Political News in late October 2008

From http://www.infowars.com/?p=5465

 

What Will Obama’s “International Crisis” Be?

Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet
Wednesday, October 22, 2008

Joe Biden’s “guarantee” that an “international crisis” will unfold shortly after President Obama takes office conjures up several different possibilities, but it seems the likely outcome will revolve around an announcement that Iran has developed a nuclear bomb, prompting a potential military attack.

“It will not be six months before the world tests Barack Obama like they did John Kennedy,” Biden told an audience in Seattle this past weekend.

“Remember I said it standing here if you don’t remember anything else I said. Watch, we’re gonna have an international crisis, a generated crisis, to test the mettle of this guy.”

The assured tone with which Biden delivered his forecast was staggeringly convincing, and left the observer in no doubt that there will be a major world crisis shortly after Obama takes office. “Mark my words, mark my words,” Biden stressed, adding that “tough” and “unpopular” foreign policy decisions will have to be made.

“I promise you it will occur,” Biden added, “As a student of history and having served with seven presidents, I guarantee you it is going to happen.”

Biden’s use of the word “generated” is even more startling. One of the dictionary definitions we find for the word “generated” is “to bring into existence; cause to be; produce,” which begs the question, will this be another staged and manufactured crisis like the 9/11 attacks, which occurred less than 8 months after Bush took office?

Or will it be something even more serious, a nuclear conflagration involving Russia or Iran?

John McCain raised the specter of nuclear war yesterday when he warned that the United States faces “many challenges here at home, and many enemies abroad in this dangerous world,” before mentioning the 1962 Cuban Missile crisis.

Echoing Biden’s comments, McCain said the next president “won’t have time to get used to the office” and “I know how close we came to a nuclear war and I will not be a president that needs to be tested. I have been tested. Senator Obama has not.”

What is the test to which McCain and Biden refer, and how can they be so sure that it will arrive shortly after Obama takes office should he win the election as expected? What was Colin Powell referring to on Meet The Press when he said, “There’s going to be a crisis which will come along on the 21st, 22nd of January that we don’t even know about right now.”

The most likely scenario seems to revolve around Iran announcing, or the U.S. government claiming, that they are ready to build their first nuclear bomb.

• A d v e r t i s e m e n t
  
• 
  
  

Indeed, the Mossad front news outlet Debka File reported yesterday that “Iran will be ready to build its first bomb just one month after the next US president is sworn in.” The very next sentence of the report ties this in with Biden’s promise of an international crisis immediately after Obama takes office.

“DEBKAfile’s military sources cite the new US timeline: By late January, 2009, Iran will have accumulated enough low-grade enriched uranium (up to 5%) for its “break-out” to weapons grade (90%) material within a short time. For this, the Iranians have achieved the necessary technology. In February, they can move on to start building their first nuclear bomb,” according to the report.

Of course, the legitimacy of these claims are likely to be completely fabricated - the official U.S. National Intelligence Estimate concluded in December that Iran had suspended its nuclear weapons campaign in late 2003 - but the Israelis may be laying the groundwork for a propaganda offensive similar to the “weapons of mass destruction” scam that preceded the invasion of Iraq.

Will the military assault on Iran occur not under the highly unpopular Bush administration, as many had predicted, but under an Obama presidency? Riding into office on a wave of popular approval and support, Obama will have the political capital to get the country behind the attack if the threat of imminent danger is cited - or at least stand by and allow Israel to do the dirty work.

Will a nuclear flash point on the scale of the Cuban Missile Crisis turn out to be the “international crisis” that Biden so vehemently promised? Or will the event take on a different characteristic.

Bush exploited 9/11 to realize the pre-set agenda of his Neo-Con masters months after he was inaugurated and Bill Clinton seized upon the Oklahoma City Bombing shortly into his second term to expand federal power. What will Obama’s crisis be that enables him to offer his contribution to building the American police state?

- A terror attack, or a series of attacks, on major American cities, possibly involving crudely designed nuclear bombs or dirty bombs?

- A complete economic collapse and a new great depression leading to food riots and the imposition of martial law?

- A military showdown with Russia should Russia attempt to invade Georgia or another pro-U.S. Russian satellite country?

- A nuclear showdown with Russia should Russia start a nuclear war with Ukraine, as has been threatened?

- The necessity for another military attack on Afghanistan should the Taliban continue to regain control of the country?

- A confrontation with Venezuela should it be revealed that Hugo Chavez is receiving nuclear bomb technology from Russia or Iran?

- A new escalation in the Middle East should Israel deploy its nuclear arsenal to attack Iran, Syria Lebanon, or even Egypt?

Whatever the new “international crisis” that we have been guaranteed turns out to be, you can bet your bottom dollar that the response to it will ultimately lead to more carnage and a further assault on the fast-disappearing freedoms that we still enjoy - and in that sense under an Obama presidency, the more things “change,” the more they will stay the same.

 

___________________

From http://www.infowars.com/?p=5466

Treasury Blacks Out Key Parts of Private Bailout Contracts

David Sirota
Huffington Post
October 22, 2008

Remember how Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson promised full transparency in spending the $700 billion bailout money? And remember how bailout opponents predicted that the failure to mandate such transparency would allow all sorts of Halliburton-style shenanigans? From the looks of the first private contracts issued by the Treasury Department, it looks like the bailout opponents were correct.

As flagged by BailoutSleuth.com, Paulson is blacking out the sections of government contracts that spell out how much private firms will be paid for their services in administering taxpayer money. Here’s a page from the compensation part of a contract with Bank of New York, which has been hired to do some of the bookkeeping (because, of course, the Bush administration is happy to privatize that function):

And here’s a page from the compensation part of a Treasury contract with law firm Simpson Thatcher Bartlett - a firm being hired to provide "legal advice" to the government:

Think these are doctored images? Check them out yourself on Treasury’s website - the first contract is here (blacked out section on page 25 of the PDF) and the second contract is here (blacked out section on page 5 of the PDF).

• A d v e r t i s e m e n t
  
• 
  
  

So, just to review - within just a few weeks of the bailout passing, our government is blacking out the parts of public contracts that explain how much taxpayer cash private contractors are going to be paid. Perhaps this is what Paulson meant when he promised transparency - by posting these blacked out contracts on the Treasury website, the government is being transparent about exactly where it is being secretive. But I don’t think that definition of transparency really flies, do you?

Of course, I wish I was surprised about this - but one of the major reasons I was opposed to this bailout from the beginning was because (as I and others repeatedly wrote) there is no real transparency at all. Now we know what "no transparency at all" really means.

 

 

________________________________

From http://www.infowars.com/?p=5464

Video: Exchange Between Senator Fred Thompson and Militiaman James Johnson

Infowars
October 22, 2008

An exchange between then senator Fred Thompson and militiaman James Johnson on June 15, 1995, during a hearing held by the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Terrorism, Technology & Government Information.

An excerpt from the Missouri Libertarian, Issue #12, July-August 1995:

The militiamen made the excellent tactical move of bringing James Johnson, an Ohio Unorganized Militia leader and one of the founders of E Pluribus Unum, a political group, with them. Mr. Johnson is black. He stymies the tar-brush applied by government workers and “liberals” that militia groups are racist. But Mr. Johnson is an effective political militiaman in his own right. The closest that there came to be a true understanding between Senators and militiamen, government and citizen, was in the questions asked and answered between Senator Fred Thompson of Tennessee, a conservative who questioned the need for more laws and policemen, and Mr. James Johnson, militiaman.

______________________________

 

http://www.infowars.com/?p=5468