President Obama is using the same aggressive rhetoric we saw prior to invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, with media repeating the quickly-verifiable lie that Iran's President threatened to "wipe Israel off the map." Previously, Senator Lieberman, Secretary of State Clinton, and former UN Ambassador John Bolton resumed rhetoric of a United States attack upon Iran. There are two general justifications they speak of to justify war: Iran's "nuclear program" and their threat to Israel. Both claims are false (again, verify here: http://www.examiner.com/x-18425-LA-County-Nonpartisan-Examiner~y2009m11d20-Obama-aggress-for-war-Media-echoes-lie-Iran-threatens-to-wipe-Israel-off-the-map-Citizen-action and here:http://www.examiner.com/x-18425-LA-County-Nonpartisan-Examiner~y2009m9d29-Irans-Nuclear-Program-Iran-in-treaty-compliance-USIsrael-lying-and-out-of-compliance), which follows a history of US lies regarding wars. The following is edited from my brief, “War with Afghanistan and Iraq, rhetoric for war with Iran.” The focus of this article is to explore US interest in having a war with Iran. It's from my brief: War with Iraq and Afghanistan, rhetoric for war with Iran.

In its largest reconstruction effort since the Marshall Plan, the United States government has spent $53 billion for relief and reconstruction in Iraq since the 2003 invasion, building tens of thousands of hospitals, water treatment plants, electricity substations, schools and bridges. But there are growing concerns among American officials that Iraq will not be able to adequately maintain the facilities once the Americans have left, potentially wasting hundreds of millions of dollars and jeopardizing Iraq’s ability to provide basic services to its people.......And whether or not the American-built health centers and power plants are ever used as intended, the American companies that won the lion’s share of rebuilding contracts from the federal government have been paid.

In 2007, Congress shut the door to corporate-provided air travel by passing the Honest Leadership and Open Government Act. This week, those idiots at the Federal Election Commission reopened the door.

"After 15 years of legal battles the CIA agrees to pay $3 million to a former DEA agent who accused a former CIA official of illegally eavesdropping on him as part of a joint CIA and State Department effort to thwart DEA’s anti-narcotics mission in Burma in the early 1990s. Richard Horn was stationed in Burma in the early 1990s as the DEA country attaché to Burma, a nation that is ranked as one of the top opium poppy producing countries in the world. He was in charge of overseeing DEA’s mission in Burma involving eradication of the opium poppy, which is used to produce heroin."

After three decades of war, Afghanistan remains one of the poorest and least developed countries in the world. It is also one of the most corrupt. Unemployment stands at 40 percent and more than half the country live below the poverty line. On top of that, violence is at its highest levels since U.S.-backed Afghan forces toppled the Taliban in late 2001. The report, based on a survey of more than 700 ordinary Afghans by British charity Oxfam and several local aid groups, found that 70 percent of people questioned viewed poverty and unemployment as the main drivers of the conflict.

On Veterans Day the Brave New Foundation released this video to place pressure on President Barack Obama not to deploy more troops to Afghanistan. The proposed escalation, which Obama is expected to decide on in the next few weeks, means sending up to 40,000 more troops to the region. In this video, US Marine Corps Veteran, Sgt. Devon Read, said that: "Further troops in Afghanistan is going to escalate the violence, it's going to escalate the Taliban recruiting effort and its certainly not going to create a better situation."

Afghan political analysts observe that Ghazanfar and Zahid Walid are striking examples of the multimillion-dollar business conglomerates, financed by American as well as Afghan tax dollars and connected to powerful political figures, that have, since the fall of the Taliban in 2001, emerged as part of a pervasive culture of corruption here. Nasrullah Stanikzai, a professor of law and political science at Kabul University, says of the companies in the pocket of the vice-president: "Everybody knows who is Ghazanfar. Everybody knows who is Zahid Walid. The [government elite] directly or indirectly have companies, licenses, and sign contracts. But corruption is not confined just to the Afghans. The international community bears a share of this blame."

Here's an idea. Let's make pols wear the logos of their corporate sponsors - like NASCAR drivers.

When asked how many times the laws have been used to bar corrupt foreign officials from entering the country, State Department officials declined to answer, citing privacy reasons, though Ms. Pittman said thousands of visas had been denied to corrupt officials using other legal means. A 2007 State Department report said the presidential proclamation, signed by President George W. Bush in 2004, had been used “dozens” of times. A State Department official who handles corruption investigations said that while the measures were important tools, the department as a matter of policy did not want to reveal the number of times they had been used because it would show that the number was actually quite small. The official asked not to be identified because of departmental rules barring public comment.

These congressional felons assumed membership in the biggest-of-all-members-only clubs provided a get-out-of-jail-free card. They believed they could get away with bribery and extortion because politicians have been getting away with them legally for years.

Sibel Edmonds writes about crime and corruption in our media and Congress in this post on several topics. "Another Police State Government Villains & an Irate Minority Fighter Story; The Deceitful Media Pimping Tyranny; The Convergence of Interests: MIC & Members of Congress"

An explosive report in the New York Times today could change that. The paper alleges that in the aftermath of the infamous 2007 Nisour Square massacre of 17 Iraqi civilians, top Blackwater officials "authorised secret payments" of about $1m into Iraq intending to bribe officials to allow Blackwater to remain in Iraq despite Baghdad's position that the company would be banned and the killers prosecuted. Blackwater continued to operate in Iraq for two years after the Iraqis announced the company would be kicked out – a fact that has baffled and angered Iraqis. In fact, Blackwater remains in Iraq to this day on a $200m contract that was recently extended by the Obama administration. The new report, if true, could help explain why Blackwater has survived so long in Iraq. It could also be a window into what may become the most serious legal issue facing Prince and other executives. Claims that Prince was aware of the bribery scheme – and that his deputy, the company president Gary Jackson, directed the transfer of the money to Blackwater's hub in Jordan, from where it was funnelled to a top Blackwater manager in Iraq – are reported in the New York Times. Such actions would be illegal under US law.

Welcome to the wartime contracting bazaar in Afghanistan. It is a virtual carnival of improbable characters and shady connections, with former CIA officials and ex-military officers joining hands with former Taliban and mujahedeen to collect US government funds in the name of the war effort. In this grotesque carnival, the US military's contractors are forced to pay suspected insurgents to protect American supply routes. It is an accepted fact of the military logistics operation in Afghanistan that the US government funds the very forces American troops are fighting. And it is a deadly irony, because these funds add up to a huge amount of money for the Taliban. "It's a big part of their income," one of the top Afghan government security officials told The Nation in an interview. In fact, US military officials in Kabul estimate that a minimum of 10 percent of the Pentagon's logistics contracts--hundreds of millions of dollars--consists of payments to insurgents. Understanding how this situation came to pass requires untangling two threads. The first is the insider dealing that determines who wins and who loses in Afghan business, and the second is the troubling mechanism by which "private security" ensures that the US supply convoys traveling these ancient trade routes aren't ambushed by insurgents.

JPMorgan Chase & Co., Citigroup, HSBC, Prudential and MetLife are among the big banks and insurers that have had more than half a dozen meetings to lobby lawmakers in just the last 10 days. The firms are trying to get out ahead of amendments that Reps. Paul Kanjorski (D-Pa.) and Ed Perlmutter (D-Colo.) are drafting to sweeping financial overhaul legislation under debate in the House Financial Services Committee. The amendments have not been introduced yet, but their authors aim to give the government greater powers than the Obama administration had originally proposed to limit the size and scope of the country’s biggest financial companies. The government might be able to step in even if the firms are not on the verge of failing.

How did we get from McChrystal’s request for 50,000 troop requests in early October to Eikenberry’s “written reservations about deploying additional troops” just days before President Obama’s planned decision?

As an Afghan woman who was elected to Parliament, I am in the United States to ask President Barack Obama to immediately end the occupation of my country. Eight years ago, women's rights were used as one of the excuses to start this war. But today, Afghanistan is still facing a women's rights catastrophe. Life for most Afghan women resembles a type of hell that is never reflected in the Western mainstream media. In 2001, the U.S. helped return to power the worst misogynist criminals, such as the Northern Alliance warlords and druglords. These men ought to be considered a photocopy of the Taliban. The only difference is that the Northern Alliance warlords wear suits and ties and cover their faces with the mask of democracy while they occupy government positions. But they are responsible for much of the disaster today in Afghanistan, thanks to the U.S. support they enjoy.

Now let’s see what went into this legislative sausage. (a) Everyone agrees that the unregulated “dark markets” of Wall Street’s trading in over-the-counter derivatives such as credit default swaps moved the financial crisis from major problem to total disaster. Currently, most trades in these “products” are privately negotiated on the phone, dealer to dealer. It’s appallingly risky – that’s why we have a multi-trillion dollar bailout. But because the dealers at major banks can quote different prices to different customers, with huge spreads between buy and sell quotes, the banks are making huge profits and want to keep it that way. So while congress is busy working on reform legislation, Wall Street’s lawyer-lobbyists in Washington are working hard to neutralize such efforts.

In this grotesque carnival, the US military's contractors are forced to pay suspected insurgents to protect American supply routes. It is an accepted fact of the military logistics operation in Afghanistan that the US government funds the very forces American troops are fighting. And it is a deadly irony, because these funds add up to a huge amount of money for the Taliban. "It's a big part of their income," one of the top Afghan government security officials told The Nation in an interview. In fact, US military officials in Kabul estimate that a minimum of 10 percent of the Pentagon's logistics contracts--hundreds of millions of dollars--consists of payments to insurgents.

Greg Jaffe, Scott Wilson and Karen DeYoung for The Washington Post report that the US ambassador to Afghanistan has urged the administration to hold up on sending any new troops to the country: Strongly worded cables urge a pause until Kabul government shifts course. The U.S. ambassador in Kabul sent two classified cables to Washington in the last week expressing deep concerns about sending more U.S. troops to Afghanistan until Afghan President Hamid Karzai's government demonstrates that it is willing to tackle the corruption and mismanagement that has fueled the Taliban's rise, said senior U.S. officials. Ambassador Karl W. Eikenberry's memos were sent in the days leading up to a critical meeting Wednesday between President Obama and his national security team to consider several options prepared by military planners for how to proceed in Afghanistan. The proposals, which mark the last stage of a months-long strategy review, all call for between 20,000 to 40,000 more troops and a far broader American involvement of the war. The last-minute dissent by Eikenberry, who commanded U.S. troops in Afghanistan in 2006 and 2007, has rankled his former colleagues in the Pentagon -- as well as Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal, said defense officials. McChrystal has bluntly stated that without an increase of tens of thousands of troops in Afghanistan in the next year, the mission there "will likely result in failure."

What this is all about is corporate lobbying against provisions that both use taxpayer money to reward domestic companies that pay their fair share of taxes and disincentivize companies from trying to rip off the public through offshore "inversions." And it's one of the first examples we've seen of the Obama administration and the Democratic Congress potentially doing something even worse than the Bush administration and the Republican Congress. Here we have a commonsense progressive tax measure that Democrats managed to pass and then expand under Bush and the GOP, and here we are less than a year into an era of full Democratic control of Washington watching Democrats aiming to weaken that tax measure. When you look at this move and remember that candidate Barack Obama himself promised to strengthen - not weaken - laws cracking down on offshore tax rip-off schemes, you wonder why we even waged that tough progressive fight back in 2002.