While the national media tries to make a new story from Scott McClellan's non-revelations, Newbedford360.com has video of Jeff Beatty ("a man Tom Clancy would have eventually created ") telling of how, in the weeks before the war , he was invited to the the Pentagon for a briefing. The vid shows him saying:
" I went to Rumsfeld's conference room......met the Secretary..nice coffee, good china."
Jeff describes how an under-secretary showed them a mobile weapons lab slide show. So after all the formalities and patriotic hooplah, Jeff decides to ask a question.
"excuse me sir, great briefing, loving drawings [but] ..when i was in Delta force as operations officer under Ronald Reagan, we used to have a rule that no US troops would be committed to battle without US eyes on the target"
Beatty then asked whether a Delta force member had "crawled across the desert floor", or had collected a scoop of testable soil for evidence, or had a sample mobile weapons lab been airlifted out as evidence?
"or are we basing this on the reporting of some foreign agent who the more fantastic a tale he tells us, the better we compensate him?"
Beatty says the Pentagon gave an unconvincing answer about a "virtual certainty."
The proof presented for war was BS, says Beatty."Virtual certainty" was a lie. I knew "right then and there we didnt have it", he says.
It's shame that he waited almost as long as Scott McClellan and the US Senate to produce this knowledge to an audience.
Last week, the three remaining presidential candidates made the compulsory visit to AIPAC's conference in Washington. Barack Obama was the star attraction, closing in on the inevitable Democratic nomination and eager to boost his "pro-Israel" bona fides as he looks toward beating John McCain in November. From the start, he didn’t disappoint his audience. Having refreshingly called US flag pins a sign of "fake patriotism," Obama had a cute Israeli-US pin on display.
-story continues after video.
Eager to smother the fact that Hamas had said some complimentary things about him, Obama bowed in assent to the list of demands of the Israeli far right. He began by promising to "not forget" the "three Israeli soldiers still held by Hezbollah." No time for any reflection on the circumstances of Israel's attack on Lebanon, cluster munitions, civilian casualties, or the hundreds of Lebanese and Palestinians held without contact or charge by Israel. Time only to make the first of many inaccurate statements, forgetting that Hezbollah hold two IDF soldiers, not three, Hamas holding Gilad Shalit.
Forgetting, or remembering to forget AIPAC's controversial recent history of running spy rings in Washington, Obama said he admired AIPAC for its grassroots organization. Presumably, it is not the Lobby members under current federal indictment, but these humble organizers "on college campuses around the country" who inspire his commitment to pledge an additional "$30 Billion" to Israel along with sharing of military technology, missile defense, up to and beyond the levels of NATO partnerships. Despite fears of prominent academics, security officials and even presidential candidates that this is not in the US national interest, Obama praised US-Israeli military cooperation as "a model."
Forgetting or ignoring the narrowest dimensions of the Gaza ghetto and its child prisoners, Obama remarked on the state of Israel, a wondrous "narrow strip of land" where its children "must summon uncommon courage." Mentioning a Palestinian state, he was sure to confirm that it would be "alongside a Jewish state of Israel." The description passes unnoticed by many but it is code for a guarantee on the second class status of Israeli Arabs and the Apartheid regime in occupied territory.
Believe it or not, Palestinian rights were treated as very important matters. They were crucial to AIPAC's agenda and Barack assured that they would be dealt with. Palestinian elections are to be manipulated, delayed, ignored, and punished. Obama said he had and would oppose any elections "with Hamas on the ballot." The unelected like Abbas's Prime Minister Salam Fayyad were to be elevated and "supported" as the true voices of Palestine. In short, Palestinian rights are to be withheld until, as he put it, "unless and until Hamas recognizes the state of Israel", "renounces terrorism" and "abides by past agreements." The fact that Hamas has done all of these things and Israel has not done any of them is irrelevant. They are not meant to be taken at face value. They are, again, coded references to "recognition" of illegal Jewish settlements, "renoucement" of any resistance, and acceptance of agreements as Israel perceives them.
Obama went on to say that Israel must abide by promises made at Annapolis in 2007 -nothing before. This year, Israel has defied even Bush, and continued expansion beyond Annapolis promises. What are the chances that Obama will attempt to move expansion back to any past level?
That Palestinians (even Abbas) hold East Jerusalem as their capital ( as per "past agreements") is a "right" no more. Obama was happy to dispense with numerous UN resolutions and state that "Jerusalem must remain Israel's capital and it must remain undivided." This position was even backed away by a Bush spokesperson. The UN and its resolutions are a trifling matter it seems. Obama pledged explicitly to place Israel's "right to defend itself" above UN obstructions. Little obstructions forbidding assaults on neighboring states or civilian infrastructure with prohibited weapons. And while a recent Israeli attack on a Syria was an "action that was entirely justified", Syria should shape up and stop its "reckless" opposition to UN resolutions!!!
This backing of pre-emptive strikes and mocking of the international legal frameworks are eerily reminiscent of the Bush administration, not least when it comes to Iran. Despite being the primary anti-Iraq war candidate, Obama was happy to re-package Bush's Iraq war arguments and apply them to Iran. Apparently, he opposed the Iraq war in 2002/03 because he " knew Iran had an elicit nuclear program." Despite the fact that Israel refuses to governed by the NPT and has the region's strongest military, Iran "pursues a nuclear capability" that could spur "an arms race." hasn’t Obama criticized those who "knew" Saddam had or pursued WMDs?
Obama rightly laughs at Bush's Saddam-Al Queda links but is happy to predict that Iran might take its imaginary weapons for a "transfer...to terrorists." After all, he said, hasnt the Iranian president said that Israel needs to be 'wiped off the map' and denied the Holocaust? Well, no is the answer to both. However Barack's threats were more explicit: "the danger from Iran is grave , it is real and my goal is to eliminate the threat." Anyone with any doubts about the word ‘eliminate’ hadn’t long to wait for clarification:
"I will do everything in my power to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon....everything in my power ....everything.
Clearly, Obama wanted to be doubly and triply sure that the message was received. "Do not be confused," he said, he is committed to keeping military options on the table.
Search Obama - AIPAC on youtube. The video is prominently and proudly hosted by Barack's own youtube page.
Jack Spillane has discovered a real WMD or a Ticking Time Bomb for Obama. Apparently, angry women will not vote for Barack versus John McCain.
Rush Limbuagh too has spent the week predicting that Hillary will not back Obama. And so, because one woman shouts out "McCain in 08" at the recent Dem meet on Fla and Mich, the punditocracy get a new spin: " Clinton backers will vote McCain" or "stay at home."
{Now, let's ask, is that sexist? "stay at home"? Or "angry women"?). Let's remember that Jack has said Barak is sexist for using the term 'periodically' and Clinton in the same sentence. }
Pundits love to predict. It sells. It thrills. Of course, they need no real evidence for their dire predictions. None, beyond linking to a story where another pundit says the same thing. Jack has already proved plenty this way.
That's the "evidence." Pundits need no evidence because they have been paid by someone ( or some news corp) to offer their opinion. Their opinion must have gravitas as a result.
Pundits suuure dont need evidence like Hillary Clinton's thousand strong rally cheering for the election of Obama today:
"I endorse him and throw my full support behind him," Clinton just said that "the way to continue our fight now, to accomplish the goals for which we stand, is to take our energy, our passion and our strength and do all we can to help elect Barack Obama the next president of the United States!"
