You are herecontent / Obama's Brave Nuke World

Obama's Brave Nuke World

Obama's Brave Nuke World
By Stephen Lendman

At the same time the Pentagon issued its new Nuclear Posture Review, Obama officially ordered the murder of a US citizen, Muslim cleric Anwar al-Awlaki - accused of terrorism and an Al Qaeda connection without evidence.

Earlier on February 4, Washington Post writer Ellen Nakashima headlined, "Intelligence chief acknowledges US may target Americans involved in terrorism," saying:

"Director of National Intelligence Dennis C. Blair acknowledged (February 3 in testimony to the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence) that government agencies (specifically CIA operatives and Special Forces death squads) may kill US citizens abroad who are involved in terrorist activities if they are 'taking action that threatens Americans," or administration officials say so.

Obama's Nuclear Posture Review - New Policy or Same Old Same Old?

In December 2001, the Bush administration issued its Nuclear Posture Review (NPR), asserting the preemptive right to unilaterally declare and wage future wars using first strike nuclear weapons.

On April 5, New York Times writers David Sanger and Peter Baker headlined, "Obama Limits When US Would Use Nuclear Arms," saying:

On Monday, Obama said "he was revamping American nuclear strategy to substantially narrow the conditions under which the United States would use nuclear weapons (but) was carving out an exception for 'outliers like Iran and North Korea....' "

Calling it a "sharp shift" in strategy, the Times writers claimed "For the first time, the United States is explicitly committing not to use nuclear weapons against nonnuclear states (in compliance with the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty - NPT), even if they attacked the United States with biological or chemical weapons or launched a crippling cyberattack."

Predictably, an April 7 Times editorial headlined, "Mr. Obama's Nuclear Policy," said:

"it is an important down payment on a saner nuclear policy (and affirms) the 'fundamental role' of nuclear deter nuclear attack on the United States and its allies....the administration has rightly decided to lead by example."

Wrong for numerous reasons. NPR 2010 is changed rhetoric, not policy. Declared nuclear or non-nuclear "outliers" may be attacked. Unilateral disarmament and a nuclear-free world aren't envisioned or planned. Upgraded weapons will replace outdated ones, and as with all new weapons, dangerous testing will continue. NPT's three pillars are disregarded - non-proliferation, disarmament, and peaceful use. So is restoring the Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty, in force for 30 years until the Bush administration unilaterally withdrew in June 2002.

In place also is the Pentagon's 2006 Global Strike Command, a preemptive offensive policy rooted in the concept that, sooner or later, deterrence will fail. Rather than wait, it focuses on striking before it's unleashed. It's about war making, not prevention. So is the 2009 Prompt Global Strike initiative to attack rapidly anywhere in the world with conventional weapons, as easy to do with nuclear ones.

NPR 2010 says America "reserves the right" to use nuclear weapons "that may be warranted by the evolution and proliferation of the biological weapons threat and US capacities to counter that threat."

It begs the question about cause in the event of a pandemic, that, if blamed on a targeted "outlier," may justify a nuclear response. It also leaves unchanged the 2005 Doctrine for Joint Nuclear Operations, removing the distinction between defensive and offensive deterrents, saying:

"The new triad (land and sea-based strategic bombers, land-based missiles, and ballistic missile submarines) offers a mix of strategic offensive and defensive capabilities, active and passive defenses, and a robust research development, and industrial infrastructure to develop, build, and maintain offensive forces and defensive provides additional military options."

NPR 2010 leaves the land-sea-air triad in place, keeping nuclear missiles on alert ready to launch in minutes, the right to use nuclear weapons preemptively, and for the president on his say to order it, perhaps with little time to decide if a perceived threat exists.

This goes beyond self-defense. Calling for preemption, it's aggressive, using nuclear or non-nuclear weapons against an adversary, rebranded an "outlier," whether or not true.

Still policy is the May 2000 Joint Vision 2020 calling for "full spectrum dominance" over all land, surface and sub-surface sea, air, space (including weaponizing it), electromagnetic spectrum and information systems with enough overwhelming power to fight and win global wars against any potential challengers with all weapons in our arsenal, including nuclear, chemical, and biological.

So is the 2002 (later updated 2006) National Security Strategy (NSS), asserting the preemptive right to unilaterally wage aggressive wars with nuclear weapons against any perceived threats or potential challengers, especially with regard to US control over the world's energy and other resources in key regions like Eurasia (including the Middle East), Latin America, Africa, and the Arctic.

Unchanged is the Bush Administration's December 2002 National Security Presidential Directive (NSPD) 17 to combat "Weapons of Mass Destruction (nuclear, biological and chemical), stating:

"The United States will continue to make clear that it reserves the right to respond with overwhelming force - including through resort to all of our options - to the use (or threatened use) of WMD(s) against the United States, our forces abroad, and friends and allies."

In addition, while launching nuclear war is a presidential prerogative, theater nuclear operations are at the discretion of commanders - so on their own, they may order tactical preemptive mini-nuke use (like bunker-busters), falsely claimed as safe for the surrounding civilian population.

Bogusly-called missile defense is for offense. It's also unchanged, Obama sticking with Bush administration plans to install them in Poland and advanced tracking radar in the Czech Republic, Russia very much opposed with good reason. It also objects to news leaks about Romania and Bulgaria agreeing to allow missile interceptors on their soil by 2015, according to an April 8 RIA Novosti report headlined, "Russia proposes global missile defense cooperation with US - Medvedev."

Claimed to protect European allies from "rogue threats" (clearly suggesting Iran), they, in fact, target Russia, the only potential threat because of its large, sophisticated nuclear arsenal. It's believed Iran's missiles can't reach Europe nor has it reason to launch them except in self-defense.

That despite Wall Street Journal writer Chip Cummins last December 17 headlining, "Iran Tests New Version of Missile that Can Reach Europe," and Iran's Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) deputy commander, Hossein Salami, recently saying "Our missiles are now able to target any spot in which the conspirators are in," of course, suggesting Israel and regional-based US forces.

According to the White House, the new US-Russia nuclear treaty "does not contain any constraints on testing, development or deployment of current or planned US missile defense programs or current or planned United States long-range conventional strike capabilities."

No wonder Stephen Walt, co-author with John Mearsheimer of their book titled, "The Israel Lobby and US Foreign Policy," headlined his April 6 Foreign Policy article, "Nuclear Posture Review (or Nuclear Public Relations?), saying:

"Remarkably, US policymakers never seem to realize that the same arguments they use to justify our own nuclear arsenal apply even more powerfully to states whose security is a lot more precarious than America's. If the US government believes that 'the fundamental role' of US nuclear weapons is to deter nuclear attacks on the United States (and reserves a first strike option to do it), then wouldn't a sensible Iranian leadership conclude that it could use a nuclear arsenal of its own, whose 'fundamental role' would be to deter us from doing just that?"

A Final Comment

Like his predecessor, Obama plans permanent wars and more military spending than all other nations combined at a time America has no enemies. He glorifies them and the righteousness of waging them, packaged as liberating ones for democracy, freedom, justice, and the best of all possible worlds. He's the latest in a long line of warrior leaders promising peace by waging wars, justifying them bogusly, and pursuing them as part of a longstanding agenda for greater wealth, power, and unchallengeable global dominance.

As a result, efforts to curtail nuclear danger may be no closer today than under George Bush, especially with Russia, not Iran, America's main strategic rival (along with China economically), facing off against each other in a new Great Game for control of Eurasia's immense resources and other riches.


Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago and can be reached at Also visit his blog site at 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.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Change you cannot believe in, but more of the same corporate, military, fascist appeasing ideological shit in both class parties.

He is a War criminal, and serial corporate, military, criminal capitulationist. He breaks the Constitution, international law, demands selective enforcement of the law, or COMPLETE BREAK DOWN OF THE RULE OF LAW.....Eric Holder is a joke....and a criminal.....who have turned the Justice Department into a Black hole, where no logic, morals, hold sway. It is th Injustice Dept. like the Dept. of Defense is the Fascist Offensive War department.

If criminal American political thugs,Blair, under our War criminal Presidents, Obama and Bush,can murder Afghans based on "suspected" Taliban, "suspected" Al Quaida.....AND NOW MURDER AMERICANS, on "supected" abstract corrupt terminology, it means THAT LIBERAL WHORES, CONSERVATIVE THUGS, have both degenerated into Orwellian language, fascist policies.

He does as he is told and influenced to do.

Many of us blame him, but he's not the person driving the wars, the giving of huge amounts of U.S. taxpayer dollars to the Wall Street crime-gang, banksters, etcetera.

Neither was Bush Jr a real President.

But voters voted for Obama when it was clear that he was not fit and that it was not credible that he'd correct anything wrong. Bush, on the other hand, was not elected in 2000; he was appointed by a small panel of Supreme Court judges who prefered this un- or anti-Constitutional way of dictating who was going to be getting the title of President.

It's not that it would have certainly been better if Al Gore had gotten the Presidential title in 2000, for he's another con, etcetera. And it's not like it would have been better today if either Hilary Clinton or John McCain got to wear the title of President, instead of Obama having gotten it.

They all work for the same Wall Street elites, insurance company elites, the MIC elites, etcetera.

Voters, many who voted for Obama, fell for the deception used by the real deciding elites to make sure they'd have one of their chosen candidates wearing the title of President. They used the deception provided by his skin color, by Obama not being white and giving his supporters, the blind ones, the false belief that the U.S. finally was making a big or large step forward and way from its dark racist history, the culture was finally healing; all of these false images of what was really going on.

I believe it's an interview Jesse Ventura provided on the Alex Jones Show April 6th that I just learned that Goldman Sachs was the largest donator or funder of the Obama campaign in 2008. It was reported by reliable sources in 2008, well before election day, that his campaign's largest funders were from Wall Street, Insurancy industry, pharmaceutical industry, etcetera; but it seems Goldman Sachs is the or one of the top most powerful of these groups. These were clear signals that he was unfit for election to the Presidency. After all, it's nothing new to learn that these elite sectors or sectors of elites are definitely not honest, good-willed, etcetera.

They and the MIC elites are the powers that rule the Presidential administration, and it's for these elites that the CIA, most of it, for apparently around 90% of it is NOT about intelligence analysts, but the ops branch, which is entirely and extremely criminal and should've never been created. Well, it's for these elites that most of the CIA and the U.S. military really work.

The interview Jesse Ventura and Alex Jones conducted and for which the clips are available at Youtube, talks about this above ... matter. However he speaks a fair or considerable amount from what former U.S. Col. L. Fletcher Prouty wrote in his, I think, last book before dying in or around 2000 or a little thereafter. Col Prouty had been the top black ops liaison, or if not liason, then nevertheless the top black ops official (Jesse Ventura says what the top title is) between the Pentagon and the CIA for a considerable amount of time and came to write about evidently a lot of what he had really learned of very dark related goings-on. This sounded very important, if I wasn't hearing mostly about "conspiracy theory" stuff that lacked credible support for it, so I did some Web searching and found two references to what Col Prouty wrote about and which seem to be from two credible people.

One was an article at (GR) for a transcript of an interview that Mike Ruppert provided to Indymedia, I believe the one in Portland, Ore. Mike Ruppert said very little about what Col Prouty wrote about, but clearly finds most of it either wholly or mostly true.

The other article was by Professor Peter Dale Scott and is entitled, "9/11, Deep State Violence and the Hope of Internet Politics", June 11, 2008.

Col Prouty's book is entitled, "The Secret Team, The CIA and Its Allies in Control of the United States and the World". There's an online copy at and for which Prof. Scott provided a link in his article.

Prof. Scott seems to support most of much what Col. Prouty wrote about, but has "partial dissent" with respect to Col Prouty's claim or belief that the real controlling parties of the gov't of the U.S., military, CIA, the ops part of the CIA, that is, are a "secret team" of relatively few, though very powerful, people. Prof. Scott says the real controlling rulers don't consist of a relatively small team or group, but, instead, the problem is [systematic], far broader than just a relatively small group of elites, say.

It's better to read this part of Prof. Scott's article, which I can't excerpt from due to the copyright on it. Simply loading the article and searching the page for the first instance of "Prouty" immediately leads to the several relevant paragraphs, none of which are long.

However, and while I believe Prof. Scott is right, which I'm not qualified to be able to really say that he is, he does not claim that the rest of what Col Prouty wrote about is at all false. Prof. Scott only claims the above "partial dissent", so I think he means that it's his sole disagreement with what Col Prouty wrote or claimed.

So Col Prouty's book evidently does highly consist of a lot of important or very important facts, which permitted me to continue to listen to the rest of the interview between Jesse Ventura and Alex Jones. Col Prouty, though I'm not sure, seems to have been involved with U.S. black ops, so evil ops, from a top Pentagon-CIA position, but if he was, then he clearly came to expose a lot of what he had learned about the evil.

I think systematic is likely for, after all, we have Wall Street, the insurance industry, the pharmaceutical industry, which is part of the military industrial complex's sectors, the MIC as most people refer to it, large oil corporations, international bankers, and possibly other sectors of the richest elites, who all profit from wars and other high or extreme crimes; and who hardly ever display any sign of profiting from practicing good acts. (And also part of the MIC are universities, "schools of higher education", as they're popularly called.)

Angry at Obama, is he to blame for his actions?

I am not as angry at him as I was and am about voters not voting for candidates who can be vetted, shown to have track records that illustrate real fitness for electoral candidacy. Oh, I've been angry at Obama for he has lied many times and the lies are angering; and it's angering that he's supposedly a law graduate who supposedly was or is a Constitutional expert, for this is what his supporters claimed and there is no sign of it being at all true. However, the latter was evident before Election Day 2008, when it was also easy to know that neither he, nor Hilary Clinton, nor John McCain were at all credibly fit for election; while I'd add that for any election, to any political offices.

And the same is true of MANY or most political office holders. Clearly so, for, after all, they only keep funding the wars and authorise robbing taxpayers to enrich the BANKSTERS of Wall Street. Sometimes they claim to agree to authorizing more funds for war for the purpose of the U.S. withdrawing, but it's always been a false claim; a claim based on irresponsible, unreasonable, ... thinking. And that's the best of it, for it's often just another blatant lie.

Like David Swanson said, the Congress must be cleaned out of all of the rogue members in it. Who put those members, who are very many, there? Voters! Well, voters, vote theft with the use of electronic voting machines, and the disenfranchisment of people who should have the right to vote, anyway. But voters still highly supported provably unfit candidates and did nothing when Rep. Dennis Kucinich was unconstitutionally prohibited from participating in six 2008 debates between the Dem. Party's running candidates. The voters didn't push for that prohibition, but nevertheless supported it, and it was wholly un- or anti-constitutional. Even if we're not supporting a candidate, if the person has the Constitutional right to run, then he or she has the Constitutional right to participate in the campaign debates before the public; imo, anyway.

Evil loves silence and inaction.

Obama should resign, or else stop being the tool of the criminal elites controlling him and ... so on, but maybe he's become brainwashed. Is he being secretly mind-controlled? Is he being kept so busy with following or adhering to directions that he has no or insufficient time to seriously inform himself from outside sources?

He is not running the White House administration alone, and Bush Jr was not the real President. Cheney usually struck me as if he was the real person in charge, or when compared to Bush Jr anyway.

Anyway, Obama should grow up, get better and correctly informed, and stop his constant lying and going along with lies and other high crimes. Or he should resign. But we'll likely get neither.

Mike Corbeil

I usually or always do.

Anyone who believed any of the hype about the Obama administration sincerely planning on ridding the U.S. of nuclear arms, nuclear war capabilities is ..., well, tragically naive, and negligent.

Quote: "Still policy is the May 2000 Joint Vision 2020 calling for "full spectrum dominance" over all land, surface and sub-surface sea, air, space (including weaponizing it), electromagnetic spectrum and information systems with enough overwhelming power to fight and win global wars against any potential challengers with all weapons in our arsenal, including nuclear, chemical, and biological".

I've read a number of times about Vision 2020 in articles by a few or more different people with copies posted at, and they all or most of them included the reference to this U.S. military plan and/or doctrine being for [full spectrum dominance].

However, I think this is the first time that I've read about Vision 2020 acutally including mention of electromagnetic (EM) systems; although, even if the plan or doctrine didn't specify this, then it's most likely to be included anyway. We might get a good idea of what EM systems can be used as weapons, including WMD kind, by learning about HAARP. There have been good articles about that at, and surely other websites, however there are also very good documentary videos available at Google Videos specifically about HAARP and EM systems that can be used as weapons.

EM systems used as weapons can be very subtly used as ... rather major weapons, WMD kind, and without it being obvious who is firing or controlling this weapon.

Nick Begich, son of Nick Begich Sr, who I believe is deceased, but who was a former U.S. Congressman and Senator (if I recall correctly from one of the videos), is one of the people who've done many years of research on the topics of HAARP and how EM waves can be used for weapons of destruction. I don't know if the others have also studied how EM waves technology can be additionally used for mind control, but he certainly has seriously studied this subject. The use for mind control can be for good as well as bad or evil purposes. EM waves technology in the hands of caring and careful doctors can used for helping to heal people of real problems, but EM waves tech. can be used by people with evil, wicked intentions for ... evil mind control and other ways of harming people.

He did some documentary videos alone, and has done or been in other documentary videos along with other people of various, but nevertheless relevant scientific fields of expertise.

One way to easily find a good number of the videos to view is by going to the Google Videos search engine page and using "Nick Begich", or simply Begich, and HAARP for search terms.

One person interviewed in some of the videos is the inventor of HAARP. Inititally, the system belonged to some company, but the U.S. military, DARPA I believe, eventually took over HAARP and remains in control of it ever since. It's been long enough now since the military took over this system and the last or most recent report that I heard in one or more of the videos is that the system has been roughly quintipled (5x) in scope, that is, power; and there apparently are plans to double this already much-larger-than-original power of the system.

I'd have to view the videos again, but believe the system originally consisted of around 36 large antennas and then, by around 2005, I think, the system had been increased to around 180 antennas. That number is, one or more of the videos says, anyway, planned for doubling, to 360 or so antennas.

The power of each antenna is a lot, and if I recall correctly, then each emits or produces an EM wave or beam of 10 mega-watts), but the power of each of the antennas in the configuration of this overall system of antennas is combined to form a far more powerful beam than any single antenna can produce. 100 antennas would provide a 100x10 MW power capability in a single, combined EM wave or beam.

100 x 10 MW is a giga-watt, GW, a 1 GW EM beam! This is already dangerous, especially when controlled and used by people with ... other than good intentions, anyway.

The videos provide the specific details. I just have a general or rough sort of recollection of what they say, but enough to realise the system is very real and very dangerous when used for unfriendly, say, purposes.

It'll scare the "bejeepers" out of a lot of people if they haven't yet learned about this system and they choose to check out the videos. But it's an important topic, and very important doesn't seem to be an exaggeration; not to me anyway.

One man in the videos, a geologist, I think, says he used EM waves tech. to be able to find oil reserves in locations where they weren't known to exist. He explains how such tech. can be used to find oil and natural gas reserves; and, I guess, based on his explanation, this can surely be also used to find other underground resources.

But the U.S. military can not credibly want to be in control of this potentially dangerous and powerful weapon for good intentions, and this is the scary part. A number of the people interviewed in the videos say or explain that the HAARP system's extremely powerful EM wave or beam can or certainly could be used to cause [earthquakes], f.e.

We don't need much knowledge of physics to be able to understand the explanations in the videos. Probably most people can understand what the videos say.

Another video that can be recommended, though perhaps having less scientific content, is from one of the episodes of Jesse Ventura's TruTv cable tv research team. The video clips from the episode on HAARP are available at Youtube and it's easy to find them by simply using "Jesse Ventura" and HAARP for search terms, f.e. He and another member of the team show some good aerial views of the HAARP system from when they were flying around this location in remote Alaska in either a small airplane or a helicopter; and I think this is footage filmed last year.

I viewed all of these videos and am comfortable with recommending them all, but don't recall how much of the one from Jesse Ventura's TruTV research program provides for scientific information or details. It's nevertheless good and a good way to learn a little about this TruTV cable program, which I think provided 10 episodes that ended in (I believe) late December and which appears to be ready for another run starting this coming June.

Mike Corbeil

Quoting from the article:

No wonder Stephen Walt, co-author with John Mearsheimer of their book titled, "The Israel Lobby and US Foreign Policy," headlined his April 6 Foreign Policy article, "Nuclear Posture Review (or Nuclear Public Relations?), saying:

"Remarkably, US policymakers never seem to realize that the same arguments they use to justify our own nuclear arsenal apply even more powerfully to states whose security is a lot more precarious than America's. If the US government believes that 'the fundamental role' of US nuclear weapons is to deter nuclear attacks on the United States (and reserves a first strike option to do it), then wouldn't a sensible Iranian leadership conclude that it could use a nuclear arsenal of its own, whose 'fundamental role' would be to deter us from doing just that?"

What's the special value of that, for, after all, any intelligent teenager with a high school diploma, or not even, can think and write as well as the paragraph Stephen Lendman quoted from Stephen Walt's April 6th article?

Was the article important because of the magazine or news paper the piece was published in is read by a lot of pro-war, etcetera types of people? If yes, then what's the name of the news paper or magazine, for I don't think there is one called "Foreign Policy"? Otherwise, what's important about the piece?

After all, Stephen Walt and John Mearsheimer claimed that Israel and the Israel lobby control US foreign policy, and that this is why the war on Iraq was launched. They clearly claimed that that the war was for the sake of Israel and that there was no evidence at all that OIL was a motive for the war on Iraq. Meanwhile, there was [plenty] of evidence already known to a lot of people about OIL having been a principal motive for the war on Iraq, and there was really no real evidence for believing that the war on Iraq was for the sake of Israel.

That the Israel lobby and Israel both cheered on, encouraged, ... for the war to be conducted doesn't mean they were in control, making the war happen. There were MANY other cheerleaders, as well as and secret, behind-closed-doors directors who weren't acting in public view. The really powerful leaders don't act in public view. They can use cheerleaders like the Israeli lobby and other lobbyists, as well as corrupt citizen groups, etcetera. It might be considered bad PR, say, for the real controlling elites to act in public view when orchestrating for wars to be commanded and other extreme crimes that involve a lot of black covert ops that are also EVIL.

A lot of US citizens supported the war, but they weren't in control of making it happen or for being able to prevent it. And a lot of these Americans weren't for the war for the sake of Israel. Instead, they believed the Bush-Cheney lies about Saddam Hussein having WMD and being a threat against even the US, as far away as it is from Iraq; and for the lie about him supposedly having been involved in the 9/11 attacks!

Anyway, there was a lot of evidence for the motive of OIL from before the war was launched as well as starting in June 2003, with the CPA run by Paul Bremmer. And there were further indications since then, but I don't know if the Iraq Study Group report or recommendations came out before or after Walt's and Mearsheimer's piece. In January 2001, there was the very serious Energy Task Force of Cheney et al, and a lot of this was about Iraq's oil and the need to acquire control of them.

Perhaps what's moved him to move that quickly in planning to gain firm control of Iraq's oil resources was because Saddam Hussein had said that he wanted to switch Iraq's OIL reserves for trade based on Euros, instead of the US dollar. If recalling correctly, then he had said this in 2000, but if he said it later, then it was definitely before Fall 2002. I think it was 2000, or no later than 2001, but then if it was after Cheney's January 2001 Energy Task Force, which already illustrated strong motive for war on Iraq, then Saddam Hussein later saying he was switching to Euros cemented the Cheney determination to make sure the US would war on Iraq.

And it's very clear that the U.S. military bases and the HUGE US embassy established in Iraq since 2003 are not for the sake of Israel, for there are no threats in the region against Israel anyway. No country there would attack Israel, which is known worldwide to be seriously nuclear-armed and extremely criminal, violent, psychopath. No gov't leaders in the region would launch any strikes against psychopathically run Israel when it's nuclear-armed, with, it's generally believed, 200 to 400 nuclear missiles or weapons.

There's no threat to Israel, so the major U.S. bases aren't for the sake of Israel, and the US embassy isn't for the sake of Israel. Israel will profit from the theft of Iraqis' oil reserves, but it'll be far from the sole country to profit from this major theft and criminal war!

All of the U.S. and U.S.-NATO militarisation in Africa, Eastern Europe, Eurasia, ... is for the same reason as the war on Iraq. What is this reason? GLOBAL DOMINANTION! It's for global military and political dominance, but also economic; and this definitely includes control over rich natural resources.

Are we to believe that all of this is for the sake of Israel, so all of this globally criminal US foreign policy is for the sake of Israel and controlled by it and the Israel lobby? Walt and Mearsheimer might like to try to get people to believe this, but only very foolish or ignorant people would fall for it.

Mike Corbeil

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.


Support This Site


Get free books and gear when you become a supporter.



Speaking Truth to Empire


Families United


Ray McGovern


Financial supporters of this site can choose to be listed here.



Find the perfect Purple Bridesmaid Dresses for your bridesmaids from




Ca-Dress Long Prom Dresses Canada
Ca Dress Long Prom Dresses on

Buy Books

Get Gear

The log-in box below is only for bloggers. Nobody else will be able to log in because we have not figured out how to stop voluminous spam ruining the site. If you would like us to have the resources to figure that out please donate. If you would like to receive occasional emails please sign up. If you would like to be a blogger here please send your resume.
This question is for testing whether you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Enter the characters shown in the image.