan Greenspan), and It Was Devastating to the Middle Class [19]

“The most devoted member of [Rand’s] inner circle,” George Monbiot writes, “was Alan Greenspan [20], former head of the US Federal Reserve. Among the essays he wrote for Rand were those published in a book he co-edited with her called Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal [21]. Here, starkly explained, you’ll find the philosophy he brought into government. There is no need for the regulation of business – even builders or Big Pharma – he argued, as ‘the “greed” of the businessman or, more appropriately, his profit-seeking … is the unexcelled protector of the consumer.’ As for bankers, their need to win the trust of their clients guarantees that they will act with honour and integrity. Unregulated capitalism, he maintains, is a ‘superlatively moral system.'”

Source URL: http://www.alternet.org/news-amp-politics/paul-ryans-biggest-influence-10-things-you-should-know-about-lunatic-ayn-rand

Let’s keep this award-winning site going!

Yes, audiences applaud us. But do you?If yes, then buy us a beer. The wingnuts are falling over each other to make donations…to their causes. We, on the other hand, take our left media—the only media that speak for us— for granted. Don’t join that parade, and give today. Every dollar counts.
Use the DONATE button below or on the sidebar. And do the right thing. Even once a year.

Use PayPal via the button below.

THANK YOU.

 

By Stephen Lendman

Haaretz knows better. Still it misreports on Iran. On August 12, its editorial headlined “Netanyahu’s dangerous demagoguery on Iran” saying:

“Iranian nuclear weapons are a threat to Israel – but its leaders’ demagoguery is just as dangerous.”

Haaretz, Israeli officials, US and other Western ones know Iran has no nuclear weapons program. It likely has no intention of pursuing one. It abhors them and wants a nuclear-free Middle East. Israel alone in the region is menacing. It has a powerful arsenal and declared intention to use it if threatened. Instead of pointing fingers the wrong way, Haaretz editorial policy should report responsibly.

Iran threatens no one. It hasn’t attacked another country in over 200 years. Israel is nuclear armed and dangerous. No one in the region and beyond is safe. Haaretz said Netanyahu and Defense Minister Ehud Barak hope enlisting public opinion support will overcome majority ministerial and defense establishment anti-war opposition.

Haaretz isn’t against war. It wants decisions this important decided by senior cabinet officials, not one or two alone. Netanhayu’s “goal might be democratic,” it said, “but (his) method is demagogic.

“There is no real difference of opinion between the public and its leadership when it comes to determination not to live in the shadow of Iranian nuclear weapons as long as the regime in Iran is extremist and openly seeks Israel’s destruction.”

Iran’s government isn’t extremist. It doesn’t seek Israel’s destruction. President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and others said its policies are self-destructive. Responsible analysts know it’s true.

Haaretz said “(t)he question is not ‘acquiescence or war,’ but rather whether all other means have been exhausted, leaving no choice but to attack soon….”

These type comments are irresponsible. No nation may interfere in the affairs of others. Preemptive attacks are lawless. Self-defense alone justifies military responses. Claiming “Iranian nuclear weapons are dangerous for Israel” is journalistic demagoguery.

Haaretz knows better. It’s time it showed it. Instead, it headlined “Israeli official: Iran has made progress toward developing nuclear warhead,” saying:

An unnamed Israeli official claimed new US/Israeli/other Western intelligence “shows that the Iranian activity around the ‘weapon group’ – the final stage in the development of a nuclear weapon – is progressing far beyond the scope known to the” IAEA.

Allegedly Obama knew a week ago. Barak says acting now is “more urgent.”

“A senior Jerusalem official said Iran has made significant progress in developing the components for assembling a nuclear warhead for a Shahab-3 missile, which has a range of 1,500 kilometers, allowing it to hit any part of Israel.”

On August 9, White House spokesman Jay Carney said Washington has “enough of an awareness….to be sure that Iran has not begun to pursue breakout capacity and that we would have time to respond to that as necessary.”

US National Security Council spokesman Tommy Vietor said US intelligence shows Tehran “is not on the verge of achieving nuclear weapons.”

Netanyahu and Barak falsely claim otherwise. They also repeat the canard about Iran “openly declar(ing) its intention to destroy the State of Israel.” On August 10, Netanyahu added:

“In spite of decisions by the UN Security Council, harsh sanctions and repeated proposals to reach a diplomatic solution, the Iranian regime ignores the international community, misleads inspectors and races to carry out its intention of equipping itself with nuclear weapons.”

Ari Shavit is Haaretz’s resident hawk. He’s both senior correspondent and member of its editorial board. On August 11, he headlined “A grave warning on Iran from ‘the decision maker’ – Israel News.”

Israel/Palestine 972mag.com contributor Dimi Reider said Israelis awoke “to a deafening, orchestrated drumroll….” Headlines from four major dailies beat drums for war. “The soloist of this dubious ensemble was….Shavit.”

He interviewed Barak. He reported about him anonymously. He called him “the decision maker.” Shavit is both resident Haaretz hawk and “sycophantic town crier.” He wrote:

“The Decision-Maker is a controversial man. There was a time he was seen here as a savior, and immediately afterwards, a leper.”

“And again, a near-savior, and again, a leper. But even those opposed to The Decision-Maker admit he’s highly intelligent. Even those with reservations about him are aware he is possessed of unique strategic experience.”

“For half-a-century, The Decision-Maker has been traveling around the core of the security establishment of the state. On more than one occasion, he was the core.”

“He has respect for both supporters of an action in Iran and its opponents. But although he had thought over the matter once again, he remains unmoved from his original position and is utterly convinced that he is right.”

Reider calls Barak “the most widely loathed and unelectable politician in Israel.” Shavit posed softball questions. He let Barak get away with “ridiculous statement(s).” Instead of challenging him responsibly, he t(ook) up the cheerleader’s baton.”

If Israel attacks Iran, “history should remember the shameful role (Shavit) has cast himself to play.” Instead of journalistic integrity, he’s both apologist and cheerleader for war.

He doesn’t quit. Israel needs covert US backing to attack Iran, he says. Earlier in August he conducted another anonymous interview. He described a “tall quiet gentleman. He “made a major contribution to Israel’s existence.”

He called Iran’s “nuclearization unacceptable.” It’ll embolden Israel’s enemies, he said. Terrorists might get hold of dirty bombs. Israel could be contaminated or exterminated. Other regional states would want their own programs. Greater instability than now would follow.

Israel can’t tolerate what jeopardizes its existence. Perhaps being a good neighbor would change things. Shavit and his anonymous subject left that issue unaddressed.

Also unmentioned was Israel’s nuclear, chemical and biological arsenals. One or more of them is reason enough for regional states to want greater protection from their real threat.

Last May, former Hebrew University/Jerusalem Professor Yehezkel Dror published a report titled “An Integrated Imperative: Attack Iran and Launch a Regional Peace Initiative,” saying:

“The possession of nuclear weapons by Iran poses serious dangers to Israel because” Tehran may use them. Greater regional proliferation may follow.

“If Iran advances towards construction of a nuclear weapon is not halted, Israel will have no choice but to attack (its) facilities while they are still vulnerable.”

Dror is both lapdog and cheerleader for war. Imagine what he taught students in classrooms.

He’s Machiavellian, not reasoned. Imagine proposing war and peace simultaneously. He replicates America’s Dr. Strangelove. Stanley Kubrick’s film satirically depicted a deranged general’s obsession to wage nuclear war.

Dror’s analysis employs false logic. On the one hand, he calls an Iranian attack on Israel “small or very small.” At the same time, he claims Iran is likely to use nuclear weapons against Israel if not stopped.

He also dismisses severe damage from an Iranian attack. Then he worries about:

“Renewed clashes on the eastern front, war in the north, confrontations with Egypt, rocket and missile attacks, a new type of Intifada, megaterror, large scale cyber-attacks, innovative forms of passive resistance, non-violent mass aggression, and so on.”

He calls preventive war moral. He says claims about immorality are “primitive and should be rejected.”

His arguments are convoluted and contradictory. Attack a nonbelligerent country to prevent a war unlikely to happen, he urges. Reduce potential dangers by increasing them. Kill Iranians and Israelis to save lives and promote peace.

At the same time, he calls his scenario a “fuzzy gamble.” Results could be “tragic.” Evidence supporting is analysis is absent. Rhetoric substitutes for reason.

Acting responsibly isn’t considered. Convince Israelis and others to go along with what may harm or destroy them. Forget about rationality and safety. Just act. Disregard consequences.

If public opinion expresses opposition, ignore it. If failure looks more likely than success, gamble and chance it anyway. Netanyahu and Barak espouse the same hawkishness.

Shoot first and ask questions later. Dror gives them intellectual ammunition to ready, aim, fire.

Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago and can be reached at lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net.  His new book is titled “How Wall Street Fleeces America: Privatized Banking, Government Collusion and Class War”

http://www.claritypress.com/Lendman.html

Visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com and listen to cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on the Progressive Radio News Hour on the Progressive Radio Network Thursdays at 10AM US Central time and Saturdays and Sundays at noon. All programs are archived for easy listening.

http://www.progressiveradionetwork.com/the-progressive-news-hour

Let’s keep this award-winning site going!

Yes, audiences applaud us. But do you?If yes, then buy us a beer. The wingnuts are falling over each other to make donations…to their causes. We, on the other hand, take our left media—the only media that speak for us— for granted. Don’t join that parade, and give today. Every dollar counts.
Use the DONATE button below or on the sidebar. And do the right thing. Even once a year.

Use PayPal via the button below.

THANK YOU.

 

By Stephen Lendman