Saturday, December 18, 2010

Bank Of America Stops Handling WikiLeaks Payments…


and this would be of no surprise to anyone on the planet since it appears that the next target of WikiLeaks is assumed to be one of the major banks in the United States, Bank of America.

    Bank of America, following in the steps of MasterCard and PayPal, offered basically the same response for the processing shut down as the other company’s have.

“Bank of America joins in the actions previously announced by MasterCard, PayPal, Visa Europe and others and will not process transactions of any type that we have reason to believe are intended for WikiLeaks,” the bank said in a statement Friday.

“This decision is based upon our reasonable belief that WikiLeaks may be engaged in activities that are, among other things, inconsistent with our internal policies for processing payments.”

     Next question is,will this piece of crap bank be the target of of hackers,as was the case with MasterCard and Visa? Security experts think that the bank would be hard to knock off-line,as they are supposed to have very tight security.

Friday, December 17, 2010

Political Humor: The Friday Funnies


   This has been what I consider a bad week for the Democrats, which I think also makes it a bad week for the citizens of America.

  As you all know, the Republicans in the United States Senate held America hostage over those tax cuts for their wealthy friends and corporations by refusing to extend unemployment benefits for the millions of you who have not been able to find a job which would maybe pay you enough to cover your living expenses.

   President Obama grew into one of those Republicants by accepting as few crumbs for both you and myself,which will do none of us any good over the long haul. He did succeed in helping his Republicant Party in adding close to a trillion dollars to our already massive deficit.     Time for a few political jokes.

Conan O'Brien:

"Today President Obama met with a group of top CEOs to discuss creating new jobs. They said they'd see what they could do and then all went back to China."

"Someone apparently found an old Internet dating profile posted by WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, and it has been posted online. Assange was furious, saying 'Some things are supposed to be private.'"

Jay Leno:

"Two feet of snow in the Midwest. But the good news is, these are the first shovel-ready jobs Obama has come up with since becoming president."

"Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg has been named Time magazine's Person of the Year. They said he has single-handedly changed the way we waste time at work."

''We all know there is a long tradition of great nations importing foreign workers to do their farm work. After all, it was the ancient Israelites who built the first food pyramids. ... But this is America. I don't want a tomato picked by a Mexican. I want it picked by an American. Then sliced by a Guatemalan, and served by a Venezuelan in a spa where a Chilean gives me a Brazilian.'' —Stephen Colbert, testifying before Congress on behalf of the United Farm Workers Union, which was pushing an agriculture jobs bill to give illegal immigrant farm workers a path to citizenship

''Say what you want, it's great branding. Way better than CNN's 'If You're Watching This, Your Flight's Been Canceled.'' —Jon Stewart on Fox News' ''Fair and Balanced'' slogan

                            Political Humor


Michael Moore On Sweden’s Rape Charges Against Julian Assange


Original Article

Dear Government of Sweden ...

by Michael Moore          Thu Dec 16, 2010
Dear Swedish Government:

Hi there -- or as you all say, Hallå! You know, all of us here in the U.S. love your country. Your Volvos, your meatballs, your hard-to-put-together furniture -- we can't get enough!

There's just one thing that bothers me -- why has Amnesty International, in a special report, declared that Sweden refuses to deal with the very real tragedy of rape? In fact, they say that all over Scandinavia, including in your country, rapists "enjoy impunity." And the United Nations, the EU and Swedish human rights groups have come to the same conclusion: Sweden just doesn't take sexual assault against women seriously. How else do you explain these statistics from Katrin Axelsson of Women Against Rape:

** Sweden has the HIGHEST per capita number of reported rapes in Europe.

** This number of rapes has quadrupled in the last 20 years.

** The conviction rates? They have steadily DECREASED. 

Axelsson says: "On April 23rd of this year, Carina Hägg and Nalin Pekgul (respectively MP and chairwoman of Social Democratic Women in Sweden) wrote in the Göteborgs [newspaper] that 'up to 90% of all reported rapes [in Sweden] never get to court.'"

Let me say that again: nine out of ten times, when women report they have been raped, you never even bother to start legal proceedings. No wonder that, according to the Swedish National Council for Crime Prevention, it is now statistically more likely that someone in Sweden will be sexually assaulted than that they will be robbed.

Message to rapists? Sweden loves you!

So imagine our surprise when all of a sudden you decided to go after one Julian Assange on sexual assault charges. Well, sort of: first you charged him. Then after investigating it, you dropped the most serious charges and rescinded the arrest warrant.

Then a conservative MP put pressure on you and, lo and behold, you did a 180 and reopened the Assange investigation. Except you still didn't charge him with anything. You just wanted him for "questioning." So you -- you who have sat by and let thousands of Swedish women be raped while letting their rapists go scott-free -- you decided it was now time to crack down on one man -- the one man the American government wants arrested, jailed or (depending on which politician or pundit you listen to) executed. You just happened to go after him, on one possible "count of unlawful coercion, two counts of sexual molestation and one count of rape (third degree)." And while thousands of Swedish rapists roam free, you instigated a huge international manhunt on Interpol for this Julian Assange!

What anti-rape crusaders you've become, Swedish government! Women in Sweden must suddenly feel safer?

Well, not really. Actually, many see right through you. They know what these "non-charge charges" are really about. And they know that you are cynically and disgustingly using the real and everyday threat that exists against women everywhere to help further the American government's interest in silencing the work of WikiLeaks.

I don't pretend to know what happened between Mr. Assange and the two women complainants (all I know is what I've heard in the media, so I'm as confused as the next person). And I'm sorry if I've jumped to any unnecessary or wrong-headed conclusions in my efforts to state a very core American value: All people are absolutely innocent until proven otherwise beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law. I strongly believe every accusation of sexual assault must be investigated vigorously. There is nothing wrong with your police wanting to question Mr. Assange about these allegations, and while I understand why he seemed to go into hiding (people tend to do that when threatened with assassination), he nonetheless should answer the police’s questions. He should also submit to the STD testing the alleged victims have requested. I believe Sweden and the UK have a treaty and a means for you to send your investigators to London so they can question Mr. Assange where he is under house arrest while out on bail.

But that really wouldn't be like you would it, to go all the way to another country to pursue a suspect for sexual assault when you can't even bring yourselves to make it down to the street to your own courthouse to go after the scores of reported rapists in your country. That you, Sweden, have chosen to rarely do that in the past, is why this whole thing stinks to the high heavens.

And let's not forget this one final point from Women Against Rape's Katrin Axelsson:

"There is a long tradition of the use of rape and sexual assault for political agendas that have nothing to do with women's safety. In the south of the US, the lynching of black men was often justified on grounds that they had raped or even looked at a white woman. Women don't take kindly to our demand for safety being misused, while rape continues to be neglected at best or protected at worst."

This tactic of using a rape charge to go after minorities or troublemakers, guilty or innocent -- while turning a blind eye to clear crimes of rape the rest of the time — is what I fear is happening here. I want to make sure that good people not remain silent and that you, Sweden, will not succeed if in fact you are in cahoots with corrupt governments such as ours.

Last week Naomi Klein wrote: "Rape is being used in the Assange prosecution in the same way that 'women's freedom' was used to invade Afghanistan. Wake up!"

I agree.

Unless you have the evidence (and it seems if you did you would have issued an arrest warrant by now), drop the extradition attempt and get to work doing the job you've so far refused to do: Protecting the women of Sweden.

Michael Moore

Thursday, December 16, 2010

President Obama Suffering From Lack Of Common Sense?

Original Article

He just . Doesn't. Get it.

by andrewj54
Thu Dec 16, 2010 at 02:06:53 AM PST

"I want to dispel any notion we want to inhibit your success,” President Obama told 20 CEOs this morning, according to a source in the room. “We want to be boosters because when you do well, America does well."

Really,  Mr. President?  I'll get into specifics below the jump, but in case you hadn't noticed:  while it's a very GOOD time to be a CORPORATE CEO (corporate earnings are at record highs), it's a BAD time to be a working American.   A very bad time.

Let's take a look.

This is from the incomparable Digby, who quotes it from HuffPo:

Wall Street banks are on pace to pay out some $143 billion in compensation for 2010, just shy of their record year of 2007. But given the widespread layoffs of mid-level employees as a result of the financial crisis, average compensation set a record. At the top six banks, compensation rose 10 percent over 2007.

And then there are all the other corporations (this is from the AFL-CIO):

Chief executives at the nation’s largest corporations received $9.25 million in average total compensation in 2009, according to the AFL-CIO’s analysis of available pay data from 292 companies in the Standard & Poor’s 500 index. Although average total compensation for these CEOs declined 9 percent from the previous year, executive retirement benefits increased 23 percent.

Contrary to what the President said, even though everything is coming up money for the CEO's, things look a little differently for middle-class Americans:

¶The typical American household made less money last year than the typical household made a full decade ago.

¶To me, that’s the big news from the Census Bureau’s annual report on income, poverty and health insurance, which was released this morning. Median household fell to $50,303 last year, from $52,163 in 2007. In 1998, median income was $51,295. All these numbers are adjusted for inflation.

¶In the four decades that the Census Bureau has been tracking household income, there has never before been a full decade in which median income failed to rise. (The previous record was seven years, ending in 1985.) Other Census data suggest that it also never happened between the late 1940s and the late 1960s. So it doesn’t seem to have happened since at least the 1930s.

Mr. President,  I hope you are not so out of touch or naive as to actually believe the sunshine you were blowing up the asses of the CEOs today.  If you truly think that "when [the CEOs] do well, America does well", then I have a Magical Elixir of Bipartisanship to sell you.  If you were lying to the CEOs to make them feel better, that's a little less discouraging, in one way, but in another way, it isn't.  If you really are aware of how well they are doing and how hard things are for everyone else, then why are you cozying up to them?  You think that if you tell them that you like them, you really like them, they are suddenly going to throw a lot of money at hiring American workers that they otherwise wouldn't have thrown?  They really aren't that into you, Mr. President.  They are only going to hire if they are sure it will mean more money for them.  Otherwise?  They'll sit on the their money or give it to your opponents.

It was famously written that there is a season to everything.  The season for bipartisanship is over.  The season for treating corporate America with kid gloves is over.  So what season is it?

Fight, or fail. 

It really is that simple.

Wednesday, December 15, 2010

The Older Unemployed and Social Security Reform


Original Article

The Older Unemployed and Social Security Reform

by Forgiven       Wed Dec 15, 2010
But that does not seem to matter, not for her and not for a growing number of people in their 50s and 60s who desperately want or need to work to pay for retirement and who are starting to worry that they may be discarded from the work force — forever...Of the 14.9 million unemployed, more than 2.2 million are 55 or older. Nearly half of them have been unemployed six months or longer, according to the Labor Department. The unemployment rate in the group — 7.3 percent — is at a record, more than double what it was at the beginning of the latest recession. - New York Times

One of the least covered issues facing this country is the growing number of older workers who are now unemployed and who because of it have gone through their savings, investments, and retirement accounts and who may never become employed again. Many of these workers had planned to retire with their savings and retirement accounts to supplement their Social Security and now they will have to rely entirely on the government for their retirement and medical needs. While this is a tragedy in and of itself, the real calamity is that not only will these people be old and poor but they have become the means by which the wealthy has decided to balance the budget. The really sad thing is that many of them will also be highly in debt and will spend their golden years struggling to survive.

As a nation we have decided that our best years are behind us and we are determined to repeat them especially the "Gilded Age". If the wealthy and the wing-nuts have their way not only will there be no retirement accounts for many but there will also be little if any Social Security to sustain them. Folks this isn’t about class warfare, this isn’t about being envious or hating on the rich, and this isn’t even about taxes, this is about what is the fundamental character of this country. Many of these workers through no fault of their own have found themselves unemployed through downsizing and the "great recession" created by the same folks who want to displace them from the only thing that will separate them from elderly poverty the likes of which we haven’t seen since prior to Social Security.

The insidiousness of what the wealthy are trying to do with Social Security reform is that they recognize that not only is America getting older, but also the aged are going to have fewer resources. Prior to the real estate bubble crashing many of these workers had already racked up tremendous debt using their homes as credit cards which they will be carry into retirement. This environment will cause many people to have to continue to work beyond retirement and thus increasing the pressure to extend the retirement age for Social Security. I suppose the thinking will be since they can’t afford to retire anyway we may as well hold off on their government checks. The unfortunate aspect of all of this is that the wealthy through their minions have convinced a number of Americans to believe that these programs have become obsolete and a waste of taxpayer money. The main impetus of this strategy is to blame the poor and the elderly mantra casting them as lazy and a drain on society.

These were the same folks who lambasted this administration for "pulling the plug" on grandma during the healthcare reform debate. I guess they want the elderly to live, but only in poverty. The strategy is the same in all of their proposals. They fight for the unborn until they are born then they are on their own. They refuse to provide for their education, to stabilize their families, or offer a pathway out of poverty besides their bumper sticker rhetoric. It is obvious they see the writing on the wall and realize that in order to address the long-term structural problems of this nation revenues will have to be increased so in their usual preemptive fashion they are laying the groundwork to minimize their portion or to shift those obligations to others. It is becoming painfully clear that reducing spending will not be enough but I guess they have adopted a scorched earth policy to squeeze as much from the most vulnerable as they can before we even begin to discuss increasing revenues.

I predict in the coming years that poverty amongst the elderly will increase dramatically as they watch their investments being looted, their homes being devalued, and their pensions disappear. These won’t be people who were marginally involved in our economic system but people who had worked hard and played by the rules but who have become expendable like so many before them. These people will be the collateral damage of globalization and free trade. Those who have profited from these strategies will continue to obstruct and demonize any policies to help those they have sacrificed for their own gain. We can continue to ignore the coming catastrophe by clinging to the fear and uncertainty being propagated by the wealthy or we can take a cue from our European brethren and demand that the system begin to work for the 98% for whom it no longer does.

If we refuse to act then many of our parents and relatives who have been replaced way before their time will become the new faces of poverty. Millions of workers will be too young for retirement and too old to work in a shrinking job market. They will have no healthcare, no savings, and plenty of debt as they float in this purgatory of not knowing what their future will hold. In this backdrop the true character of America will emerge and to be honest I am not sure what that character will be. The more I read comments from folks extolling the virtues of giving the wealthy more the less hopeful I am for the future.

"You know, if I listened to him [Michael Dukakis] long enough, I would be convinced we're in an economic downturn and people are homeless and going without food and medical attention and that we've got to do something about the unemployed." - Ronald Reagan
The Disputed Truth


Tuesday, December 14, 2010

Republicans:Their 9/11 Responders Health Care


  I am not saying anything. Just watch the following video from Jon Stewert

Julian Assange Gets Bail,Still In Jail


    He was bailed out but he will still have to stay in jail thanks to the authorities in Sweden,who want the man for not wearing a condom during sex, among other things.

   You can go and view the news video. I’d have posted the video here,but my software is stuck on stupid at this time.

Michael Moore Takes Up WikiLeaks Cause



Why I'm Posting Bail Money for Julian Assange

by Michael Moore     Tue Dec 14, 2010
Yesterday, in the Westminster Magistrates Court in London, the lawyers for WikiLeaks co-founder Julian Assange presented to the judge a document from me stating that I have put up $20,000 of my own money to help bail Mr. Assange out of jail.

Furthermore, I am publicly offering the assistance of my website, my servers, my domain names and anything else I can do to keep WikiLeaks alive and thriving as it continues its work to expose the crimes that were concocted in secret and carried out in our name and with our tax dollars.

We were taken to war in Iraq on a lie. Hundreds of thousands are now dead. Just imagine if the men who planned this war crime back in 2002 had had a WikiLeaks to deal with. They might not have been able to pull it off. The only reason they thought they could get away with it was because they had a guaranteed cloak of secrecy. That guarantee has now been ripped from them, and I hope they are never able to operate in secret again.

So why is WikiLeaks, after performing such an important public service, under such vicious attack? Because they have outed and embarrassed those who have covered up the truth. The assault on them has been over the top:

**Sen. Joe Lieberman says WikiLeaks "has violated the Espionage Act."

**The New Yorker's George Packer calls Assange "super-secretive, thin-skinned, [and] megalomaniacal."

**Sarah Palin claims he's "an anti-American operative with blood on his hands" whom we should pursue "with the same urgency we pursue al Qaeda and Taliban leaders."

**Democrat Bob Beckel (Walter Mondale's 1984 campaign manager) said about Assange on Fox: "A dead man can't leak stuff ... there's only one way to do it: illegally shoot the son of a bitch."
**Republican Mary Matalin
says "he's a psychopath, a sociopath ... He's a terrorist."

**Rep. Peter A. King calls WikiLeaks a "terrorist organization."

And indeed they are! They exist to terrorize the liars and warmongers who have brought ruin to our nation and to others. Perhaps the next war won't be so easy because the tables have been turned -- and now it's Big Brother who's being watched ... by us!

WikiLeaks deserves our thanks for shining a huge spotlight on all this. But some in the corporate-owned press have dismissed the importance of WikiLeaks ("they've released little that's new!") or have painted them as simple anarchists ("WikiLeaks just releases everything without any editorial control!"). WikiLeaks exists, in part, because the mainstream media has failed to live up to its responsibility. The corporate owners have decimated newsrooms, making it impossible for good journalists to do their job. There's no time or money anymore for investigative journalism. Simply put, investors don't want those stories exposed. They like their secrets kept ... as secrets.

I ask you to imagine how much different our world would be if WikiLeaks had existed 10 years ago. Take a look at this photo. That's Mr. Bush about to be handed a "secret" document on August 6th, 2001. Its heading read: "Bin Ladin Determined To Strike in US." And on those pages it said the FBI had discovered "patterns of suspicious activity in this country consistent with preparations for hijackings." Mr. Bush decided to ignore it and went fishing for the next four weeks.

But if that document had been leaked, how would you or I have reacted? What would Congress or the FAA have done? Was there not a greater chance that someone, somewhere would have done something if all of us knew about bin Laden's impending attack using hijacked planes?

But back then only a few people had access to that document. Because the secret was kept, a flight school instructor in San Diego who noticed that two Saudi students took no interest in takeoffs or landings, did nothing. Had he read about the bin Laden threat in the paper, might he have called the FBI? (Please read this essay by former FBI Agent Coleen Rowley, Time's 2002 co-Person of the Year, about her belief that had WikiLeaks been around in 2001, 9/11 might have been prevented.)

Or what if the public in 2003 had been able to read "secret" memos from Dick Cheney as he pressured the CIA to give him the "facts" he wanted in order to build his false case for war? If a WikiLeaks had revealed at that time that there were, in fact, no weapons of mass destruction, do you think that the war would have been launched -- or rather, wouldn't there have been calls for Cheney's arrest?

Openness, transparency -- these are among the few weapons the citizenry has to protect itself from the powerful and the corrupt. What if within days of August 4th, 1964 -- after the Pentagon had made up the lie that our ship was attacked by the North Vietnamese in the Gulf of Tonkin -- there had been a WikiLeaks to tell the American people that the whole thing was made up? I guess 58,000 of our soldiers (and 2 million Vietnamese) might be alive today.

Instead, secrets killed them.

For those of you who think it's wrong to support Julian Assange because of the sexual assault allegations he's being held for, all I ask is that you not be naive about how the government works when it decides to go after its prey. Please -- never, ever believe the "official story." And regardless of Assange's guilt or innocence (see the strange nature of the allegations here), this man has the right to have bail posted and to defend himself. I have joined with filmmakers Ken Loach and John Pilger and writer Jemima Khan in putting up the bail money -- and we hope the judge will accept this and grant his release today.

Might WikiLeaks cause some unintended harm to diplomatic negotiations and U.S. interests around the world? Perhaps. But that's the price you pay when you and your government take us into a war based on a lie. Your punishment for misbehaving is that someone has to turn on all the lights in the room so that we can see what you're up to. You simply can't be trusted. So every cable, every email you write is now fair game. Sorry, but you brought this upon yourself. No one can hide from the truth now. No one can plot the next Big Lie if they know that they might be exposed.

And that is the best thing that WikiLeaks has done. WikiLeaks, God bless them, will save lives as a result of their actions. And any of you who join me in supporting them are committing a true act of patriotism. Period.

I stand today in absentia with Julian Assange in London and I ask the judge to grant him his release. I am willing to guarantee his return to court with the bail money I have wired to said court. I will not allow this injustice to continue unchallenged.

P.S. You can read the statement I filed today in the London court here.

P.P.S. If you're reading this in London, please go support Julian Assange and  WikiLeaks at a demonstration at 1 PM today, Tuesday the 14th, in front of the Westminster court.

Monday, December 13, 2010

Newest Study: Fox News Viewers Are Most Misinformed…


and that should come as no surprise to anyone on the planet. This is not the first time that some study concluded that Fox viewers were the most ignorant group when it came to current events such as politics,health care,and a host of other issues of life in the United States.


In most cases those who had greater levels of exposure to news sources had lower levels of misinformation. There were, however, a number of cases where greater exposure to a particular news source increased misinformation on some issues.

Those who watched Fox News almost daily were significantly more likely than those who never watched it to believe that most economists estimate the stimulus caused job losses (12 points more likely), most economists have estimated the health care law will worsen the deficit (31 points), the economy is getting worse (26 points), most scientists do not agree that climate change is occurring (30 points), the stimulus legislation did not include any tax cuts (14 points), their own income taxes have gone up (14 points), the auto bailout only occurred under Obama (13 points), when TARP came up for a vote most Republicans opposed it (12 points) and that it is not clear that Obama was born in the United States (31 points). The effect was also not simply a function of partisan bias, as people who voted Democrat and watched Fox News were also more likely to have such misinformation than those who did not watch it--though by a lesser margin than those who voted Republican.

   I would note that Fox was not entirely alone in reporting news in a not so truthful manner,they are just the best at being a propoganda outlet for the Republican Party and their wealthy friends.

   Read the entire article here,and if you feel really bold, go here for more of this:

This study corroborates a previous PIPA study that focused on the Iraq war with similar results. And there was an NBC/Wall Street Journal poll that demonstrated the break with reality on the part of Fox viewers with regard to health care. The body of evidence that Fox News is nothing but a propaganda machine dedicated to lies is growing by the day.

In eight of the nine questions below, Fox News placed first in the percentage of those who were misinformed (they placed second in the question on TARP). That's a pretty high batting average for journalistic fraud. Here is a list of what Fox News viewers believe that just aint so:

  • 91% believe that the stimulus legislation lost jobs.
  • 72% believe that the health reform law will increase the deficit.
  • 72% believe that the economy is getting worse.
  • 60% believe that climate change is not occurring.
  • 49% believe that income taxes have gone up.
  • 63% believe that the stimulus legislation did not include any tax cuts.
  • 56% believe that Obama initiated the GM/Chrysler bailout.
  • 38% believe that most Republicans opposed TARP.
  • 63% believe that Obama was not born in the US (or that it is unclear).

The conclusion is inescapable. Fox News is deliberately misinforming their viewers and they are doing it for a reason. Every issue above is one in which the Republican Party had a vested interest. They benefited from the ignorance that Fox News helped to proliferate.

  You Betcha! FoxNews:Fairly Unbalanced!

Obama Loses Round Over Health Care Law…


….and it is one rule that I am happy to see shot down by US District Judge Henry Hudson of Virginia.

    As you may well know, Obama’s health care law contains a requirement that Americans have to purchase some type of health insurance or face a fine if they do not. The last time that I checked,the United States was still a free country,somewhat.

   Judge Hudson ruled in favor of the state’s Attorney General,saying that this provision of the law was unconstitutional.  Of course,this case will be decided ,one of these days, by the Supreme Court.


The judge wrote in a 42-page decision that the disputed provision was "neither within the letter nor the spirit of the Constitution".

But he declined to invalidate the entire law, in what correspondents say was a small victory for Barack Obama.



Who Benefits From WikiLeaks Embassy Cables?


     Whether you agree with what WikiLeaks is doing or not,you have to admit that they have been very adept at making sure that the site just doesn’t happen to vanish into thin air because of the United States government. we all know that the site problems have basically come about because of the U.S. government, with a few smaller ones thrown in.

   So. Who is going to benefit because of the cable leaks? A  newspaper in Belgium has a pretty decent answer to the question.

Watching America

La Libre, Belgium
WikiLeaks: Who Will
Benefit from the Crime?

By Pierre Piccinin

Isn’t it interesting ... that the only “pertinent” information basically concerns only the Middle East?
2 December 2010      Edited by Jessica Boesl

Belgium - La Libre - Original Article (French)

The “revelations” of the WikiLeaks site, which has just published tens of thousands of American diplomatic letters and correspondence, are, alas, some of the most disappointing — at this stage at least — due to a disturbing common detail.
For example, on the role of the United States, there is nothing about the destabilization of the Iranian government, nor about its intervention in the “green revolution” that followed the June 2009 elections; there is nothing about the computer science virus “stuxnet” that would be paralyzing the Iranian army and its centers of nuclear research; there is nothing about Syria; there is nothing about the Israeli-Palestinian negotiations that recently began again and are at the center of American politics in the Middle East; and there is absolutely nothing about Israel.
Furthermore, there is no information on the origin of these documents or their authenticity (that the principal parties of interest don’t deny, however).
In fact, globally, nothing was really interesting in what was published until now.
Indeed, this correspondence contains some negative words said by one second-rate diplomat or another regarding one head of state or another, but it’s nothing over which to start a fight. Overall, nothing seems out of the ordinary in this area of informal exchanges, since all the leaders in the world are quite familiar with this sort of talk: Mohammad Gaddafi* likes pretty girls, Hamid Karzai is corrupt, Vladimir Putin likes to work out his biceps, Silvio Berlusconi is old and tired, Angela Merkel is insensible, and as for Nicholas Sarkozy, he would be insensitive and authoritarian. Breaking news! The French president is also described as “the naked king,” but here, no one understands nor dares to interpret it. And Washington spies on the U.N. Incredible!
For the rest, the main “news” is that most leaders of Arab states (Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak, the king of Jordan, the dictators on the Persian Gulf, etc. — all old allies of the United States) have very fiercely declared that they are opposed to Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and his government and wish to have an American intervention. No joke?! This has been the case since 1980 and the war between Iran and Iraq, during which all these states overtly supported and financed Saddam Hussein against the ayatollahs of the Islamic Republic.
In brief, we’re not learning anything.
Isn’t it interesting, however, that the only “pertinent” information basically concerns only the Middle East? And could we wonder if these leakages were organized and used, only partly, by the White House itself?
The fact that these sorts of statements were disclosed makes it possible to reinforce the pressure on Iran a little more and makes its isolation more official within the Arab world. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu did not hesitate to go one step further by rejoicing in what, from now on, Israel and the Arab countries are officially agreeing upon as the Iranian danger and the way to suppress it.
Also, the other “big news,” the issue of Iran’s purchase from North Korea of rockets that are capable of reaching Europe, arises at the right moment for the United States' foreign policy, not only regarding Iran, but also precisely at the time when NATO wants to construct its famous antimissile shield. And this is how to kill two birds with one stone.
Thus, the bulk of these “revelations” brings us back to Iran, which is also designated as a threat to the world, as Saddam Hussein’s Iraq was before it was confirmed by illegal war in 2003 that the country was, in reality, without defense.
On second thought, this case noticeably resembles a well-formed propaganda stunt that could aim at justifying aggression toward Iran. In policy, the old tested recipes are often used again. Following Sherlock Holmes’ tracks, let’s find out who will benefit from this crime. …
Most of the columnists and commentators are talking about a “Sept. 11 of diplomacy.” It’s very overdone and too excessive. And they guarantee that American diplomacy will not be the same in the future. Nothing could be less certain.
*Editor’s Note: This is in reference to Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi.

© 2010 Watching America and All Rights Reserved

Sunday, December 12, 2010

Latest Rasmussen Polling…


…. on President Obama’s approval rating rating says that the President has suffered a decline, especially after his “compromise” on the tax cuts for the wealthy which he made with the Republicans.

    As of Saturday,December 11, only 27% of voters polled approve strongly of the job that Obama is doing while 39% basically say that his performance sucks,strongly.


Overall, 46% of voters say they at least somewhat approve of the president's performance. Fifty-three percent (53%) disapprove.

Fifty-six percent (56%) favor the tax cut deal reached by President Obama and Congressional Republicans.