Monthly Archives: November 2011

The Penn State Spa and Country Club

Ann Neal, writing in the Wall Street Journal, reveals another quite different Penn State scandal:

…Edward Shils, distinguished service professor at the University of Chicago, saw the task of the university as the “discovery and teaching of truths about serious and important things.” Could Penn State—or most other American universities for that matter—make such a claim today?

When the most highly paid employee is the football coach, not the president, it’s clear something is awry. When football tickets and fancy student centers are the currency of the day, rather than affordable and quality education, clearly something is awry. When most classes are scheduled only between Tuesday and Thursday and the institutional answer is to build more buildings to accommodate the demand from 10 a.m. to 2 p.m.—as Penn State is doing—something is awry.

So the taxpayers of Pennsylvania are financing unnecessary buildings because spoiled adolescents and their under-worked teachers prefer a 3 day work week and then only between 10 a.m. and 2 p.m.?

No wonder we are broke.

The Politically Incorrect Bob Dylan

The Cinch Review’s Dylanosophy provides a great public service in debunking the myth that Bob Dylan is a doctrinaire leftist.

Usually Dylan is silent when the left co-opts his name and music to promote their various orthodoxies. The latest is Amnesty International’s planned release in January of an album of Dylan songs titled Chimes of Freedom: Songs of Bob Dylan Honoring 50 Years of Amnesty International and performed by about 80 different musicians.

But as Dylanosophy indicates:

…Amnesty International has long seen fit to link their mission with the resonance of some well known Bob Dylan songs—songs that are associated with themes of freedom and justice, like “Chimes of Freedom,” and “I Shall Be Released.” As an organization, Amnesty may sometimes be perceived as indulging in sanctimony by some of us in the U.S., but if you’re a political prisoner languishing in a dungeon in China, North Korea or Iran, then they are a friend you very much want to have. Bob Dylan himself, however, has not been above tweaking Amnesty and their rock-star-spokespeople for the use of his songs.

In 1988, he played four nights at Radio City Music Hall in New York City. On each and every night, he regaled his audience with essentially the same elaborate joke, and it was a joke on Amnesty International, which was around that time promoting its message with big benefit concerts featuring the likes of Bono and Lou Reed. The joke went like this (words transcribed from a recording of the October 17th, 1988 show):

“You know this Amnesty Tour is going on and I was very honored last year they chose a Bob Dylan song to be their theme song. “I Shall Be Released” that was. This year they surprised me again by doing another Bob Dylan song as their theme song — they used “Chimes of Freedom.” Next year, the Amnesty Tour, I think they’re going to use “Jokerman.”

Anyway, I’m trying to get them to change their mind. I’m trying to get them to use this one.”

“This one” references the song he then played: “In the Garden,” from Saved. It’s about as powerful a gospel song as he ever wrote: a full-on, no-holds-barred Jesus-is-Lord number.

The joke is a dual one, obviously. First, there’s the ludicrous idea that Amnesty would adopt “Jokerman” (from the great but widely dismissed Infidels album) as their theme song. And then, of-course, there’s the suggestion that they should ditch the likes of “Chimes of Freedom” and “I Shall Be Released” and that all of those deep, socially-conscious rock stars should get up on stage and sing a great big song about Jesus instead. It’s pretty hilarious, as Bob well knew, and his repetition of the joke four nights in a row while playing gigs in the media capital of the world was hardly a random drunken impulse. He actually wanted to say something, albeit in a funny way.

What was he saying? Well, since he used the medium of a gag to express himself, it’s probably wrong to try and spell out what he was saying in literal terms, but surely he was at least alluding to the idea that there’s a bigger picture to be tapped into, beyond the political one. Also, both by making the joke and performing that song so passionately, four nights in a row, he was surely attesting that this was still where he was at. (And remember this is some years since conventional wisdom had maintained that he had “moved on” from beliefs he had espoused during his gospel epoch.)…

Who Killed Kennedy?

It’s that time of year again. No, I’m not talking about “the holidays,” rather it’s another Kennedy Assassination anniversary, celebrated this year with even more hagiographic books promoting the myth that JFK was “just like us” (on the far left) only better looking. And of course we all know who was responsible for Kennedy’s murder, right?

A Right Wing Hater?

The deranged former New York Times columnist Frank Rich has departed to New York Magazine (Don’t worry, committed Times readers: You’ll always have Krugman) where he peddles not only the lie that Kennedy was a victim of “right wing hate,” but also, not surprisingly, tries to equate Kennedy and the putative atmosphere of hate in 1963 Dallas with the current president and his opponents. An assassination anniversary is, after all, a terrible thing to waste.

Here’s Rich at his worst:

…if the JFK story has resonance in our era, that is not because it triggers the vaguely noble sentiments of affection, loss, and nostalgia that keepers of the Kennedy flame would like to believe. Even the romantic Broadway musical that bequeathed Camelot its brand is not much revived anymore. What defines the Kennedy legacy today is less the fallen president’s short, often admirable life than the particular strain of virulent hatred that helped bring him down. After JFK was killed, that hate went into only temporary hiding. It has been a growth industry ever since and has been flourishing in the Obama years. There are plenty of comparisons to be made between the two men, but the most telling is the vitriol that engulfed both their presidencies

Of course there is no and has never been any left wing vitriol in Rich’s world.

Here he’s talking about a new book by Stephen King and an old one by the late William Manchester:

But another controversy from the assassination—one that has never received remotely the attention generated by the endless “grassy knoll” and “second gunmen” debates—is forcefully revived by King: the role played in Oswald’s psyche by the torrid atmosphere of political rage in Dallas, where both Lady Bird Johnson and Adlai Stevenson had been spat upon by mobs of demonstrators in notorious incidents before Kennedy’s fateful 1963 trip. [King’s fictional account describes] anti-Semitic graffiti on Jewish storefronts, and angry billboards demanding the impeachment of Supreme Court Chief Justice Earl Warren and equating racial integration with communism. That last one, King’s protagonist observes, “had been paid for by something called The Tea Party Society.”

That “Tea Party Society” is the novelist’s own mischievous invention [Thanks for that clarification, Frank], but the rest of his description is accurate. King’s touchstone is The Death of a President, by William Manchester… what …struck me in… rereading [it] was Manchester’s stern rejection of one major Warren Commission finding. Though he was onboard for its conclusion that Oswald was the lone assassin, he did not buy its verdict that there was “no evidence” of any connection between Oswald’s crime and Dallas’s “general atmosphere of hate.”

Manchester is uncharacteristically contentious about this point. He writes that “individual commissioners had strong reservations” about exonerating Dallas but decided to hedge rather than stir up any controversy that might detract from the report’s “widest possible acceptance.” While Manchester adds that “obviously, it is impossible to define the exact relationship between an individual and his environment,” he strongly rejected the universal description of Oswald as “a loner.” No man, he writes, is quarantined from his time and place. Dallas was toxic. The atmosphere was “something unrelated to conventional politics—a stridency, a disease of the spirit, a shrill, hysterical note suggestive of a deeply troubled society.” …He detected “a chiaroscuro that existed outside the two parties, a virulence which had infected members of both.” Dallas had become the gaudy big top for a growing national movement—“the mecca for medicine-show evangelists of the National Indignation Convention, the Christian Crusaders, the Minutemen, the John Birch and Patrick Henry societies.”

But here is the one inconvenient fact Rich only fleetingly mentions:

Immediately after the assassination and ever since, the right has tried to deflect any connection between its fevered Kennedy hatred and Oswald’s addled psyche with the fact that the assassin had briefly defected to the Soviet Union.

Notice the insouciant “briefly.” Oswald lived in the Soviet Union for two years, but more importantly, he was an anti-American communist who was motivated to murder Kennedy because the strongly anti-communist Kennedy had sought to overthrow Fidel Castro. Nowhere in his piece does Rich use the word communist.

Nor does he mention that Oswald had tried to assassinate retired General and notorious right-winger Edwin Walker only 8 months before Oswald murdered Kennedy:

…According to the Warren Commission, around this time, Walker got Lee Harvey Oswald’s attention. Oswald’s wife Marina said that Oswald, a self-proclaimed Marxist, considered Walker a “fascist” and the leader of a “fascist organization.” A front page story on Walker in the October 7, 1962, issue of the Worker, a Communist Party newspaper to which Oswald subscribed, warned “the Kennedy administration and the American people of the need for action against [Walker] and his allies.” Five days after the front page news on January 22, 1963 that Walker’s federal charges had been dropped, Oswald ordered a revolver by mail, using the alias “A.J. Hidell.”

In February 1963, Walker was making news by joining forces with evangelist Billy James Hargis in an anti-communist tour called “Operation Midnight Ride”. In a speech Walker made on March 5, reported in the Dallas Times Herald, he called on the United States military to “liquidate the scourge that has descended upon the island of Cuba.” Seven days later, Oswald ordered by mail a Carcano rifle, using the alias “A. Hidell.”

According to the Warren Commission, Oswald began to put Walker under surveillance, taking pictures of Walker’s Dallas home on the weekend of March 9–10. He planned the assassination for April 10. Oswald’s wife Marina said that he chose a Wednesday evening because the neighborhood would be relatively crowded because of services in a church adjacent to Walker’s home; he would not stand out and could mingle with the crowds if necessary to make his escape. He left a note in Russian for his wife Marina with instructions should he be caught. Walker was sitting at a desk in his dining room when Oswald fired at him from less than a hundred feet (30 m) away. The bullet struck the wooden frame of the window, which deflected its path. Walker was injured in the forearm by fragments.

A police detective, D.E. McElroy, commented that “Whoever shot at the general was playing for keeps. The sniper wasn’t trying to scare him. He was shooting to kill.” Marina Oswald stated later that she had seen Oswald burn most of his plans in the bathtub, though she hid the note he left her in a cookbook, with the intention of bringing it to the police should Oswald again attempt to kill Walker or anyone else. Marina later quoted her husband as saying, “Well, what would you say if somebody got rid of Hitler at the right time? So if you don’t know about General Walker, how can you speak up on his behalf?”

Before the Kennedy assassination, Dallas police had no suspects in the Walker shooting, but Oswald’s involvement was suspected within hours of his arrest following the assassination…

Much of the confusion and conspiracy mongering concerning the Kennedy assassination (a large majority still believe in any number of conspiracy theories) stems from the left’s 50 year campaign to rewrite the history of the time by transforming Kennedy into a fervent leftist and avid supporter of the civil rights movement and more importantly to promote the lie that Kennedy was somehow a victim of right-wing haters and racists.

Would that it were true, as Frank asserts that, “After the assassination and ever since, the right has tried to deflect any connection” between Oswald and the right. The truth is that conservatives have done precious little to defend against a blood libel which has done so much to promote the cancer of cynicism eating away at America.

For that we can thank liars like Frank Rich.

No Grownups At Penn State

Gary McCoy

Leave it to the amazing Mark Steyn to reveal the cultural disease that produced the Penn State evil:

…it would be unreasonable to expect the college football elite to show facility with an entirely separate [from football] discipline such as pedophilia reporting procedures, and, besides, many of those officials who were aware of Jerry Sandusky’s child sex activities did mention it to other officials who promised to look into mentioning it to someone else.

From the grand jury indictment:

“On March 1, 2002, a Penn State graduate assistant (‘graduate assistant’) who was then 28 years old, entered the locker room at the Lasch Football Building on the University Park Campus on a Friday night. … He saw a naked boy, Victim 2, whose age he estimated to be 10 years old, with his hands up against the wall, being subjected to anal intercourse by a naked Sandusky. The graduate assistant was shocked but noticed that both Victim 2 and Sandusky saw him. The graduate assistant left immediately, distraught.

“The graduate assistant went to his office and called his father, reporting to him what he had seen. His father told the graduate assistant to leave the building and come to his home. The graduate assistant and his father decided that the graduate assistant had to promptly report what he had seen to Coach Joe Paterno (‘Paterno’), head football coach of Penn State. The next morning, a Saturday, the graduate assistant telephoned Paterno…”

Hold it right there. “The next morning”?

Here surely is an almost too perfect snapshot of a culture that simultaneously destroys childhood and infantilizes adulthood. The “child” in this vignette ought to be the 10-year-old boy, “hands up against the wall,” but, instead, the “man” appropriates the child role for himself: Why, the graduate assistant is so “distraught” that he has to leave and telephone his father. He is pushing 30, an age when previous generations would have had little boys of their own. But today, confronted by a grade-schooler being sodomized before his eyes, the poor distraught child-man approaching early middle-age seeks out some fatherly advice, like one of Fred MacMurray’s “My Three Sons” might have done had he seen the boy next door swiping a can of soda pop from the lunch counter.

The graduate assistant, Mike McQueary, is now pushing 40, and is sufficiently grown-up to realize that the portrait of him that emerges from the indictment is not to his credit and to attempt, privately, to modify it. “No one can imagine my thoughts or wants to be in my shoes for those 30-45 seconds,” he emailed a friend a few days ago. “Trust me.”…

I am not claiming any moral superiority here, but I have never understood the attraction of professional sports and its talent supplier, “big time” college sports programs.

While it might be fun to cheer on your kids, friends or neighbors at a game, I don’t get the obsession with grossly overpaid athletes performing in corporate spectacles. Sure, you can appreciate the skill of the athletes, but the kind of fanaticism that compels seemingly normal people to drape themselves head to toe in sports team trademarks? And the supposedly adult fanatics actually pay for these overpriced hats, shirts, and jackets when common sense would indicate that the teams should be paying the fans who go out in public advertizing their corporate logos.

Perhaps Penn State, Occupy Wall Street and the election of Barack Obama are symptoms of our culture’s growing infantilization.

Hail, Hail The New York Post

The New York Post is one of the few readable newspapers left in this country, for which we can thank the much-hated (by liberals) Rupert Murdoch.

But the Post deserves special gratitude for banging away day after day at the utterly fatuous Occupy Wall Street movement as well as the equally fatuous Mayor Michael Bloomberg for his sanctimonious non-response. Meanwhile The New York Times and the other Democratic Party mouthpieces parroted their dear leader’s (Obama’s) approval of the Zuccotti Park zoo and its odious international franchises.

The Post is the only daily paper totally untouched by what historian Paul Johnson called the phosgene gas of political correctness which has descended on the West. And Post columnist Michael Goodwin has been especially good as he shows in today’s column:

Sanitized Zuccotti Park

It is known as the “broken windows” theory of policing and civic order. Its premise is a simple and accurate barometer of human nature: If a broken window is left unattended, more broken windows, and worse, will follow.

On becoming mayor in 1994, Rudy Giuliani adopted the theory as the chief tenet of his governing philosophy. Those were the days when the city was deemed “ungovernable” because the previous mayor and the liberal catechists declared it so.

Giuliani believed New York could be saved, and developed a plan to focus both on serious crime and on quality-of-life issues. Killers and thieves would be hunted with more rigor, and panhandlers, derelicts, prostitutes and squeegee men would no longer get a free pass. Urinating in public would be cause for arrest.

Media sophisticates sneered, accusing Giuliani of sweating the small stuff and violating the civil rights of “street people.” But the measures were immensely popular among ordinary New Yorkers tired of the daily hassles that made life here unpleasant and unsafe.

The rest really is history, as Gotham quickly became the safest big city in America. The approach was adopted in other urban areas and by Giuliani’s successor, Michael Bloomberg. The result was a crime level that hit historic lows because the NYPD followed the same principles for nearly 20 years.

And then the vagabonds stumbled into Zuccotti Park. Inexplicably, Bloomberg forgot the lessons of broken windows and rolled out the welcome wagon for anarchists, derelicts, stoners and aging adolescents aiming to live off the toil of others.

For two months, the mayor chose not to see or hear the menace that was growing in the park. He defended his inaction by citing the First Amendment, as though it conferred immunity on those who, in the course of making political statements, broke criminal laws…

[He] still doesn’t grasp how his appeasement of a few hundred hoodlums has damaged the city and set up a protracted legal battle.

“Protesters have had two months to occupy the park with tents and sleeping bags,” he said. “Now they will have to occupy the space with the power of their arguments.”

Oh, please. That’s more mush masquerading as principle.

Finally, the mayor said the decision to clear the camp was “mine and mine alone.”

Yes, and so was the foolish mistake to let it fester for two miserable months…

Lefties Love Lucy

Judge Lucy

At last, the ever so politically correct Michael Bloomberg has allowed the police to clear out the Occupy Wall Street vagrants.

John Podhoretz describes the conflict between common sense and leftism:

…in the finest tradition of New York leftism, Occupiers went judge-shopping [after their eviction] —plaintiffs in New York city and state courtrooms have a wondrous ability to find themselves ideologically compatible judges—and found themselves a doozy to issue a temporary restraining order—which was sort of pointless, since the clearance of the park had already taken place and since the Bloomberg administration, playing a rare game of hardball, made it clear immediately afterward that they would simply keep the park empty if that was how the judge was going to play it. The judge’s name is Lucy Billings, and here is what she said of herself in 2009:

“Justice Lucy Billings prepared for the Supreme Court as a lawyer for 25 years at the ACLU National Headquarters and as Litigation Director in Legal Services, handling complex civil rights litigation to enforce new rights for minority, disabled, and low-income persons. She forged new legal remedies by litigating issues not previously addressed in housing, environmental justice, including preventing lead poisoning, public health, child welfare, education, and employment.” As a judge, she praised herself for “recognizing same sex marriages, finding new avenues for recovery by injured construction workers and pothole victims, reforming the standards and procedures for issuing business licenses and granting and revoking parole, and ridding the public markets of corruption and unsanitary conditions.”

Evidently, “ridding the public markets of unsanitary conditions” does not extend to ridding Lower Manhattan of a breeding ground for tuberculosis and other maladies.

The most amusing aspect of the moves made against these encampments in New York, Oakland, Denver and other places is that they are all governed by mayors who desperately wanted not to act but did so because the situation became intolerable. If they had moved to prevent the encampments in the first place—if they had been brave about maintaining public order, in other words—they would not face the whirlwind of criticism that is overtaking them now.

“I’m No Good In Water”

The liberals I know (I know hardly any other type) heartily approve when one of their notorious political comrades hit on women, behavior they abhor when non-liberals are accused of similar behavior. Liberals are always happy when other liberals are “getting some,” and their definition of “consensual sex” has no bounds when it comes to one of their own.

Hold the Waitress!

So it will be interesting to see how liberals spin actress and author Carrie Fisher’s new book which contains the following tidbit (I supect they will ignore it):

“So, [in 1985,] having recently graduated completely healed and normal from my first stint in a rehab, and appearing in an almost perfectly respectable piece of work, I found myself driving from Baltimore to Washington, D.C., to have dinner with Chris Dodd, this senator who I knew virtually nothing about. Nor did Senator Dodd — like most people, then, now and always — have any idea who I was in the wide, wide world beyond this cute little actress who’d played Princess Leia.”

“Suddenly, Senator Kennedy, seated directly across from me, looked at me with his alert, aristocratic eyes and asked me a most surprising question. ‘So,’ he said, clearly amused, ‘do you think you’ll be having sex with Chris at the end of your date?’ … To my left, Chris Dodd looked at me with an unusual grin hanging on his very flushed face.”

Her reply: “‘Funnily enough, I won’t be having sex with Chris tonight,’ I said, my face composed and calm. ‘No, that probably won’t happen.’ People blinked. ‘Thanks for asking, though.’”

His retort: “‘Would you have sex with Chris in a hot tub?’ Senator Kennedy asked me, perhaps as a way to say good night? ‘I’m no good in water,’ I told him.”

And the guys at Power Line remind us of another of the sexy senatorial duo’s charming escapades known affectionately as the “waitress sandwich episode”:

“Dodd and Kennedy were also reported to have made a ‘human sandwich’ with a waitress at La Brasserie, another Capitol Hill restaurant. The report had it that Kennedy threw the woman on Dodd, who was slumped in a chair, and then jumped on top of her. She was said to have run screaming from the room.”

What’s A Democrat To Do?

They say elections have consequences and they usually do, but it seems we have reached a point where it really doesn’t make any difference.

You know we are in uncharted territory when, as the Wall Street Journal reports, “[Italian President Giorgio] Napolitano, a former member of the Italian Communist Party, … sponsors a free-market economist [Mario Monti] [which] shows how serious the head of state was in seeking the fastest way to take market pressure off his country.”

The same can be said about the voter rejected Ohio ballot proposition meant to reform public employee union bargaining “rights.” The media is declaring the Ohio vote a game changing victory.

Normally, politicians would respond by doing what the media says the public wants, but the politicians cannot do that anymore since the politicians are flat broke and cannot print money like the federal government.

Under the proposed reform, public employees would have had to contribute more to their pensions and health insurance premiums. Now they won’t have to, so the state and local governments will have to make ends meet by laying off workers. Still union leaders are euphoric.

When I was a teacher, I saw similar responses from union leaders who would fight to preserve goodies for older teachers at the expense of younger teachers who would have to be let go to preserve the perks to which the older members had become accustomed.

In this environment, I cannot understand why Obama would seek a second term. A Democrat without wealth to redistribute is a pathetic sight. It is hard to imagine what a second Obama term would be like. Perhaps Bill Clinton could pull it off, but Obama is no Bill Clinton. He must expand the welfare state or die.

As of yet, Obama has not found an alternative to money with which to fuel the expansion. Especially when Bill Clinton exclaims, “Right now, in this fragile economy, I don’t favor raising taxes.”

What’s a Democrat to do?

The Sexual Harassment Racket, Again?

It is truly amazing that anybody takes seriously the Herman Cain sexual harassment mania. Given the history of “sexual harassment” over the past 30 years, you’d think such charges would be greeted with hysterical laughter rather than earnest lip pursing over whether Cain has been sufficiently “out in front of” the story and all the Watergate mongering about how it’s always the coverup that gets them rather than the offense.

Let’s face it, “sexual harassment” has been since its inception a racket promoted by feminists who suffered from what might be called black people envy: If only women could obtain a weapon like the black civil rights movement’s scarlet R, a weapon so terrifying that no man would dare say or do anything that might result in his being banished to a shameful exile from respectable society and from which there would be no hope of return.

Sexual harassment was a creation of feminist professors (like Catherine MacKinnon) and promoted by media feminists like Maureen Dowd, Jill Abramson (now New York Times chief editor) and Jane Mayer (the New Yorker Magazine). It’s debut as a political bludgeon was in the infamous Clarence Thomas-Anita Hill show.

Let’s briefly review. Thomas had undergone at least three Senate confirmation hearings without a single woman coming forward to accuse him of anything inappropriate. People forget that his Supreme Court confirmation was already over when a couple of Democratic Party operatives and the NPR yenta Nina Totenberg pressured Judiciary Committee chairman Joe Biden to reopen the hearings to hear Hill’s story.

And the accusations? Thomas, she said, asked her out a couple of times (both were single at the time) and he made a few lame jokes about pornographic movies (Long Dong Silver and a pubic hair on a Coke can). Thomas survived this onslaught, but for years the media continued to portray him as some sort of pervert.

But ironically, Thomas was redeemed by none other than Bill Clinton. Democrats like to believe that Clinton was attacked for merely having consensual sex. Put aside that before Monica Lewinsky the feminists told us that there was no such thing as consensual sex between a powerful man and a subordinate woman. In Clinton’s case, it was sex between the “Most Powerful Man in the World” and a lowly unpaid intern.

What Democrats conveniently forget is that Monica Lewinsky first surfaced as a witness in a civil rights case of sexual harassment brought against Clinton by a former Arkansas state employee who alleged that Clinton, when he held high state office, brought her to a hotel room where he then dropped his pants and ordered her to kiss his favorite organ. If you believe her, and let’s not forget we were told during the Thomas-Hill affair that women don’t lie about these things, it is hard to consider this tawdry behavior as consensual.

But they weren’t the only “non-consensual” victims. There was the case of Kathleen Willey, a Democratic Party worker, whom Clinton “allegedly” groped in the private study of the Oval Office when she asked him for a job after her husband’s death. And let us not forget Juanita Broaddrick who described how Clinton lured her to a hotel room and raped her. Both Willey and Broaddrick were Democrats and perfectly respectable women, but the feminists who sanctified Anita Hill had nothing to say in their defense. Nor did they have anything to say when Clinton toady James Carville smeared Paula Jones as trailer park trash.

Given the past 30 years of sexual harassment politics and all the hypocrisy, you would think liberals would not want to go there anymore. I guess they just cannot help themselves.

Whack Iran!

What's Dat Noise?

From the left-wing UK Guardian newspaper:

…Britain’s armed forces are stepping up their contingency planning for potential military action against Iran amid mounting concern about Tehran’s nuclear enrichment programme, the Guardian has learned.

The Ministry of Defence believes the US may decide to fast-forward plans for targeted missile strikes at some key Iranian facilities. British officials say that if Washington presses ahead it will seek, and receive, UK military help for any mission, despite some deep reservations within the coalition government.

In anticipation of a potential attack, British military planners are examining where best to deploy Royal Navy ships and submarines equipped with Tomahawk cruise missiles over the coming months as part of what would be an air and sea campaign.

They also believe the US would ask permission to launch attacks from Diego Garcia, the British Indian ocean territory, which the Americans have used previously for conflicts in the Middle East…

Something is definitely happening here. The Israeli Haaretz reports:

…Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Defense Minister Ehud Barak are trying to muster a majority in the cabinet in favor of military action against Iran, a senior Israeli official has said. According to the official, there is a “small advantage” in the cabinet for the opponents of such an attack.

Netanyahu and Barak recently persuaded Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman, who previously objected to attacking Iran, to support such a move.

November 8th is the big day when a report from the International Atomic Energy Agency, which, according to the Guardian, “Is expected to provide fresh evidence of a possible nuclear weapons program in Iran.”

So we have a flurry of reports that Israel, the UK, and even the Obama administration are planning to attack Iran.

Stay tuned.