Kremlin weakens its neocon alliance

The attacks of 9/11 spurred Putin to make common cause with U.S. neocons taking aim at Islamic radicals (and others). Putin wanted a free hand to suppress the Chechnyan separatists without constant carping by the United States.

So the Kremlin was in no mood to play up the ludicrousness of U.S. claims about the attacks or to upbraid Washington for staging a deliberate deception on U.S. soil.

But things are different now. Putin administered a stinging rebuke to U.S. neocons by arranging a Caspian nation bloc opposed to a U.S. war against Iran. This means that the U.S. will find those nations balky about permitting their soil to be used for staging areas. Essentially, as one analyst points out, neocon war aims against Iran have been effectively blocked.

Does this mean that Putin and the cheka are now less supportive of 9/11 coverup? Politically, they have little choice but to distance themselves from the 9/11 coverup propaganda put out by the neocons. The political problem is so large that a broad brush technique is necessary. The Kremlin playing a nuanced game concerning 9/11 coverup by the neocons would send a mixed signal concerning its resolute opposition to the continuing "war on Islam," which is how much of the Muslim world sees the "war on terror."

The Russian press, if it continues to be too timid or neutral about Washington's complicity in 9/11, will tend to confuse the Muslim world and hence weaken Putin's Caspian diplomacy.

Such "left gatekeepers" (to borrow a phrase from John McMurtry) as Noam Chomsky will suddenly feel quite isolated concerning their attacks on 9/11 skepticism. However, useful as Chomsky may have been to the Kremlin on certain issues in the past, Russia's political needs will take precedence over a cheka desire not to humiliate those considered friends, or, if not friends, then useful persons.

George Soros, who has chastised AIPAC and the Israel lobby for suppression of dissent in America in its furtherance of a neocon agenda, may find that his adversaries are not quite as strong as previously and that their blunderbusses, such as the Murdoch press, are not quite so sure of themselves. Will the Holocaust survivor extend his criticisms to include the neocon suppression of valid dissent concerning the official tall tales about 9/11?

The billionaire whose philanthropy helped tilt the Warsaw pact into oblivion has thus far feared to tackle that issue, no doubt worrying that he will be marginalized. Yet, avoiding marginalization isn't always productive. Look at the 2004 election, which statisticians believe, with a high level of confidence, was won across the board by Kerry. Interestingly, despite all his donations and his best efforts to block Bush's "re-election" in 2004, Bush "won." Who was it who suppressed the many serious questions about that election's integrity before Bush's second inauguration? Had the questions had sufficient publicity, Congress might have been forced to examine the election and Bush's claim to the throne could have been forestalled. Was it not the Israel lobby, using its powerful influence in the media that blocked the proper exercise of democracy, no doubt because of a desire not to impede the Israel lobby/neocon agenda in the Mideast?