Much to the dismay of some Americans, in 2012 President Obama signed an ‘Executive Agreement’ to remain in Afghanistan for another decade. By ‘signing on the dotted line’, (1) Obama was accused of eternally blemishing his previous persona of “hope and change” into a “business as usual” president.
Since the 9/11 attacks on the United States, the international military campaign, known as the War on Terror, has been in operation. The phrase was coined by former US President George W. Bush in the immediate wake of 9/11.
Since, the term has been widely used by the Western media and authorities to justify an international military, and lawful and political struggle against the terrorists and organizations associated with Islamic terrorism.
More than 13 years since the War on Terror began, as of May 2011, it has left between 227,000 and 300,000 dead. (2) More than half of these deaths have been civilian casualties. Thanks to Obama’s ‘”Executive Agreement’ the world is now to endure another decade of War on Terror misery.
With the West’s relentless pursuit to commit more time, money and resources to the Middle East, we have to ask ourselves, who is profiting from the war?
Big Campaign Donors
The defense industry has, since 1999, more than doubled its niche in the US manufacturing sector. According to a report in the Examiner, defense industry leaders have concluded that War on Terror campaign donations of $200 million create billions of dollars in return on investment in lucrative Pentagon contracts.
The timing of Obama’s pledge to remain in Afghanistan for the next ten years is more than relevant. The signing took place in 2012 as the presidential race was heating up. It transpired that defense contractors were amongst Obama’s largest campaign supporters. It appeared that defense contractors were donating vast sums of dollars into Obama’s re-election funds.
Obama’s re-election campaign is not the only component that has stood accused of having fingers in greedy pies and profiteering from the War on Terror.
In order to help “coordinate and rebuild a large part of Iraq’s infrastructure”, the San-Francisco based engineering and construction giant Bechtel received a huge no-bid contract worth a staggering $2.4 billion. The company, however, failed to deliver quality construction operations and didn’t even manage to complete a hospital in Basra project on time and within budget. The company denies these claims. (5)
Stuart Bowen, the special inspector general for Iraq Reconstruction, published an audit of the Basra Hospital Project, which revealed it was between $70 and $90 million over budget and more than 12 months behind schedule. The Basra Hospital Project with Bechtel was immediately terminated.
As Alter Net (3) writes, as soon as the money started to run out, US officials began to blame Iraq for the inadequate management of its own infrastructure. However, as Bowen warns, the real finger of blame should be pointed at contractors like Bechtel, for their own operation failings.
So who exactly is pocketing the money in lucrative contracts related to the War on Terror? The company CEOs of course!
According to an August 2006 report entitled: “Executive Excess 2006” since the War on Terror was declared in the wake of the 9/11 attacks, the salaries of the CEOs of the leading defense contractors have doubled. From the years 1998 – 2001, the average pay of such CEOs was £$3.6 million. During the period of 2002 – 2005, this figure jumped to a staggering $7.2 million. (4)
Then there’s the Bush family, whose name regularly crops up when deliberating profiteering of the War on Terror. In December 2003, the Financial Times (6) reported that three different sources had informed The Times they had seen a letter sent from Neil Bush, the businessman and investor who is the fourth of the former George H.W. Bush’s six children. The Times stated that the letter recommended business ventures in the Middle East promoted by New Bridges Strategies.
New Bridges Strategies was founded by President Bush’s former campaign manager. Just three weeks before the war in Iraq began, the campaign manager resigned from his post in the Bush administration.
According to The Times, Neil Bush was paid an annual salary to “help companies secure contracts in Iraq”. Though Neil Bush isn’t the only member of the Bush family implicated in War on Terror profiteering. In 1993, the first President Bush joined the Carlyle Group and became a member of the company’s Asian Advisory Board. The Carlyle Group was heavily supported by defense strategies and was known for buying defense companies and doubling, sometime tripling, their value.
Profiting on War
In 2002, post 9/11, the company received $677 million in government contracts. By 2003 these contracts had grown to being worth $2.1 billion.
As Global Research highlights before 9/11 several Carlyle Group firms were not doing so well. But as soon as the wars in the Middle East began, business started to boom. (4)
It is almost implausible that the Carlyle Group of which George H. W. Bush was a member of the Asian Advisory Board, had implications with the bin Laden family. Bush had brought the Bin Laden Group as an investor to Carlyle.
It was reported that Bush managed to convince Shafiq bin Laden to invest $2 million with Carlyle.
Two weeks after the 9/11 attacks, the Wall Street Journal wrote:
“George H. W. Bush, the father of President Bush, works for the bin Laden family business in Saudi Arabia trough the Carlyle Group, an international consulting firm.” (7)
War historian Stuart Brandes suggests that each new war has its share of new forms of profiteering. And it seems on all accounts, the War on Terror is no exception.
Found at Top Secret Writers.
Built by the Roman emperor Hadrian (118-125), the Pantheon (“Temple of the Gods”) is remarkable because its massive dome is made of concrete that has withstood the elements for almost 2,000 years – with no steel reinforcing. The Pantheon was the largest concrete curved dome in existence until the nineteenth century. – Provided by RandomHistory.com
There’s growing evidence that global warming is driving crazy winters
It may be the timeliest — and most troubling — idea in climate science.
Back in 2012, two researchers with a particular interest in the Arctic, Rutgers’ Jennifer Francis and the University of Wisconsin-Madison’sStephen Vavrus, published a paper called “Evidence linking Arctic amplification to extreme weather in mid-latitudes.” In it, they suggested that the fact that the Arctic is warming so rapidly is leading to an unexpected but profound effect on the weather where the vast majority of us live — a change that, if their theory is correct, may have something to do with the extreme winter weather the U.S. has seen lately.
In their paper, Francis and Vavrus suggested that a rapidly warming Arctic should interfere with the jet stream, the river of air high above us that flows eastward around the northern hemisphere and brings with it our weather. Sometimes, the jet stream flows relatively directly from west to east; but other times, it takes long, wavy loops, as in the image above. And according to Francis and Vavrus, Arctic warming should make the jet stream more wavy and loopy on average – some have called it “drunk” — with dramatic weather consequences.
Here’s the atmospheric physics behind the idea: Warm air expands, and naturally there is much more warm air at the equator than at the poles. Thus, the atmosphere is thicker at the equator, and the jet stream’s motion is driven by the decline in atmospheric thickness as one moves in a poleward direction — in effect, its atmospheric river flows “downhill,” in Francis’s words. However, if the Arctic is warming faster than the mid-latitudes, then the difference in thickness as you move in a poleward direction should decrease. And this should slow the jet stream, leading to more loops and turns — and consequently, weather of all types getting stuck in place for longer. There’s a nice video explanation of this by Francishere:
Video and much more HERE.
The Horrific Sand Creek Massacre Will Be Forgotten No More
The opening of a national historic site in Colorado helps restore to public memory one of the worst atrocities ever perpetrated on Native Americans
Jeff Campbell worked for 20 years as a criminal investigator for the state of New Mexico. He specialized in cold cases. These days, he applies his sleuthing skills to a case so cold it’s buried beneath a century and a half of windblown prairie.
“Here’s the crime scene,” Campbell says, surveying a creek bed and miles of empty grassland. A lanky, deliberate detective, he cups a corncob pipe to light it in the flurrying snow before continuing. “The attack began in predawn light, but sound carries in this environment. So the victims would have heard the hooves pounding towards them before they could see what was coming.”
Campbell is reconstructing a mass murder that occurred in 1864, along Sand Creek, an intermittent stream in eastern Colorado. Today, less than one person per square mile inhabits this arid region. But in late autumn of 1864, about 1,000 Cheyenne and Arapaho lived in tepees here, at the edge of what was then reservation land. Their chiefs had recently sought peace in talks with white officials and believed they would be unmolested at their isolated camp.
When hundreds of blue-clad cavalrymen suddenly appeared at dawn on November 29, a Cheyenne chief raised the Stars and Stripes above his lodge. Others in the village waved white flags. The troops replied by opening fire with carbines and cannon, killing at least 150 Indians, most of them women, children and the elderly. Before departing, the troops burned the village and mutilated the dead, carrying off body parts as trophies.
“George W. Bush is blamed by the administration for all its woes and not mentioned for any of its inheritances that proved salutary. The economy is said to be Bush’s fault, without recognition that Bush assumed the presidency during the Clinton recession. Also, Obama did not enter office during the meltdown of September 2008 but over four months later, when the economy was stabilizing; the recession was officially declared over before Obama’s first six months in office.
Nor do we remember that what caused the Wall Street/Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac implosion was not Bush’s policies per se, but rather all sorts of larger forces. Clintontites (was there a Clintonite who did not cash in with a rich brief tenure at federal mortgage agencies?) milked the system under the guise of liberal caring to expand housing; the Congressional Black Caucus damned the auditors of Franklin Raines and equated worries over unqualified subprime mortgages with racism. The deregulation of the mortgage industry was brought on by both parties in the 1990s.
Bush was blamed for Iraq, and he was certainly responsible for invading and, at great cost in blood and treasure, securing Iraq. But Iraq by 2009 was quiet and by 2011, in the words of Vice President Joe Biden and President Obama, stable, secure and likely to be a great achievement. Relations with Russia were already reset by Bush for Putin’s going into Georgia. Obama reset that reset, and so followed Crimea, Ukraine, and what next? Obama took Bush’s green-lighted gas and oil revolution, stopped new fracking on federal lands, iced the Keystone pipeline and then bragged about greater carbon fuel production that came despite not because of his efforts. Same with the war on terror: trash the “Bush-Cheney” protocols, and then either expand or embrace all of them. What works against terrorists Bush had already established, what did not – civil trials for terrorists, swaps like the Bergdahl deal, euphemisms like workplace violence and man-caused disasters — were Obama’s.
But even Obama found that scapegoating Bush grew stale after six years. Now the media’s new phraseology is the “Bush-Obama years,” to suggest that Obama was overwhelmed by the economy, Iraq and Afghanistan, and the partisan culture wars, and thus inevitably would become as unpopular as Bush. This variant is more subtle than Bush Derangement Syndrome in that it both blames Bush for the bad 14 years, and yet suggests there are large cosmic forces that now explain Obama’s own growing unpopularity.” –Victor Davis Hanson
Hillary Clinton Porn…
Contrary To Obama’s Assertion, Polls Show The Majority Of Democratic Voters Want That Old Lesbian Car Smell
Nice tattooed back for sure,,,