Short on time but intent on regularity :-) Sibel Edmonds is without doubt the most important and least well-known government whistleblower in the US, yet anyone interested in 9/11 investigation issues or how Turkish and Israeli espionage has infiltrated the US government needs to hear what she's got to say. If you're reading this blog, that probably includes you. Best place to plug into this is Brad Friedman's blog, which today reports that an FBI counter-terrorism executive is now calling for a special prosecutor to investigate the information provided by Sibel in her recent legal depositions related to an Ohio election case. You can also listen to an interview with John Cole of the FBI here. Fascinating stuff and if a public investigation were to take place, an entire compost heap of worms would break open and leave a mess far bigger than the State of Ohio and the WTC complex, combined. More astonishing and disturbing than anything Thomas Clancey will ever write.

Another rant on US presidential candidates and then i'll stop for a while. Read this piece by Pepe Escobar on the AIPAC convention taking place this week in the US. All the big name politicians are in attendance, including McCain, BO and HCR, Condi herself leading the refrain on 'Vomit It All Up For Zionism.' Have i mentioned before how much i detest these people?

The way that AIPAC is able to turn otherwise more or less reasonable individuals into gurgling marionettes is surreal. Escobar notes what Killary said at another AIPAC gala in February: "Israel is a beacon of what's right in a neighborhood overshadowed by the wrongs of radicalism, extremism, despotism and terrorism." i guess her campaign strategists opted for completely alienating the arab-american voting bloc this time around? Think about what this says to anyone Israel has declared ENEMY: you've been given that label because you are primitive and evil and prostrating in the direction of Mecca is probably the best consolation you've got for the infinite suffering we will continue to mete out. Aspiring populist candidates generally try to avoid that type of position, but when it comes to Israel, there's simply no low that's too low to sink.

This week, HRC asserted the following: "I know Sen. Obama shares my view that the next president must be ready to say to the world. Our position is unchanging, our resolve unyielding, our stance non-negotiable. The United States stands with Israel, now and forever." When people talk like this to save their own political skins, everything else they've every said about democracy and charting a new course for America - well, why bother? Don't they feel just a twinge of embarrassment? If you're going to go out on a limb for another country, the least you should do is choose one that doesn't routinely spy on you, bribe your politicians, get your army mired down in a foreign quag and render you the laughing stock of the UN.

As far as her stepping out on a limb in characterizing Obama's position, the same Huffpost piece has OB saying "... he would 'never take military action off the table' in defending America's interests or those of Israel. 'Do not be confused,' he instructed the crowd. He also called on Egypt to cut off the smuggling of weapons into Hamas-controlled Gaza, described the return of Israeli soldiers captured by Hezbollah as a priority of U.S. policy, and said he would never 'compromise when it comes to Israel's security.' He also identified Jerusalem as Israel's capital at the end of any two-state solution." [italics mine] How about a national referendum in the 50 states + Puerto Rico to verify that a priority right now should be saving Israeli soldiers? How about a straw poll within the Pentagon? i'm sure the Blackwater, et al. bids for that mission are already in their final drafts. The AIPAC people who hand them these speeches have got to be pulling this stuff out of their asses, since even from this distance, it sure smells that way.

Sometime this winter, i checked out Obama's campaign website and ever since have been getting about 5 emails a day from them. i try to alternate who gets my reply, which is the same letter, sent out over and over again, asking how this position regarding Israel is compatible with the rest of their campaign platform. i've never received any response - shocking, i know - but the main reason is likely that there is no coherent response to be made. It's a campaign financing chess game and the rules are immutable. In what other historical moment has a country of 5 million been able to dictate policy for one of 300,000,000? i'm reminded of Diane Feinstein's suggestion a few years back about how the US Congress and Israel Knesset should hold joint sessions. Maybe if that happened, the Iraqi war vets would get better treatment, even though they'd have to go to Tel Aviv to find it. URRRGGGGGHHHH!!!!