Podcast notes for broken show — and a hiatus announcement.

Shelly and I tried to record a show last night, but technical difficulties kept the audio from being laid to track.  While I hope to potentially have a guest host sit in this weekend to fill in the content-gap, there are no promises.

In the interim, here’s the link list containing the stories we were to cover.

If I’m able to get a remote co-host’s audio put to track, expect a posting on either Sunday or Monday.

Otherwise, here’s the link list.  We’ll be back on the air as soon as we’re able.  Apologies for the inconvenience.

Video: “Speech by War Veteran”

Podcast: Episodes XXI and XXII

Download MP3 – Episode XXII (63.5 mb)


Download MP3 – Episode XXI (63.7 mb)


Download MP3 – Peter Schiff Bonus MP3 (3.64 mb, no we didn’t interview him…)


Introduction – Episode XXII:

Introduction – Episode XXI:

Notes to show(s): Apologies for the delay with both episodes.  To make up for the delay on episode XXI, we’re posting episode XXII the day after we recorded it, as well as a free bonus segment!  It’s an interview with Peter Schiff discussing the economy.  All great stuff!  Episode XXI discusses the economic meltdown, etc.  Episode XXII discusses Election 2008 and the coronation of our new messianic Dictator-in-Chief, Obama!  Though, rest assured, we’d crap just as much on McCain if he were (s)elected Fuhrer-in-Chief… but because we’re non-partisan around here (well, except for our support of Ron Paul), everyone’s fair game!  Enjoy the show, stock up on guns, buy some storable foods and gold/silver, and get ready!  Things are going to get really nasty–the Rockefellers and Brzezinski demand it so!

Susan Abulhawa – “Biden and Israel”

http://www.counterpunch.org/abulhawa09182008.html

Biden and Israel

Susan Abulhawa | September 18, 2008

John McCain eclipsed the democratic convention buzz, gained women voters, simultaneously reassured middle to far right conservatives and may have positioned a female presidential candidate for the Republican ticket for future elections. It makes sense. On the other hand, the best explanations for Barack Obama’s choice of Joseph Biden still don’t jibe.

It’s true that Mr. Biden brings some political experience to Mr. Obama’s ticket, but so could many of Mr. Obama’s other choices. Mr. Biden also narrows the race gap, which unfortunately still exists in America. But again, so could any of the other choices.

So, what then? Mr. Biden, the self-proclaimed Zionist, assuages Israeli and Jewish American fears that Mr. Obama might not be so accommodating to Israel.

(more…)

Stephen Lendman – “Subverting Democracy Through Electoral Fraud”

http://www.rense.com/general83/subv.htm

Subverting Democracy Through Electoral Fraud

Stephen Lendman | September 15, 2008

In America and elsewhere, electoral fraud isn’t new nor should anyone be surprised it occurs. But as technology improves, so are better ways found to pre-arrange outcomes. It’s easier than ever today so more time, effort, money and other resources are earmarked for it. The result…

(more…)

Karl Rove – “Obama Can’t Win Against Palin”

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122108935141721343.html

Obama Can’t Win Against Palin

Karl Rove | September 11, 2008

Of all the advantages Gov. Sarah Palin has brought to the GOP ticket, the most important may be that she has gotten into Barack Obama’s head. How else to explain Sen. Obama’s decision to go one-on-one against “Sarah Barracuda,” captain of the Wasilla High state basketball champs?

It’s a matchup he’ll lose. If Mr. Obama wants to win, he needs to remember he’s running against John McCain for president, not Mrs. Palin for vice president.

[Ed. Note from Mike: This is an obvious warning piece from the Elite telling who they plan to Crown. Rove's a piece of shit, but he's also got inside knowledge. Obamabots, you had your chance to send a message to the Establishment Elite, but instead you voted for a puppet. Here is Rove telling you that you voted wrong, and that Puppet B's vote will be stolen for Puppet A's vote. Just think: you could have voted for someone who wasn't a puppet... but that would have required some sort of pre-requisite thought as well as turning off your television.  You, and we all, lose as a result.  Welcome to the Great Depression a la 2009.  Enjoy your stay in the bread lines.]

(more…)

Wayne Madsen – “The little known ‘false flag’ attack to make a killing on the speculation market”

http://www.infowars.com/?p=4530

The little known “false flag” attack to make a killing on the speculation market

Wayne Madsen | September 14, 2008

Prior to the 9/11 attacks, insider trading “put options” were placed on United and American Airlines stocks. The speculative options on United were placed between September 6 and 7, 2001 and on American on September 10 at the Chicago Board of Options Exchange.

Put options are bets that a stock will fall in value and the owner has the option of buing the stock at a lower rate and sell them at the highest rate, thus earning a quick windfall profit. The put options on the two airlines’ stock was reportedly six times higher than normal. Other unusual “put option” activity was registered with three European reinsurance firms, Germany Re, Swiss Re, AXA of France, in addition to World Trade Center occupant Morgan Stanley Dean Witter.

(more…)

BBC – “Israel ‘annexes’ West Bank areas”

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7609905.stm

Israel ‘annexes’ West Bank areas
West Bank barrier in Abu Dis near Jerusalem

BBC | September 11, 2008

Israel has annexed thousands of hectares of West Bank land beside the barrier it is building, according to an Israeli rights group.

B’Tselem says the land has been taken with the justification that it is needed to protect Israeli settlements.

The group says some settlements have seized up to two and a half times more land than they have been designated by fencing it off or through intimidation.

Under international law the settlements in the West Bank are illegal.

(more…)

Published in: on September 11, 2008 at 10:06 PM  Leave a Comment  

Richard Beeston – “George Bush isn’t in charge, says Vladimir Putin”

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article4734894.ece

George Bush isn’t in charge, says Vladimir Putin

Richard Beeston | September 11, 2008

In a thinly veiled dig at George Bush, Vladimir Putin today suggested that the US President was not in charge of American affairs, saying that it was “the court that makes the king”.

Amid heightened tensions with the US in the wake of the war in Georgia, the Russian Prime Minister insisted that the US leader was a man of honour and integrity, but blamed members of the administration for the sharp deterioration of relations with Russia.

”I still hope we will maintain good relations, but it is the court that makes the king,” he told a group of foreign journalists in an interview at his residence in the Black Sea resort of Sochi.

(more…)

Tom Engelhardt and Andrew Bacevich – “Worshiping the Indispensable Nation”

http://www.lewrockwell.com/engelhardt/engelhardt353.html

Worshiping the Indispensable Nation

Tom Engelhardt and Andrew Bacevich | September 10, 2008

Can anyone be surprised that, once again, the attacks of 9/11/01 were reflexively ground zero for embattled Republicans? George W. Bush led the way at the Republican National Convention, saying of John McCain, “We need a president who understands the lessons of September 11, 2001.” In his convention keynote address, Rudy Giuliani followed suit, zapping Obama and his supporters this way: “The Democrats rarely mentioned the attacks of September 11. They are in a state of denial about the threat that faces us now and in the future.” Post-convention, it’s evidently time to assure the nation that Sarah Palin is just the pit bull to handle the next 9/11. Now comes the news that this Thursday, the endless presidential election campaign will finally make it – quite literally – to Ground Zero. Barack Obama and John McCain will “put aside politics” and appear together for the yearly ceremonies. By now, however, it’s far too late to “put aside” 9/11, no less remove it from American politics. Our world has been profoundly reshaped, after all, by the decisions Bush and his top officials made in the wake of those attacks.

Still, taking up the President’s implied question, what “lessons” exactly should be drawn, seven years later, other than that you stand a reasonable chance of winning elections by invoking 9/11 ad nauseum? As Andrew Bacevich, author of the New York Times bestselling book, The Limits of Power: The End of American Exceptionalism, indicates below, there are indeed lessons to be drawn. They are, in fact, devastating to the Bush administration, and unless they are grasped, further disaster is undoubtedly in the offing. (To watch a video of Bacevich discussing those post-9/11 lessons, click here.) ~ Tom

9/11 Plus Seven
By Andrew J. Bacevich

The events of the past seven years have yielded a definitive judgment on the strategy that the Bush administration conceived in the wake of 9/11 to wage its so-called Global War on Terror. That strategy has failed, massively and irrevocably. To acknowledge that failure is to confront an urgent national priority: to scrap the Bush approach in favor of a new national security strategy that is realistic and sustainable – a task that, alas, neither of the presidential candidates seems able to recognize or willing to take up.

On September 30, 2001, President Bush received from Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld a memorandum outlining U.S. objectives in the War on Terror. Drafted by Rumsfeld’s chief strategist Douglas Feith, the memo declared expansively: “If the war does not significantly change the world’s political map, the U.S. will not achieve its aim.” That aim, as Feith explained in a subsequent missive to his boss, was to “transform the Middle East and the broader world of Islam generally.”

Rumsfeld and Feith were co-religionists: Along with other senior Bush administration officials, they worshipped in the Church of the Indispensable Nation, a small but intensely devout Washington-based sect formed in the immediate wake of the Cold War. Members of this church shared an exalted appreciation for the efficacy of American power, especially hard power. The strategy of transformation emerged as a direct expression of their faith.

The members of this church were also united by an equally exalted estimation of their own abilities. Lucky the nation to be blessed with such savvy and sophisticated public servants in its hour of need!

The goal of transforming the Islamic world was nothing if not bold. It implied far-reaching political, economic, social, and even cultural adjustments. At a press conference on September 18, 2001, Rumsfeld spoke bluntly of the need to “change the way that they live.” Rumsfeld didn’t specify who “they” were. He didn’t have to. His listeners understood without being told: “They” were Muslims inhabiting a vast arc of territory that stretched from Morocco in the west all the way to the Moro territories of the Southern Philippines in the east.

Yet boldly conceived action, if successfully executed, offered the prospect of solving a host of problems. Once pacified (or “liberated”), the Middle East would cease to breed or harbor anti-American terrorists. Post-9/11 fears about weapons of mass destruction falling into the hands of evil-doers could abate. Local regimes, notorious for being venal, oppressive, and inept, might finally get serious about cleaning up their acts. Liberal values, including rights for women, would flourish. A part of the world perpetually dogged by violence would enjoy a measure of stability, with stability promising not so incidentally to facilitate exploitation of the region’s oil reserves. There was even the possibility of enhancing the security of Israel. Like a powerful antibiotic, the Bush administration’s strategy of transformation promised to clean out not simply a single infection but several; or to switch metaphors, a strategy of transformation meant running the table.

When it came to implementation, the imperative of the moment was to think big. Just days after 9/11, Rumsfeld was charging his subordinates to devise a plan of action that had “three, four, five moves behind it.” By December 2001, the Pentagon had persuaded itself that the first move – into Afghanistan – had met success. The Bush administration wasted little time in pocketing its ostensible victory. Attention quickly shifted to the second move, seen by insiders as holding the key to ultimate success: Iraq.

Fix Iraq and moves three, four, and five promised to come easily. Writing in the Weekly Standard, William Kristol and Robert Kagan got it exactly right: “The president’s vision will, in the coming months, either be launched successfully in Iraq, or it will die in Iraq.”

The point cannot be emphasized too strongly: Saddam Hussein’s (nonexistent) weapons of mass destruction and his (imaginary) ties to Al Qaeda never constituted the real reason for invading Iraq – any more than the imperative of defending Russian “peacekeepers” in South Ossetia explains the Kremlin’s decision to invade Georgia.

Iraq merely offered a convenient place from which to launch a much larger and infinitely more ambitious project. “After Hussein is removed,” enthused Hudson Institute analyst Max Singer, “there will be an earthquake through the region.” Success in Iraq promised to endow the United States with hitherto unprecedented leverage. Once the United States had made an example of Saddam Hussein, as the influential neoconservative Richard Perle put it, dealing with other ne’er-do-wells would become simple: “We could deliver a short message, a two-word message: ‘You’re next.’” Faced with the prospect of sharing Saddam’s fate, Syrians, Iranians, Sudanese, and other recalcitrant regimes would see submission as the wiser course – so Perle and others believed.

Members of the administration tried to imbue this strategic vision with a softer ideological gloss. “For 60 years,” Condoleezza Rice explained to a group of students in Cairo, “my country, the United States, pursued stability at the expense of democracy in this region here in the Middle East – and we achieved neither.” No more. “Now, we are taking a different course. We are supporting the democratic aspirations of all people.” The world’s Muslims needed to know that the motives behind the U.S. incursion into Iraq and its actions elsewhere in the region were (or had, at least, suddenly become) entirely benign. Who knows? Rice may even have believed the words she spoke.

In either case – whether the strategy of transformation aimed at dominion or democratization – today, seven years after it was conceived, we can assess exactly what it has produced. The answer is clear: next to nothing, apart from squandering vast resources and exacerbating the slide toward debt and dependency that poses a greater strategic threat to the United States than Osama bin Laden ever did.

In point of fact, hardly had the Pentagon commenced its second move, its invasion of Iraq, when the entire strategy began to unravel. In Iraq, President Bush’s vision of regional transformation did die, much as Kagan and Kristol had feared. No amount of CPR credited to the so-called surge will revive it. Even if tomorrow Iraq were to achieve stability and become a responsible member of the international community, no sensible person could suggest that Operation Iraqi Freedom provides a model to apply elsewhere. Senator John McCain says that he’ll keep U.S. combat troops in Iraq for as long as it takes. Yet even he does not propose “solving” any problems posed by Syria or Iran (much less Pakistan) by employing the methods that the Bush administration used to “solve” the problem posed by Iraq. The Bush Doctrine of preventive war may remain nominally on the books. But, as a practical matter, it is defunct.

The United States will not change the world’s political map in the ways top administration officials once dreamed of. There will be no earthquake that shakes up the Middle East – unless the growing clout of Iran, Hezbollah, and Hamas in recent years qualifies as that earthquake. Given the Pentagon’s existing commitments, there will be no threats of “you’re next” either – at least none that will worry our adversaries, as the Russians have neatly demonstrated. Nor will there be a wave of democratic reform – even Rice has ceased her prattling on that score. Islam will remain stubbornly resistant to change, except on terms of its own choosing. We will not change the way “they” live.

In a book that he co-authored during the run-up to the invasion, Kristol confidently declared, “The mission begins in Baghdad, but it does not end there.” In fact, the Bush administration’s strategy of transformation has ended. It has failed miserably. The sooner we face up to that failure, the sooner we can get about repairing the damage.

Ron Paul – “Ron Paul Statement to the National Press Club”

http://www.campaignforliberty.com/blog/?p=483%20-

Ron Paul Statement to the National Press Club

Ron Paul | September 10, 2008

The argument that the two parties should represent opposed ideals and policies, one, perhaps of the Right and the other of the Left, is a foolish idea acceptable only to the doctrinaire and academic thinkers. Instead the two parties should be almost identical, so that the American people can ‘throw the rascals out’ at any election without leading to any profound or extensive shifts in policy.
Carroll Quigley – Author of Tragedy & Hope

The coverage of the presidential election is designed to be a grand distraction. This is not new, but this year, it’s more so than ever.

Pretending that a true difference exists between the two major candidates is a charade of great proportion. Many who help to perpetuate this myth are frequently unaware of what they are doing and believe that significant differences actually do exist. Indeed, on small points there is the appearance of a difference. The real issues, however, are buried in a barrage of miscellaneous nonsense and endless pontifications by robotic pundits hired to perpetuate the myth of a campaign of substance.

The truth is that our two-party system offers no real choice. The real goal of the campaign is to distract people from considering the real issues.

Influential forces, the media, the government, the privileged corporations and moneyed interests see to it that both party’s candidates are acceptable, regardless of the outcome, since they will still be in charge. It’s been that way for a long time. George Wallace was not the first to recognize that there’s “not a dime’s worth of difference” between the two parties. There is, though, a difference between the two major candidates and the candidates on third-party tickets and those running as independents.

(more…)

The Earl of Stirling – “The Iran War – How It Will Begin”

http://www.rense.com/general83/irwar.htm

The Iran War – How It Will Begin

The Earl of Stirling | September 6, 2008

I have served as a consultant to three very high tech aerospace firms. My specialty is conceptualizing advanced warfare especially as it relates to new cutting edge advanced weapon systems. What I see unfolding with a war on Iran is the most frightening set of circumstances I have ever seen; and I have been involved in advanced theoretical weaponry strategy and design for over 20 years.

Sometime in the weeks to months ahead, there will be a war launched against Iran. The war may be started by Israel, or by the United States, or by a NATO/EU/US embargo, or by some ‘false flag’ attack. What matters is that it will begin; and where it will take the world.

(more…)

Suzanne Gamboa – “Paul: Reject the major parties, go for a third”

http://www.newsvine.com/_news/2008/09/09/1846709-paul-reject-the-major-parties-go-for-a-third

Paul: Reject the major parties, go for a third

Suzanne Gamboa | September 9, 2008

Libertarian-leaning congressman Ron Paul is urging voters to reject John McCain and Barack Obama and support one of the third-party candidates for president.

Paul, a Republican who abandoned his White House bid earlier this year, is gathering some of the candidates, independent Ralph Nader among them, on Wednesday to make his plea.

“The strongest message can be sent by rejecting the two party system,” Paul said in prepared remarks obtained by AP. “This can be accomplished by voting for one of the non-establishment, principled candidates.”

(more…)

Joe Schembrie – “The Federal Reserve’s War Against the Human Race”

http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig6/schembrie8.html

The Federal Reserve’s War Against the Human Race

Joe Schembrie | September 9, 2008

American foreign policy is corrupted by a powerful influence so arrogantly reckless it endangers the human race. This influence isn’t Big Oil or Zionism, which are merely tools of the real power. The real power that controls US foreign policy is Big Money – the central banking institution known as the Federal Reserve System.

The ultimate in corporate welfare, the Fed is a government-supported banking cartel which creates trillions of dollars from mere bookkeeping entries. The $123 billion in Big Oil profits last year is trivial in comparison. In political clout, Big Money is the driver and Big Oil is only along for the ride.

(more…)

Paul Craig Roberts – “Is War With Russia on the Agenda?”

http://www.counterpunch.org/roberts08262008.html

Is War With Russia on the Agenda?

Paul Craig Roberts | August 26, 2008

Thinking about the massive failure of the US media to report truthfully is sobering. The United States, bristling with nuclear weapons and pursuing a policy of world hegemony, has a population that is kept in the dark–indeed brainwashed–about the most important and most dangerous events of our time.

The power of the Israel Lobby is an important component of keeping Americans in the dark. Recently I watched a documentary that demonstrates the control that the Israel Lobby exercises over Americans’ view of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The documentary is available here.

As a result of the US media’s one-sided coverage, few Americans are aware that for decades Israel has been ethnically cleansing Palestinians from their homes and lands under protection of America’s veto in the United Nations. Instead, the dispossessed Palestinians are portrayed as mindless terrorists who attack innocent Israel.

(more…)

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.