Kevin Ryan deconstructs Alex Cockburn's physics expert on WTC Collapses

Many list members know Kevin Ryan as one of the heroes of the 911 inquiry movement. He was fired from his job as a manager at Underwriters Laboratories because he wrote a letter. His letter demanded the truth about the quality of the steel in the WTC. It was his way of going public. His investigation and letter made nonsense of the claim that the WTC steel wasn't up to specifications and could have collapsed from exposure to the "planes" and the negligible fires. It's because of steel's special properties and its ability to conduct heat that no steel hi rise building has ever before or since been brought down by fire. (But that's evidence, and as such is to be ignored and punished.)

Who should we blame for this Cockburn/Garcia act of disinformation and confusion? Garcia? He's a government functionary -- see below. It's impossible to expect more of him. The interesting question is: Should we expect more of Alexander Cockburn? He speaks not only for himself but he also symbolizes the cowardice (if that's what it is) of the entire left: Z Magazine (naturally), the Progressive, the Nation. Others.

One way to look at what they have collectively done is to see it as the reflection of the power of the Empire. (Just today there is news of a prominent attorney in California who was defenestrated who in July 2005 had the temerity to take on Karl Rove.)

The only ray of light I'm finding is that in all three of Cockburn's articles on the "conspiracy nuts," he has the good grace (if that's what it is) to complain and whine and complain about all the email and feedback he's getting from folks who are simply asking him to look at the evidence. Just how did the Twin Towers come down? we have collectively asked him. And Manuel Garcia is his answer. Reminds one of the Chinese saying: Evildoers are enabled by the good ones who do evil.

Interestingly, Noam Chomsky, recently answering the 9/11 question in Europe stumbled and said something to the effect that it wouldn't matter if indeed it was a government conspiracy. Poor guy, he must have been tired. Perhaps it was his way of saying, stop asking me such questions: stop presenting me with evidence for which I have no response.

So keep those calls and letters coming, folks. Let's not let them get away with it as they have done for decades with JFK, RFK, MLK -- brought to you by the same lineage as the 9/11 folks.

Oh, and btw, keep it clean, keep it polite. It's because Cockburn and Chomsky can't dismiss us, because we've been on their side in so many battles, that it's apparently having an effect.

http://desip.igc.org
***



Submitted by Kevin Ryan on Wed, 12/27/2006 -

http://911blogger.com/node/5272
Manuel Garcia Sees Physics That Don’t Exist
Another Opportunity to Understand Our Predicament

Over the years we’ve heard from a few educated people who claim to understand and support the latest story given by the US government for the unprecedented destruction of the WTC buildings. Unfortunately, those folks usually turn out to either work for the Bush Administration directly, like FEMA and NIST, or are in some other way profiting from the War on Terror. Some people accept what these Bush scientists say because they have PhDs in scientific fields, or because certain media sources promote the official myths. In a way, the curious behavior of these scientists and media sources allows us to better see the predicament we all face.

With the case of Manuel Garcia, and his three recent, rapid-fire articles in Counterpunch, we appear to have another opportunity to examine the phenomenon of Bush science. Here we see a fully educated scientist making strong supportive statements of the Bush Administration’s 9/11 theories, despite the fact that he must know those theories are based on false or unsubstantiated claims. For our own understanding, let’s take a closer look at Manuel Garcia and his efforts.

Garcia not only works for the government, he works for a very interesting organization in terms of the best hypothesis for what happened that day. Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL), Garcia’s employer, appears to be where explosive thermite was invented, and it continues to be a focus of research there.(1) At LLNL, government scientists have learned how to combine the exothermic power of the thermite reaction with organic moieties to produce a thermite reaction that can do pressure/volume work (i.e. turn massive quantities of concrete and other building materials into dust). From the research of Steven Jones, we know that the thermite reaction likely played a role in bringing the towers down, and it would not be surprising if technology developed by LLNL was involved. Could that be why Manuel Garcia is so intent on seeing Physics that don’t exist, in order to avoid seeing links to technology developed by his employer?

Read more:

http://911blogger.com/node/5272

Arthur Neslen: Provoking Civil War in the Occupied Territories

Arthur Neslen is right on the money pointing out that Tony Blair is totally on board Bush's plan to create a Palestinian civil war. I wanted to think Blair wasn't quite as vicious as Bush/Cheney but the evidence is starting to overwhelm.

One quibble: Neslen writes:

What they didn't say so loudly is that such a scenario would not benefit Israeli Jews either. Civil wars destabilize regions. They create well-trained fighters, military economies and desperate populations who are prey to extreme ideologies.

This repeats the formula that peace is in the best long term interests of the Israelis. But few point out that in their 58 year history, peace has never been the choice of the leadership (and one could argue, the majority of Israelis.) Indeed, the opposite: chaos, civil war, anarchy are seen by the right wingers, the militarists who have always ruled Israel, as playing into their hands and bringing closer the day that they can eliminate the majority of Palestinians from the land they believe with the assistance of the US, they can take by force. Is there anyone who thinks that this is not why Avigdor Lieberman was brought into the government?

http://desip.igc.org

***



December 22, 2006

What Price a Retirement Made in Hebron?
Provoking Civil War in the Occupied Territories
http://www.counterpunch.org/
By ARTHUR NESLEN

So it's official. Britain is no longer simply boycotting a democratically elected Palestinian government. Following Tony Blair's visit, it is committing millions of pounds to Fatah militias that wish to overthrow it. Naturally enough, Blair's foreign policy initiative came two weeks after the US reportedly did the same thing, sending a shipment of 6,000 assault rifles to Fatah's elite Force 17 unit.

In Israel, the far right is already working itself into a predictable lather about the Jihadist blowback that could follow the CIA's training of Force 17. Gazan civilians could be forgiven for assuming that the US and UK were preparing a proxy war for their neighbourhood.

Blair started banging his drum back in August when, before a Los Angeles audience, he bizarrely warned that Iran's explicit purpose was to prevent a two state solution in Israel/Palestine. 'If you export terrorism around the region,' he warned Tehran, 'we will confront you'.

Now Iran is certainly giving money to the Hamas-led government but it is far from proven that this is being earmarked for procuring arms. Hungry public servants in Gaza need wages. And after leading an effective world financial boycott preventing the Palestinian government from paying them, Downing St is not best positioned to complain about it seeking alternative funding. Iran, Saudi Arabia and several other regional players have anyway provided aid to Hamas (and perhaps Fatah) for years without provoking such dire bellicosity.

The truth is that outside of Hamas, no one can be entirely sure what the monies they raise are spent on. But whatever they buy, 'we' will not be confronting anyone. In the worst case scenario, the British taxpayer will be arming and priming one section of a beleaguered people to fight a civil war aimed at removing a government the other half elected. This may take place beneath the fig leaf of new elections but it still has consequences.

One is that the Basic Law which lies at the heart of the Palestinian Authority's constitution may be ripped to shreds. Another is that the idea of representative democracy itself will be degraded if polls are seen to be repeated until the West gets its desired result.

More mundanely, in trying to do so, the US, UK and Israel risk painting their man, Mahmoud Abbas, into a Chief Buthelezi-style corner. The persistent reports that Tel Aviv is about to allow Fatah's Badr brigades entry from Jordan (so that they can fight Hamas) underline the point. The Fatah presidency appears to depend for survival on the occupation it was elected to resist.

Critics of Oslo often claimed that the endgame of the accord was a Palestinian civil war that would divide resistance groups and make statehood impossible. What they didn't say so loudly is that such a scenario would not benefit Israeli Jews either. Civil wars destabilise regions. They create well-trained fighters, military economies and desperate populations who are prey to extreme ideologies.

In my book, Occupied Minds, one of Israel's most senior intelligence officers confirmed that in the 1980s, the country had mistakenly tried to weaken the PLO by backing Hamas. The policy, he said, 'exploded in our faces and Palestinian society was radicalised in a process that we failed to interpret accurately.'

When Israel sowed division rather than talk to the PLO they eventually got a Hamas government. Many fear that repeating the process now will lead to an Al Qaida-style Palestinian Jihadist opposition in the years to come. Blair may be hoping that the poodle food for his obeisance to Washington will be a retirement made in Hebron. The question his backbenchers should be asking is: What price a Middle East envoyship?

Arthur Neslen is a journalist working in Tel Aviv. The first Jewish employee of Aljazeera.net and a four-year veteran of the BBC, Neslen has contributed to numerous periodicals over the years, including The Guardian, The Observer, The Independent and Red Pepper. His first book, Occupied Minds: A journey through the Israeli psyche, was recently published by Pluto Press.

Nixon: I'm going to destroy the expletive country

Ok, class, here's your chance to shine. Read the selections below and in an essay of 500, 1,000 or 10,000 words compare and contrast the attitudes of Nixon and Bush and Cheney and their conduct of the wars they oversaw. Feel free to imagine that uncensored tapes of 21st century Oval Office conversations are available.

In your essay be sure to include a discussion of Brezhnev's phrase (see below) : "a deliberate effort to destroy a country and kill off thousands, millions of innocent people."

http://desip.igc.org
***

from
The New York Times
12.25.06
Quagmire Fatigue
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/24/weekinreview/24word.html?_r=1&oref=slogin&pagewanted=print
Cozying Up to the Enemy’s Friend, in Hope of Ending a Frustrating War
By TIM WEINER


The Oval Office, April 19, 1972: Mr. Kissinger is about to begin a secret trip to Moscow. President Nixon is intensifying the bombing of Vietnam after an Easter offensive by Hanoi.

Nixon: I’m the last president... I’m the only president... who had the guts to do what we’re doing.... Reagan never could make president to begin with, and he couldn’t handle it.... I’m going to destroy the [expletive] country, believe me, I mean destroy it if necessary.... We will bomb the living [expletive] out of North Vietnam. ...

Nixon and Brezhnev met in the Kremlin for the first of a week of talks on May 22, 1972. When the subject of Vietnam arose, “camaraderie vanished,” Mr. Kissinger wrote in his memoirs. It came up on May 24 at Brezhnev’s dacha.

Brezhnev: You say you want to end this war and quite calmly put forward the idea. But this is at a time when you are carrying out ... a deliberate effort to destroy a country and kill off thousands, millions of innocent people. For what sake is this, by what right is this being done? It would certainly be interesting to hear for the sake of what the U.S. invaded Vietnam.... I don’t want to hurl more epithets on you. There have been quite enough epithets heaped on you as it is. But how can the methods you use now be called a method of ending the war in Vietnam?

Nixon: ...This is just a small war. But it has cost the U.S. 50,000 dead and 200,000 wounded. ...We are not trying to impose a settlement, government, on anybody. We are trying by a simple cease-fire to end the war — in other words, to impose a peace.

Chris Hedges: Carter, the Palestinians and the Israelis

Jeffrey Blankfort writes:
Other than Hedges being too kind to the memory of Rabin, this piece represents another public exposure of the Zionist Fifth Column in America that is ready and willing to support the suppression of the 1st Amendment and whatever else is necessary to preserve support for Israel, no matter how many lives, Palestinian, Lebanese, Iraqi, and American, that support requires. Until and unless the anti-war movement and those who claim solidarity with the peoples of Palestine, Lebanon and Iraq are willing to take a public stand against this noxious cancer within the US body politic, they will continue to be part of the problem rather than part of the solution.-JB


http://www.thenation.com/doc/20070108/hedges
Get Carter
by CHRIS HEDGES

[from the January 8, 2007 issue] The Nation.

Jimmy Carter, by publishing his book Palestine Peace Not Apartheid, walked straight into the buzz saw that is the Israel lobby. Among the vitriolic attacks on the former President was the claim by Abraham Foxman, national director of the Anti-Defamation League, that Carter is "outrageous" and "bigoted" and that his book raises "the old canard and conspiracy theory of Jewish control of the media, Congress, and the U.S. government." Many Democratic Party leaders, anxious to keep the Israel lobby's money and support, have hotfooted it out the door, with incoming House Speaker Nancy Pelosi announcing that Carter "does not speak for the Democratic Party on Israel."

Carter's book exposes little about Israel. The enforced segregation, abject humiliation and spiraling Israeli violence against Palestinians have been detailed in the Israeli and European press and, with remarkable consistency, by all the major human rights organizations. The assault against Carter, rather, says more about the failings of the American media--which have largely let Israel hawks heap calumny on Carter's book. It exposes the indifference of the Bush Administration and the Democratic leadership to the rule of law and basic human rights, the timidity of our intellectual class and the moral bankruptcy of institutions that claim to speak for American Jews and the Jewish state.

The bleakness of life for Palestinians, especially in the Gaza Strip, is a mystery only to us. In the current Israeli campaign in Gaza, now sealed off from the outside world, almost 500 Palestinians, most unarmed, have been killed. Sanctions, demanded by Israel and imposed by the international community after the Hamas victory last January in what were universally acknowledged to be free and fair elections, have led to the collapse of civil society in Gaza and the West Bank, as well as widespread malnutrition. And Palestinians in the West Bank are being encased, in open violation of international law, in a series of podlike militarized ghettos with Israel's massive $2 billion project to build a "security barrier." This barrier will gobble up at least 10 percent of the West Bank, including most of the precious aquifers and at least 40,000 acres of Palestinian farmland. The project is being financed in large part through $9 billion in American loan guarantees, although when Congress approved the legislation in April 2003, Israel was told that the loans could be used "only to support activities in the geographic areas which were subject to the administration of the Government of Israel prior to June 5, 1967."

But it is in Gaza that conditions are currently reaching a full-blown humanitarian crisis. "Gaza is in its worst condition ever," Gideon Levy wrote recently in the Israeli paper Ha'aretz. "The Israel Defense Forces have been rampaging through Gaza--there's no other word to describe it--killing and demolishing, bombing and shelling, indiscriminately.... How contemptible all the sublime and nonsensical talk about 'the end of the occupation' and 'partitioning the land' now appears. Gaza is occupied, and with greater brutality than before.... This is disgraceful and shocking collective punishment."

And as Gaza descends into civil war, with Hamas and Fatah factions carrying out gun battles in the streets, Ha'aretz reporter Amira Hass bitterly notes, "The experiment was a success: The Palestinians are killing each other. They are behaving as expected at the end of the extended experiment called 'what happens when you imprison 1.3 million human beings in an enclosed space like battery hens.'"

In fact, if there is a failing in Carter's stance, it is that he is too kind to the Israelis, bending over backward to assert that he is only writing about the occupied territories. Israel itself, he says, is a democracy. This would come as a surprise to the 1.3 million Israeli Arabs who live as second-class citizens in the Jewish state. The poverty rate among Israeli Arabs is more than twice that of the Jewish population. Those Israeli Arabs who marry Palestinians from Gaza or the West Bank are not permitted to get Israeli residency for their spouses. And Israeli Arabs, who do not serve in the military or the country's intelligence services and thus lack the important personal connections and job networks available to veterans, are systematically shut out of good jobs. Any Jew, who may speak no Hebrew or ever been to Israel, can step off a plane and become an Israeli citizen, while a Palestinian living abroad whose family's roots in Palestine may go back generations is denied citizenship.

The Israel lobby in the United States does not serve Israel or the Jewish community--it serves the interests of the Israeli extreme right wing. Most Israelis have come to understand that peace will be possible only when their country complies with international law and permits Palestinians to build a viable and sustainable state based on the 1967 borders, including, in some configuration, East Jerusalem.

This stark demarcation between Israeli pragmatists and the extreme right wing was apparent when I was in the Middle East for the New York Times during Yitzhak Rabin's 1992 campaign for prime minister. The majority of American Jewish organizations and neoconservative intellectuals made no pretense of neutrality. They had morphed into extensions of the right-wing Likud Party. These American groups, to Rabin's dismay, had gone on to build, with Likud, an alliance with right-wing Christian groups filled with real anti-Semites whose cultural and historical ignorance of the Middle East was breathtaking. This collection of messianic Jews and Christians, leavened with rabid American imperialists, believed they had been handed a divine or moral mandate to rule the Middle East, whether the Arabs liked it or not.

When Rabin, who had come to despise what the occupation was doing to the citizenry of his own country, was sworn in as prime minister, the leaders of these American Jewish organizations, along with their buffoonish supporters on the Christian right, were conspicuous by their absence. On one of Rabin's first visits to Washington after he assumed office, according to one of his aides, he was informed that a group of American Jewish leaders were available to meet him. The surly old general, whose gravelly cigarette voice seemed to rise up from below his feet, curtly refused. He told his entourage he did not have time to waste on "scumbags."

Glenn Greenwald: Bush is "one of them": Attacking Iran in early 2007

The Bush administration's provocations towards Iran


By Glenn Greenwald
12.21.06

- Over the past several days, there have been reports of increasing U.S. military activity in the Persian Gulf aimed at Iran, and today The New York Times confirms that "the United States and Britain will begin moving additional warships and strike aircraft into the Persian Gulf region in a display of military resolve toward Iran." The buildup includes "a second aircraft carrier and its supporting ships to be stationed within quick sailing distance of Iran by early next year."

There is no doubt that these moves are intended to signal to the Iranians (as well as to what the Times describes as "Washington’s allies in the region who are concerned about Iran’s intentions") that we are capable of an offensive military strike against Iran:


Senior American officers said the increase in naval power should not be viewed as preparations for any offensive strike against Iran. But they acknowledged that the ability to hit Iran would be increased and that Iranian leaders might well call the growing presence provocative.

One purpose of the deployment, they said, is to make clear that the focus on ground troops in Iraq has not made it impossible for the United States and its allies to maintain a military watch on Iran.

Bush officials cite two "justifications" for these maneuvers: (1) to enforce any sanctions imposed by the U.N. Security Council as a result of Iran's refusal to comply with its resolutions (sanctions which have not yet been imposed), and (2) to deter Iran from a military blockade of oil shipments in retaliation for not-yet-imposed sanctions.

The President was not even asked about his intentions with regard to Iran at yesterday's Press Conference. He was asked whether he would follow the ISG's recommendation to negotiate with Iran concerning Iraq, and the President gave his standard bizarre answer that he would negotiate with the Iranians once they agreed to suspend their nuclear research program -- i.e., once they agreed in advance to do everything we would demand that they do in negotiations. The Iranians have responded in-kind by saying that they would negotiate with the U.S. only once we left Iraq.

According to the Times, Bush officials "view recent bold moves by Iran — and by North Korea as well — as at least partly explained by assessments in Tehran and North Korea that the American military is bogged down in Iraq and incapable of fully projecting power elsewhere." There is undoubtedly truth in that. For an administration which has operated on the bellicose premise that "weakness is provocative," it has hard to overstate the extent to which the Iraq disaster has -- quite rationally -- emboldened countries around the world against the U.S. and diluted the deterrent threat of our military force.

Any action which brings us even a small step closer to military confrontation with Iran should be, by definition, the most attention-generating news story. Any military conflict with Iran would be so disastrous for the U.S. that it cannot be adequately described. In contrast to the weakened, isolated, universally reviled Saddam regime, the Iranians are smart, strong, shrewd and supported by scores of vitally important allies around the world. And that's to say nothing of the resources that are being drained away, and the ever increasing U.S. isolation, that occurs every day that we continue to occupy Iraq.

It's unclear whether the President really believes that a military confrontation with Iran is inevitable if they do not stop their nuclear program (which they will not do, particularly if we refuse to negotiate). He has given speeches in the recent past in which he spoke of Iran exactly the same way he spoke of Iraq in late 2002 when, in his mind, an attack on Iraq was already a fait accompli.

It's possible that that rhetoric was designed to satiate his hungry, crazed warmongering "base." And it's also possible that it was designed to simply convey to the Iranians that military force is possible despite our occupation of Iraq.

But it's equally possible that he really does believe that some sort of war with Iran is inevitable -- even if it is "just" an air attack -- and recent news events suggesting that public opposition to President Ahmadinejad is growing may trigger the President's messianic complex and lead him to the belief that the U.S. is "called upon" to help bring democracy to that country. And many of the people who convinced the President to invade Iraq have long harbored dreams of regime change in Iran as the Ultimate Success, or at least the Next Step in the Epic War of Civilizations.

The warmongers who unquestionably still have the President's ear immediately transformed the recent debate over whether we should negotiate with Iran (prompted by the ISG) into an argument that Iran is our Real Enemy, not just in general but specifically in Iraq, and that Iran should be attacked, not negotiated with. Those wild-eyed war-loving elements are tempting to dismiss because of how obviously extremist and detached from reality they are, but they continue to occupy places of high influence with the President (both inside and outside of the White House).

Worse, there are convincing signs that the President is one of them, i.e., that he now irreversibly shares their world view that War with Islamic Extremism requires a progressive series of wars with various states, the next of which is Iran. One thing that is so clear that it ought to be beyond doubt: if the President is convinced that some sort of military action is necessary or even warranted, nothing -- not public opinion nor his supposed "lame duck" status nor the sheer insanity of the proposal -- is going to stop him.

Few things have been as disturbing as the President's now immovable belief that he is Harry Truman -- fighting a necessary war even in the face of widespread opposition from weak and blind people in his own country and around the world -- but destined to be vindicated by history. And, as he sees it, the more he fights against anti-war headwinds and the bolder he is in the risks he takes, the greater his vindication will be.

Geopolitical considerations do not determine what the U.S. will do vis-a-vis Iran. The President's personality does.

Even if the President and/or his top advisors are less than clear about their intent with regard to Iran, it may not matter. Military build-ups of this sort, plainly aimed at one country in particular, can easily produce miscalculations or lead to unintended provocations. As but one of countless permutations, if the Iranians -- governed, we are unconvicingly told, by irrational and crazed Hitlers -- perceive that moves of this sort suggest that military confrontation with the U.S. is inevitable, then they can become incentivized to strengthen their position, particularly while the U.S. is weakened in Iraq, which can in turn cause the U.S. to escalate its actions, etc.

Or a restless anti-mullah movement can be quieted by uniting the country behind conflict with the U.S. It is an incomparably dangerous game and the consequences are almost certainly beyond our capacity to predict, let alone manage.

There are also all sorts of constitutional questions about the type of Congressional authorization required in order to interact militarily with Iran, but those would almost certainly be swept aside by an administration that would claim that it already has such authorization either inherently or as a result of Iran's involvement in our war in Iraq. If the President were really intent on war with Iran, it is very difficult to envision Congressional Democrats, or really anything else, stopping him.

None of these issues is clear and I would not describe anything as inevitable when it comes to Iran. But at a time when the country is vigorously opposed to our ongoing occupation in Iraq -- opposition which is being steadfastly ignored by a Washington Establishment that is about to increase our troop presence there -- any actions of the sort we are currently undertaking to militarily provoke Iran should be at the top of the list in our political debates.

While there may be all sorts of nice, clean, abstract theories which even Democrats can embrace about why a military build-up is wise and necessary as a show of force against Iran, it must be kept first and foremost in mind that it is the Bush administration that is overseeing the build-up and will decide whatever steps are taken as a result. That is reason enough not only to justify urgent opposition to these events, but to make such opposition a matter of unparalleled importance.

* * * * * * * * *

*Marjorie Cohn: Democrats won't end the Iraq War

Marjorie Cohn is on the money when she points to Cheney and the neocons who are very much aware that the Democrats, tightly in the pocket of the Lobby, cannot call for the withdrawal that they were elected to achieve. More than Israeli dominance in the Middle East, Cheney and Bush and Rove will work to remain in Iraq as long as they can and use it to the best of their ability as springboards for the wars they hope to be able to wage against Syria and Iran, perhaps before this spring.

Cohn suggests that Cheney has had to persuade Bush to do his bidding. But Bush has been on board since before day one. Bush was on board when Rove chose him to be the governor of Texas. Undoubtedly he saw in Bush the ruthlessness and viciousness he favors in his presidents. Is there anyone here who doubts that it was with malice aforethought that Bush picked Cheney?

Ronald
http://desip.igc.org
***

Don't Count on the Democrats to End the Iraq War
What's Going On?

December 23 / 24, 2006

By MARJORIE COHN

Mother, mother
There's too many of you crying
Brother, brother, brother
There's far too many of you dying
You know we've got to find a way
To bring some lovin' here today - Ya

Father, father
We don't need to escalate
You see, war is not the answer
For only love can conquer hate
You know we've got to find a way
To bring some loving' here today

-Marvin Gaye, "What's Going On?, 1971

In 1971, singer Marvin Gaye raised hackles when he tried to make sense of the madness of the Vietnam War by asking, "What's Going On?" The song, told from the perspective of a returning Vietnam veteran, was inspired by Gaye's brother who had recently returned from that disastrous war.

Gaye would be asking the same question if he were alive today. Nearly 3,000 U.S. soldiers and tens of thousands of Iraqis have died. A brutal civil war continues to escalate, aggravated by intense opposition to the U.S. occupation. The Joint Chiefs of Staff, Colin Powell, General John Abazaid - commander of U.S. forces in the Middle East who just resigned - and the vast majority of the American people oppose sending more U.S. troops to Iraq. Yet George W. Bush is planning to do just that.

Even staunch Republicans like MSNBC anchor Joe Scarborough, who supported the war and voted twice for Bush, is asking what's going on. On his December 20 show, Scarborough was appalled by Bush's statement, "I encourage you all to go shopping more." MSNBC analyst Mike Barnacle noted that "this President is isolated, delusional, and stubborn." Bush's "delusion," according to Barnacle, is going to result in the deaths and carnage of our troops and people throughout the Middle East. "I don't think [Bush] knows what he's saying . . . He is totally isolated from reality," Barnacle added. "The deaths of American soldiers now verges on the criminal."

So what is going on? Former Nixon counsel John Dean recently told a San Diego audience he doesn't think Bush is in charge - Cheney is running the government. "One of Dick Cheney's geniuses is that he lets Dubya wake up every morning and think he's President," Dean noted. Cheney has set up his own National Security Council in the Vice President's office, according to Dean. Decisions about budgets, personnel, etc., never get to the Oval Office. Cheney decides the important matters before they ever reach Bush's desk, Dean said.

The report of the Iraq Study Group was not prepared by a bunch of radicals. It even recommended privatizing Iraq's oil. But the group of 10 saw that more troops and shunning Iran and Syria is not the answer. What did Bush do? He dismissed the ISG report out of hand in favor of Cheney's agenda.

Why would Dick Cheney and the neocons who convinced Bush to start this war decide to pull out now? They created the war to achieve their imperial dream of privatizing Iraqi oilfields and building permanent U.S. military bases nearby to protect them. They are willing to sacrifice the lives of our soldiers and the Iraqi people in pursuit of their dream.

Cheney is undoubtedly telling the evangelical Dubya to hang in there, God is testing him. Remember Bush said he consulted with his heavenly father before starting the war. If Bush thinks God told him to start this war, what will it take to make him stop?

And it could get worse. Cheney-Bush has sent our battleships to the Persian Gulf to "warn" Iran that we mean business. And the White House blacked out parts of a New York Times op-ed on negotiating with Iran written by two former U.S. government advisors. This means, in all likelihood, that Cheney has decided it's time to pick off the next member of the Axis of Evil. They're following the same strategy they used on the way to Iraq: convince the American people that Iran is building weapons of mass destruction, notwithstanding overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Attacking Iran would cause a disaster of epic proportions.

Now that the Democrats are taking over the reins in Washington, we have a golden opportunity to set things right. But incoming Senate majority leader Harry Reid has decided to align himself with the 12 percent of Americans who support sending more troops to Iraq.

It seems more likely the Republicans, not the Democrats, will try to derail the Cheney-Bush war express. Senator Gordon Smith (R-Ore) declared last week on the Senate floor: "I, for one, am at the end of my rope when it comes to supporting a policy that has our soldiers patrolling the same streets in the same way, being blown up by the same bombs day after day. That is absurd. It may even be criminal. I cannot support that anymore."

Ultimately, it is up to the American people to step up to the plate and stop this war. It's fine to tell the pollsters we want our troops out of Iraq. But that's not doing the trick. The Vietnam War ended after thousands of people marched in the streets. We may not have the draft to get the college kids off their duffs. But we do have our consciences. And that should be enough.

Marjorie Cohn is a professor at Thomas Jefferson School of Law and president of the National Lawyers Guild. Her book, Cowboy Republic: Six Ways the Bush Gang Has Defied the Law, will be published next spring by PoliPointPress.

*Matthew Kalman: US Trains (and arms) Fatah driving civil war

This is one of a number of articles lately on US/Israeli arming and training Fatah with the goal of creating a Palestinian civil war, a goal Israel has long desired. A full fledged Palestinian civil war (which according to recent reports seems to have been averted for the moment) would bring closer the day when the bulk of the 3.5 million Palestinians can be expelled.

The Israelis achieved a sort of civil war during much of the Arafat era when they allowed/encouraged his corruption as a way of separating the people from the leadership and by killing or imprisoning nationalists who were likely to challenge Arafat. It's no accident that during his era there was no effective challenge to Israeli colonization of the Territories.
Ronald
http://desip.igc.org
(Thanks to AM for passing this along.)
***

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/12/14/MNGIPMV3N61.DTL

U.S. training Fatah in anti-terror tactics
Underlying motive is to counter strength of Hamas, analysts say
Matthew Kalman, Chronicle Foreign Service
Thursday, December 14, 2006


Printable Version
Email This Article
(12-14) 04:00 PST Jericho, West Bank -- U.S. officials training Palestinian
security forces loyal to President Mahmoud Abbas are emphasizing urban
anti-terrorist techniques as part of a systematic effort to bolster Abbas
and his Fatah loyalists to counter the political success of Hamas, according
to Palestinian analysts and officers receiving the training.

But one officer who has received the training says the purpose of the newly
beefed-up force is to protect the Palestinian president from assassination.

The Presidential Guard, made up entirely of Fatah activists loyal to Abbas,
has been increased to 1,000, up from about 90 officers under his
predecessor, Yasser Arafat. A new black-uniformed rapid deployment force --
Al-Tadakhwal -- has recently been formed to respond to emergencies. The
Presidential Guard is commanded by Gen. Munir Zobi in the West Bank and Gen.
Haj Musbar in Gaza.

Officers have also received training from U.S. officials inside the Mukata,
the presidential compound in Ramallah that contains Abbas' office and
Arafat's grave.

The Chronicle has obtained a training manual distributed to officers of the
Al-Haras Al-Rayassi, Abbas' Presidential Guard, during a two-week course
held in Jericho earlier this year at which the chief instructor introduced
himself as a U.S. Secret Service officer who served during the Reagan
administration. The manual, titled "Advanced Protective Operations Seminar,"
is emblazoned with the logo of the Counterterrorism Training Group, which
includes the U.S. government seal.

Lt. Gen. Keith Dayton, the U.S. security coordinator to Israel and the
Palestinian Authority, told the Israeli daily Yedioth Ahronoth after news of
the training sessions leaked out that since Iran is helping arm and fund
Hamas political and military activities, the United States wants to prevent
"moderate forces" in the Palestinian territories from being eliminated.

"We are involved in building up the Presidential Guard, instructing it,
assisting it to build itself up and giving them ideas. We are not training
the forces to confront Hamas," Dayton told Yedioth. "Hamas is receiving
money and arms from Iran and possibly Syria, and we must make sure that the
moderate forces will not be erased," Dayton said.

But one of the officers trained by Dayton's team said the American general
is being naive and does not understand internal Palestinian politics.

"Ever since the Hamas election victory, security has been tightened around
(Abbas)," said the officer, speaking on condition of anonymity. "The fear is
that someone from Hamas will try to assassinate him, and we must be ready to
deal with this threat. The main threat to the security of the president is
from the militia of Hamas."

When the Palestinian Authority was established in 1994 with a mandate to
handle its own policing, Arafat set up a string of 14 overlapping and often
competing security forces -- each one controlled by a rival political or
former guerrilla chieftain, but all of them ultimately loyal to him and his
Fatah party. Arafat used these forces to control political opponents like
Hamas and also maintain loyalty through patronage and the payment of
salaries.

The United States had helped train the initial security forces, but ended
its aid when the Palestinian uprising called the intifada began in September
2000. During the intifada, many trained security officers engaged in attacks
on Israeli targets or joined the Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades, the Fatah
militant wing.

Earlier this year, after it assumed control of the Palestinian government
following its success in January's parliamentary elections, Hamas announced
the formation of its own security service, the Executive Force, and placed
Jamal abu Samhadana, a prominent militant, at its head. Samhadana was killed
in an Israeli raid in June.

Abbas had denounced formation of the new police force as unconstitutional,
saying that only the Palestinian president could command armed forces. On
Dayton's advice, the U.S. training program began again over the summer, but
so far it has been limited to the officers directly responsible for the
personal security of Abbas and his VIP guests, including Secretary of State
Condoleezza Rice during her visit to Jericho last month.

Training seminars for the Presidential Guard are being held in various
locations around the West Bank. A two-week course called the Advanced
Protective Operations Seminar was recently held at the Intercontinental
Hotel in Jericho, where participants were instructed in counterterrorism
techniques. The manual from that course gave detailed advice on a range of
security issues from airport and event security planning to securing
motorcades, residences and offices. Suggested tactics included the use of
"protective intelligence," "counter-snipers" and a "counter-assault team."

An official from the U.S. Embassy in Tel Aviv traveled to Ramallah earlier
this year to instruct about 60 Presidential Guard officers in securing
vehicles and sites against bomb threats and suspect devices. The session,
according to one of the participants, lasted about two hours and took place
in a large meeting room close to Abbas' office in the Mukata compound.

"We are helping the Palestinian Authority security services to enhance their
abilities, concentrating on the Presidential Guard," said a U.S. diplomat,
speaking on condition of anonymity. "We are also helping the Presidential
Guard take on expanded responsibilities, like security at the border
crossings in Gaza."

The American effort is part of a broader international package of support to
bolster Abbas loyalists as Hamas threatens to increase its parallel
Executive Force to 6,000 men. Training for Fatah forces also is provided by
Egypt, Jordan and Turkey. Britain, Spain and the European Union have
provided communications equipment, vehicles and logistical support.

But there are fears the American assistance program could backfire.

"The U.S.' involvement in attempts to bring down the Hamas government has
only made things worse for Abbas and Fatah," wrote Khaled Abu Toameh,
Palestinian affairs correspondent for the Jerusalem Post, in a commentary
titled "Guns and Poses."

"The U.S. believes that by giving Abbas more rifles and cash, it would be
able to bring about regime change. But in the West Bank and Gaza, there is
no shortage of weapons. Tons of explosives, rifles and missiles are smuggled
across the Egyptian border nearly every day. What the Palestinians need is
not more rifles -- which they never use to stop Hamas, Islamic Jihad or
other militias anyway -- but good governance and credible leaders," he
wrote.

"American meddling in Palestinian affairs is backfiring, because many
Palestinians are beginning to look at Abbas and Fatah as pawns in the hands
of the U.S. and Israel. This does not help Abbas and moderate secular
Palestinians, who are facing the dangers of the growing power of Islamic
fundamentalism."

Abbas' guard members wear distinctive green uniforms with a shoulder patch
bearing the name of the force and the Palestinian flag. Each officer carries
a semiautomatic Kalashnikov assault rifle and Motorola communications
equipment. Plans to replace the outdated Kalashnikovs of the Presidential
Guard with lightweight Heckler and Koch MP5 submachine guns were scrapped
because of Israeli opposition.

"It's a great shame the Israelis wouldn't allow us to have the new
equipment. In a hostage situation inside a building, the MP5 is much more
effective than the Kalashnikov, which is too large to handle indoors and has
a very strong recoil," said the Presidential Guard officer who had been
through the training.

The Israelis, this officer said, have refused to permit the supply of new
weapons, tear gas and flak jackets to the Presidential Guard, based on their
experience in the past when the CIA trained dozens of Palestinian security
officers only to watch in dismay as many of them joined the ranks of Fatah's
Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades during the intifada.

"I'm not thrilled at the idea of the Americans training Fatah militias or
the Palestinian police," said Yuval Steinitz, a former chairman of the
Israeli parliament's Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee. "Until now, both
Fatah and the Palestinian police have been a great disappointment to those
who believed they could overcome terror as they promised they would. The
opposite has happened. In the best case, they were simply passive. In the
worst cases, they actually encouraged terrorism."

_



__

Ghali Hassan: US drives Iraq's Death Squads

As Ghali Hassan writes:


In target=_new>Let a Thousand Militias Bloom , Arun Gupta writes that ‘the U.S. government is not only aware of these illegal militias but is arming, training and funding them for use in their counter-insurgency operations’.

What more do we need to know to understand that the intention of the invasion was to destroy the possibility of Iraqi civil and national life for the two-fold purpose of eliminating any Iraqi challenge to Israel's domination of the Middle East and to pursue the radical neocon agenda of endless war.

Thus adding thousands more troops and continuing the US/UK occupation simply adds to the mayhem, and forces more Iraqi refugees (already the NYT counts 1.7 million) into Syria, Jordan, Egypt and Saudi Arabia, and further destabilizes the Middle East. This is exactly the anarchy and chaos that the neocons pursue. However, you'd think that this would be a double edged sword that could work against Israeli interests even as they might delight in destabilizing some of those countries.
Ronald
http://desip.igc.org
***

Iraq’s Death Squads: An Instrument Of The Occupation
By Ghali Hassan
Global Research, December 7, 2006
countercurrents.org - 2006-12-04


On November 14, 2006 militias and death squads dressed as police commandos kidnapped up to 150 staff and visitors in broad daylight raid – one of daily raids throughout Iraq – on the Higher Education Ministry annexe in central Baghdad. Although some hostages have been released, the fate of others is unknown. It is alleged that large number of the hostages have been tortured and others were murdered. The totality of the raids, kidnapping, torture, ongoing civilian massacres and murder were part of the illegal and racist war of aggression perpetrated by the U.S. and Britain against a defenceless nation in disregard of International Law and contempt for International institutions.

Let me begin by stating the obvious. The U.S. did not invade Iraq to establish “democracy” and “free Iraqis”. The U.S. invaded and destroyed Iraq in order to humiliate and divide Muslims – Arabs in particular –, protect Israel’s Zionist expansion and control Iraq’s natural wealth. So, the U.S.-imposed democracy by force is fraud. ‘Democracy is like a plant; it grows from bottom up, not from top down’. The U.S. sabotage of democracy in Palestine and U.S. support for Israel’s criminal destruction of Lebanon are just two current examples of U.S. love for democracy. Also the idea that the U.S. and its allies are in Iraq to stabilise the situation is a falsehood. Destabilisation was one of the aims of U.S. foreign policy. The unprovoked war of aggression and the continuing U.S. presence in Iraq, including the illegal building of U.S. military bases and the largest C.I.A. station in the world on Iraqi soil, are major destabilising factors. The U.S. objectives have always been to weaken Iraq, divide the people and control Iraq behind a façade of corrupt stooges, with poorly trained and poorly armed army and police.

Long before the invasion, the U.S. and its allies were involved in the training and arming of tens of thousands of militias and anti-Iraq collaborators....

In target=_new>Let a Thousand Militias Bloom , Arun Gupta writes that ‘the U.S. government is not only aware of these illegal militias but is arming, training and funding them for use in their counter-insurgency operations’. According to Greg Jaffe of the Wall Street Journal, the “special police commandos” – is being used throughout Iraq and has been conducting criminal assassinations known as the “Salvador option” with the full knowledge of U.S. forces. “Pound for pound, though, they are the toughest force we’ve got”, Col. Dean Franklin, a senior officer in Gen. David Petraeus’s command told Greg Jaffe (WSJ, February 16, 2005). The occupying forces have also succeeded in turning one militia group against the other using the civilian population as a fodder. “And it's all happening under the eyes of US commanders, who seem unwilling or unable to intervene”, revealed Deborah Davies in a special Channel 4 investigation, ‘Iraq’s Death Squads’.

To destroy Iraq as an independent nation, the U.S. initiated the criminal campaign of “De-Ba’athification”, which implied the liquidation of anyone associated with the Ba’ath Party as well as anyone with anti-Occupation nationalist views. “De-Ba’athification” is simply a murderous campaign for inciting violence and destroying the Iraqi society. Together with the Israeli Mossad, U.S. Special Forces, the pro-Occupation militias and death squads have embarked on deliberate campaign of assassinations and ethnic cleansing. Thousands of scientists, including more than 350 scientists specialized in nuclear science have been assassinated. Thousands of professors, prominent politicians, and medical doctors have been murdered in cold blood. The Ministry of Higher Education reported that at least 210 teachers have been murdered and some 3,700 have fled Iraq to neighbouring countries. According to the UN more than 3,000 Iraqis flee to Syria and Jordan every day to avoid being killed. More than 1.7 million Iraqis have fled the country.

The aim is to create a climate of terror and incite civil war among Iraqis in order to justify the ongoing Occupation of Iraq and the fraudulent “war on terror”. The growing number of daily civilian massacres, rapes and torture of Iraqis by U.S. forces and their collaborators are deliberately ignored by the media, making Iraq the biggest hidden U.S. atrocity in the U.S. history of violence against defenceless people. It is also possible that the violence is created to provide a “safety net” for foreign troops' withdrawal and discredit the heroic struggle and Resistance against the Occupation and deny Iraqis victory against the most violent and powerful war machine in history....

The U.S. policy of “let them kill each other” is an integral part of U.S. foreign policy carefully executed to serve U.S. imperialist interests. Hence, the comment of Senator Carl Levin, “We cannot save the Iraqis from themselves”, designed to deflect any U.S. responsibility away from war crimes and misleadingly presenting the Occupation as the saviour of Iraqis. We know that the vast majority of Iraqis disagree and want the immediate end of the Occupation. More than 61 per cent of Iraqis approve of the Resistance attacks against the occupying forces. The U.S. and its allies bear full responsibility for the destruction of Iraq and for the death of more than 700,000 innocent Iraqi civilians.

Iraqis have gone many generations without fighting each other. Iraqi (males and females) worked studies and conducted their business in a safe environment. Regardless of their religious affiliations and ethnic backgrounds, the Iraqi people were living in peaceful environment despite the horror of the West-imposed genocidal sanctions. Why have they suddenly started fighting? Why all these crimes and bloodshed did not take place under the government of Saddam Hussein, even when his government was scrutinised by Western NGOs and human rights organisations? Today, these NGOs and human rights organisations have remained silent, preferring to use the fraudulent and farcical trial of Saddam to claim credibility of “defending” human rights. In less than four years, the U.S. and U.S.-trained and armed death squads and militias have destroyed Iraq beyond comprehension.

The immediate arrest of senior police commandos after the raid on the Higher Education Ministry annexes and the immediate release of some hostages shed light on the extent of U.S. complicity in the ongoing crimes against the Iraqi people. Therefore, the longer the U.S. forces stayed in Iraq, the more violence they generate. Only full and immediate withdrawal of U.S. forces and mercenaries will contribute to the end of violence and ongoing suffering of the Iraqi people.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the Centre for Research on Globalization.


© Copyright Ghali Hassan , countercurrents.org, 2006

The url address of this article is: www.globalresearch.ca/PrintArticle.php?articleId=4071

Arjan El Fassed: Who is Mohammed Dahlan?

Who is Mohammad Dahlan?

By Arjan El Fassed

The Electronic Intifada

20 December 2006

http://electronicintifada.net/v2/article6275.shtml

Some have called Mohammad Dahlan the Palestinian Ahmad
Chalabi, because he reportedly negotiated with the US and
Israel about taking control of Gaza after the August 2005
disengagement plan. In April 2002 testifying before the
Knesset Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee, Defense
Minister Benjamin Ben-Eliezer said he had offered control
of the Gaza Strip to Dahlan. In exchange, Dahlan, who had
control of the most significant military force on the Gaza
Strip, would be obligated to ensure complete quiet along
the border.[1] He is believed to have drawn up an early
agreement at a January 1994 meeting in Rome with senior
Israeli military and Shin Bet officials to contain Hamas,
and was actively involved in subsequent negotiations with
the Israelis.[2]

Today, Dahlan has become the face of one side of Fatah as
violence increased between Hamas and Fatah. In the past
week he has made his way back into Palestinian Authority
president Mahmoud Abbas' inner circle. Last week, Hamas
accused Dahlan of planning an attempted assassination of
prime minister Ismail Haniya of the Hamas movement. Haniya
was returning from a Middle East tour which raised badly
needed funds for Palestinians under occupation, and
obtained a promise from the Syrian government to release
all Palestinians in its jails, when chaos ensued. The
situation at the Egypt-Gaza border crossing was tense as
it had not been open long enough for the thousands of
people waiting on both sides to pass. The Israelis closed
the border when Haniya first tried to enter as he was
bringing in funds, prohibited under the US-led economic
and political blockade imposed after Hamas won the
parliamentary elections in January.

Dahlan began a tour of Palestinian towns this week to
rally support for Fatah, but it was not a spectacular
success. On December 17, while Dahlan toured Jenin refugee
camp, gunmen fired in the air over his convoy, shouting at
him until he made a hasty exit. He blamed Hamas for
sparking the killing of three children in Gaza City and
said that Hamas "does not have any political program,
leaving the Palestinian people in the predicament they
have lived through since this government took
responsibility."

Meanwhile the United States has accelerated its arms
transfers to Fatah, via Israel. Dahlan is now in command
of the armed campaign against Hamas from presidential
headquarters in Ramallah.

Dahlan was a founding member of Shabiba, the youth
association of Fatah. In 1994, Dahlan headed the notorious
Preventive Security Forces in Gaza. He is known to have
good connections with the Egyptian leadership and the US
administration, through his connections with the CIA.
Dahlan built up a force of at least 20,000 men and
received help from CIA officials to train them. Jibril
Rajoub, another Fatah strongman, is Dahlan's sworn rival.
Dahlan and Rajoub were both jailed by Israel during the
first Intifada. Under Oslo they became heads of the
Preventive Security Services in Gaza and the West Bank
respectively. At that time they were both viewed as
pragmatists, representative of a new generation of
Palestinians who could live with Israel.

Both Dahlan and Rajoub were implicated in financial
scandals and human rights violations. Dahlan worked
together with Israeli authorities to crack down on
opposition groups, most notably Hamas, arresting thousands
of members. Dahlan was in command when his Preventive
Security Forces arbitrary arrest hundreds of Palestinians.
The first violent clashes between his forces and
demonstrators erupted on November 18, 1994.The toll of at
least fifteen dead and hundreds wounded raised troubling
questions about his troops.

Throughout the years, Dahlan's forces were involved in
acts of violence and intimidation against critics,
journalists and members of opposition groups, primarily
from Hamas, imprisoning them without formal charges for
weeks or months at a time. A number of prisoners died
under suspicious circumstances during or after
interrogation by Dahlan's forces.[3]

In 1996, Dahlan's troops were involved in mass arbitrary
arrests of opponents of Fatah. In the aftermath of the
February-March suicide bombings in Israel, an estimated
2,000 people were rounded up, often arbitrarily. Most of
those detained were never charged with a criminal offense
or put on trial. Torture and ill-treatment by his forces
occurred regularly during interrogation and led to a
number of deaths.

In 2000, Dahlan participated in the Camp David
negotiations and Israeli leaders saw him as someone they
could do business with. As head of one of the main
Palestinian security organisations, Mr Dahlan also
negotiated with Israeli officials to try to arrange a
ceasefire several times after the most recent Intifada
erupted in September 2000. With the beginning of the
second intifada, Dahlan claimed that he was unable to stop
the activities of such militant groups as Hamas.

In 2001 he angered the late Palestinian president Yasir
Arafat by expressing his dissatisfaction over the lack of
a coherent policy during the current uprising. Dahlan
resigned in June 2002 over disagreements with Arafat to
reform the Palestinian Authority. He attempted to gather
support for an electoral challenge to Arafat, but stopped,
when the Bush administration demanded a change in PA
leadership in July of the same year. Before his
resignation from the PA in June 2002, Dahlan was a
frequent member on negotiating teams for security issues.

In March and April 2002, Dahlan was one of the "Gang of
Five" who lead the PA during the siege of Arafat's
headquarters in Ramallah. Although Arafat retained power
and named Dahlan as National Security Advisor in July
2002, Dahlan resigned three months later complaining of
lack of authority and organization in the Palestinian
Authority. Against Arafat's wishes, Mahmoud Abbas, then
serving as prime minister, appointed Dahlan as Interior
Minister, but when Abbas resigned, Dahlan was left outside
the newly formed cabinet.

After being left out of the new Palestinian Authority
cabinet, Dahlan began gathering support from low-level
Fatah officials and former Preventive Security Service
officers in response to a perceived lack of democratic
reforms among Fatah leaders.

In 2004, Dahlan was the driving force behind week-long
unrests in Gaza following the appointment of Yasser
Arafat's nephew Mousa Arafat, widely accused of
corruption, as head of Gaza police forces. Some thought
this appointmnt was a deliberate step to weaken Dahlan's
position before the disengagement process in the Gaza
Strip and sparked massive protests.

Dahlan returned to the political forefront and security
arena this week. He appeared in a meeting with US
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice in Jericho, and
meetings with the European Union's Javier Solana and the
German Foreign Affairs Minister. It seems that for
whatever reason, world leaders think Dahlan is the right
person for them to deal with.

Arjan El Fassed is a cofounder of The Electronic Intifada

Footnotes

[1] Ha'aretz, Gideon Alon (30 Apr 2002)

[2] Middle East International, 520.

[3] Annual reports of Palestinian Independent Commission
for Citizens' Rights (PICCR); various reports from
Addameer, PCHR and LAW; Palestinian Self-Rule Areas: Human
Rights under the Palestinian Authority, Human Rights Watch
(September 1997); Annual reports Amnesty International and
Human Rights Watch (1994, 1995, 1996).

Craig Murray: UK Plane plot a hoax

The War on Shampoo
"More propaganda than plot". Liquid bomb scare was a Home Office sponsored hoax


By Craig Murray
Global Research, December 18, 2006
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=MUR20061218&articleId=4190


Google "Rashid Rauf - mastermind". On the first page of results you will find CBS, the BBC, the Times, Guardian and Mail all describing Rauf last summer, on security service or police briefing, as the "Mastermind" behind the "Liquid terror bomb plot". So the fact that a Pakistani court has found there is no evidence of terrorism against him cannot be lightly dismissed by the cheerleaders of the plot story.

Rashid Rauf still faces other charges, including forgery, and what is touted as possession of explosives, although what he actually possessed was hydrogen peroxide, which is not explosive. As hydrogen peroxide is readily obtainable without limitation from any chemist or hardware store in the UK, why you would source it in Pakistan to blow up jets in Britain was never very convincing. The Pakistani court perhaps felt so too.

Rashid Rauf has much to answer. He is still wanted in the UK over the murder of his uncle some years ago - a crime which, like the alleged forgery, had no apparent terrorist link. None of which adds to the credibility of the evidence he allegedly gave the Pakistani intelligence services about the liquid bomb plot in the UK.

A second and simultaneous development is even more compelling evidence that this massive scare was, as I said at the time, "More propaganda than plot". Thames Valley police have given up after five months scouring the woods near High Wycombe where the bomb materials were allegedly hidden. They told the Home Office on 12 December that they would only continue if the government were prepared to meet the costs; they wished to get back to devoting their resources to real crimes, like armed robbery and burglary.

Remember this was a plot described by the authorities as "Mass murder on an unimaginable scale" and "Bigger than 9/11". There have been instances in the UK of hundreds of police officers deployed for years to find an individual murderer. If the police really believed they were dealing with an effort at "Mass murder on an unimaginable scale", would they be calling off the search after five months? No.

Which brings us to the lies that have been told - one of which concerns this search. An anonymous police source tipped off the media early on that they had discovered a "Suitcase" containing "bomb-making materials". This has recently been described to me by a security service source as "A lot of rubbish from someone's garage dumped in the woods". You could indeed cannibalise bits of old wire, clocks and car parts to form part of a bomb - perhaps you could enclose it in the old suitcase. But have they found stuff that is exclusively concerned with causing explosions, like detonators, explosives or those famous liquid chemicals? No, they haven't found any.

Wycombe Woods, like the sands of Iraq, have failed to yield up the advertised WMD.

The other "evidence" that the police announced they had found consisted of wills (with the implication they were made by suicide bombers) and a map of Afghanistan. It turns out that the wills were made in the early 90s by volunteers going off to fight the Serbs in Bosnia - they had been left with the now deceased uncle of one of those arrested. The map of Afghanistan had been copied out by an eleven year old boy. All of which is well known to the UK media, but none of which has been reported for fear of prejudicing the trial. I am at a complete loss to understand why it does not prejudice the trial for police to announce in a blaze of worldwide front page publicity that they have found bomb-making materials, wills and maps. Only if you contradict the police is that prejudicial. Can anyone explain why?

While the arrest of 26 people in connection with the plot was also massively publicised, the gradual release of many of them has again gone virtually unreported. For example on 31 October a judge released two brothers from Chingford commenting that the police had produced no credible evidence against them. Charges against others have been downgraded, so that those now accused of plotting to commit explosions are less than the ten planes the police claimed they planned to blow up in suicide attacks.

Five British newspapers had to pay damages to a Birmingham man they accused, on security service briefing, of being part of the plot. Only the Guardian had the grace to publish the fact and print a retraction.

A final fact to ponder. Despite naming him as the "mastermind" behind somethng "bigger than 9/11", the British government made no attempt to extradite Rashid Rauf on charges of terrorism. That is not difficult to do - the Pakistani authorities have handed over scores of terrorist suspects to the US, many into the extraordinary rendition process, and on average the procedure is astonishingly quick - less than a week and they are out of the country. But the British security services, who placed so much weight on intelligence from Rashid Rauf, were extraordinarily coy about getting him here where his evidence could be properly scrutinised by a British court. However MI5 were greatly embarassed by Birmingham police, who insisted on pointing out that Rauf was wanted in the UK over the alleged murder of his uncle in Birmingham. Now he was in custody in Pakistan, shouldn't we extradite him? So eventually an extradition request over that murder was formally submitted - but not pursued with real energy or effort. There remains no sign that we will see Rauf in the UK.

I still do not rule out that there was a germ of a terror plot at the heart of this investigation. We can speculate about agents provocateurs and security service penetration, both British and Pakistani, but still there might have been genuine terrorists involved. But the incredible disruption to the travelling public, the War on Shampoo, and the "Bigger than 9/11" hype is unravelling.

You won't read that in the newspapers.

As Britain's outspoken Ambassador to the Central Asian Republic of Uzbekistan, Craig Murray helped expose vicious human rights abuses by the US-funded regime of Islam Karimov. He is now a prominent critic of Western policy in the region.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the Centre for Research on Globalization.

To become a Member of Global Research

The Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG) at www.globalresearch.ca grants permission to cross-post original Global Research articles in their entirety, or any portions thereof, on community internet sites, as long as the text & title are not modified. The source must be acknowledged and an active URL hyperlink address to the original CRG article must be indicated. The author's copyright note must be displayed. For publication of Global Research articles in print or other forms including commercial internet sites, contact: crgeditor@yahoo.com

www.globalresearch.ca contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to our readers under the provisions of "fair use" in an effort to advance a better understanding of political, economic and social issues. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than "fair use" you must request permission from the copyright owner.

For media inquiries: crgeditor@yahoo.com

© Copyright Craig Murray, Global Research, 2006

The url address of this article is: www.globalresearch.ca/PrintArticle.php?articleId=4190

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


© Copyright 2005 GlobalResearch.ca
Web site engine by Polygraphx Multimedia © Copyright 2005

Micheal Keefer's take on Alex Cockburn on 9/11

Michael Keefer on Alex Cockburn's anti-9/11 skeptic stance.

Into the Ring with Counterpunch on 9/11: How Alexander Cockburn, Otherwise So Bright, Blanks Out on 9/11 Evidence

by Michael Keefer - 11-17-2006

Excerpt

The first thing to say by way of preliminaries—and I’d better get it in quickly before someone suggests that I’ve turned up late or over-weight for a pre-match weighing-in—is that I’m not overjoyed with the pugilistic metaphor of my title.

But some sort of response to the volley of attacks on 9/11 researchers and activists with which the Counterpunch website marked the fifth anniversary of the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 seems called for.

Counterpunch co-editor Alexander Cockburn set the tone of these pieces with an article describing theologian and ethicist David Ray Griffin, the author of The New Pearl Harbor (2004) and of The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions and Distortions (2005), as a “high priest” of the “conspiracy nuts”—whom Cockburn denounces as cultists who “disdain all answers but their own,” who “seize on coincidences and force them into sequences they deem to be logical and significant,” and who “pounce on imagined clues in documents and photos, [….] contemptuously brush[ing] aside” evidence that contradicts their own “whimsical” treatment of “eyewitness testimony and forensic evidence.”

It’s a characteristically forceful performance, if at times slipshod. (One small sign of carelessness may be the manner in which Cockburn slides from calling 9/11 skeptics a “coven” to comparing them, a few sentences later, to “mad Inquisitors […] torturing the data—as the old joke goes about economists—until the data confess.” Readers brought up to think that the victims and perpetrators of witch-crazes have not customarily been the same people may find this unintentionally amusing.)

Continued...
http://www.leftgatekeepers.com/articles/IntoTheRingWithCounterpunchOn911...

Link found at: DemocraticUnderground.com

*Kurt Nimmo: Pentagon driving the chaos in Iraq!?

Once again it falls to Kurt Nimmo to round up much of the evidence available to us that the US has been doing what we know it has been doing and intending in Iraq -- destroying the country. Note below how Cheney and Rumsfeld more or less openly ordered violence in order to combat it.

Nimmo might have added Richard Dreyfuss's article, "Our Monsters in Iraq"(2005) to his list.
http://www.tompaine.com/articles/2005/11/18/our_monsters_in_iraq.php

Yet another sign that we're living in a hall of mirrors where black is white and unreality is reality.

All the discussion nowadays is about different plans for stabilizing the situation --nobody seems to be talking about withdrawal -- the dreaded W word. But how can the US stabilize the situation if the US is engaged in destabilizing it with a view of remaining indefinitely?? And note how the Democrats are on the same page. So the Democrats are more terrified of the dreaded Israel lobby than they are of the voters.
Alex Cockburn has a terrific article on the same subject in the latest Nation magazine. "War: Voters Said No, Congress Said Yes." (January 1, 2007)

Ronald
http://desip.igc.org
***

http://kurtnimmo.com/?p=675
Contracting “Clean Break” Chaos in Iraq
Sunday November 26th 2006, 3:30 pm

Dick Fojut’s Are 70,000 Pentagon Mercs Killing Iraqis? (Is Grass Green?) is compelling enough to include here in total. But first, here’s the trailer from Shadow Company, a documentary concerning “contractors,” i.e., hired guns, in Iraq.

COULD (SOME OF) THE PENTAGON’S HIRED MERCENARIES BE REMOTELY DETONATING CAR BOMBS AND ASSASSINATING SUNNIS AND SHIAS - TO PROVOKE A U.S./ISRAELI PLANNED CIVIL WAR THAT WILL DISMEMBER IRAQ?

—————-

SHADOW COMPANY (about a former “security contractor’s” book)…

Excerpt only…

According to Robert Young Pelton’s upcoming book Licensed To Kill: Hired Guns in the War on Terror, there are now over 70,000 armed men working as security contractors in Iraq.
(Book also reviewed by Amazon)…

—————-

The above revelation by Pelton leads to this VALID QUESTION: Have any of the Pentagon’s 70,000 (Civilian) “Hired Guns” (AND Israeli IDF assassination experts) been “provoking violence” in Iraq (disguised as Iraqis), remotely detonating car bombs and indiscriminately murdering both Shias and Sunnis - to create a U.S./Israeli planned civil war that dismembers the nation?
LA Times’ William Arkin wrote that “Provoking Violence” globally has been the Cheney/Rumsfeld plan since 2002 as described in the following…

HAVE RUMSFELD (AND CHENEY) ‘COMBATTED TERRORISM’ BY CAUSING IT?

Excerpt only…

IN 2002, RUMSFELD ORDERED GLOBAL COVERT VIOLENCE BY U.S. “SPECIAL FORCES” - TO “PROVOKE” VOLENCE! “to ‘combat terrorism’ by causing it!”
(Open and read the following article)…

THE PROVOCATEUR STATE: IS THE CIA BEHIND THE IRAQI “INSURGENTS” — AND GLOBAL TERRORISM? May 10, 2005

Excerpts only…

According to Los Angeles Times military analyst William Arkin, writing Oct. 27, 2002, Rumsfeld set out to create a secret army, “a super-Intelligence Support Activity” network that would “bring together CIA and military covert action, information warfare, intelligence, and cover and deception,” to stir the pot of spiraling global violence.

According to a classified document prepared for Rumsfeld by his Defense Science Board, the new organization–the “Proactive, Preemptive Operations Group (P2OG)”–would actually carry out secret missions designed to provoke terrorist groups into committing violent acts. The P2OG, a 100-member, so-called “counter-terrorist” organization with a $100-million-a-year budget, would ostensibly target “terrorist leaders,” but according to P2OG documents procured by Arkin, would in fact carry out missions designed to “stimulate reactions” among “terrorist groups”–which, according to the Defense Secretary’s logic, would subsequently expose them to “counter-attack” by the good guys. In other words, the plan is to execute secret military operations (assassinations, sabotage, “deception”) which would intentionally result in terrorist attacks on innocent people, including Americans–essentially, to “combat terrorism” by causing it!

————–

Alex Jones - P2OG
————–

Reported earlier, Israeli IDF/Mossad have been training (and arming) the Kurds, especially for terror raids inside Iran. But ignored by almost all American Jounalists: Rumsfeld and his boss Cheney, hired Israeli IDF soldiers to train their special Iraq “hunter-killer” teams…

ISRAEL TRAINS US ASSASSINATION SQUADS IN IRAQ - Julian Borger in Washington Dec. 9, 2003

Excerpts only…
Israeli advisers are helping train US special forces in aggressive counter-insurgency operations in Iraq, including the use of assassination squads against guerrilla leaders, US intelligence and military sources said yesterday.

US forces in Iraq’s Sunni triangle have already begun to use tactics that echo Israeli operations in the occupied territories, sealing off centres of resistance with razor wire and razing buildings from where attacks have been launched against US troops.

“This is basically an assassination programme. That is what is being conceptualised here. This is a hunter-killer team,” said a former senior US intelligence official, who added that he feared the new tactics and enhanced cooperation with Israel would only inflame a volatile situation in the Middle East.
“It is bonkers, insane. Here we are - we’re already being compared to Sharon in the Arab world, and we’ve just confirmed it by bringing in the Israelis and setting up assassination teams.”

—————-

Following are additional articles supporting the suspicion that Bush appointed “NeoCon” civilians running our Pentagon may be directing FALSE FLAG “terror” attacks in Iraq. Read and judge for yourself…

‘UNKNOWN AMERICANS’ ARE PROVOKING CIVIL WAR IN IRAQ - By Robert Fisk
The Independent UK 04/29/06

Excerpts only…

The Americans, my interlocutor suspected, are trying to provoke an Iraqi civil war so that Sunni Muslim insurgents spend their energies killing their Shia co-religionists rather than soldiers of the Western occupation forces… “One young Iraqi man told us that he was trained by the Americans as a policeman in Baghdad and he spent 70 per cent of his time learning to drive and 30 per cent in weapons training. They said to him: ‘Come back in a week.’ When he went back, they gave him a mobile phone and told him to drive into a crowded area near a mosque and phone them. He waited in the car but couldn’t get the right mobile signal. So he got out of the car to where he received a better signal. Then his car blew up.”

Impossible, I think to myself. But then I remember how many times Iraqis in Baghdad have told me similar stories.

“There was another man, trained by the Americans for the police. He too was given a mobile and told to drive to an area where there was a crowd - maybe a protest - and to call them and tell them what was happening. Again, his new mobile was not working. So he went to a landline phone and called the Americans and told them: ‘Here I am, in the place you sent me and I can tell you what’s happening here.’ And at that moment there was a big explosion in his car.”

——————

IRAQI SLAUGHTER DONE BY RESISTANCE OR PSYWAR TACTIC? April 22, 2005

Excerpt only…

Is it possible “bizarre psy-war operations” are under way in Iraq, especially now that Rumsfeld’s Strategic Support Branch (SSB) has been “operating in secret for two years-in Iraq, Afghanistan and other places” (as the Washington Post reported in January)?

Does it make sense for the Sunni-dominated resistance to kill its own base and grotesquely float dozens of their slaughtered bodies down the Tigris? No, it makes absolutely no sense whatsoever, that is unless the resistance wants to send the following message: we are brutal mass murderers who kill our own and for no reason beyond sheer mindless terror.

—————–

MEDIA DISINFORMATION AND THE NATURE OF THE IRAQI RESISTANCE
by Ghali Hassan May 29, 2005

Excerpts only…

In this regard, the creation, arming and financing of ‘ethnic militias’ and death squads by U.S. forces is designed to create ethnic divisions and provoke sectarian violence among Iraqis.
These US sponsored militia groups are:

The Kurdish Peshmerga whose leaders supported the U.S. invasion and Occupation.
The Iranian-trained Badr Brigades, The armed wing of the Supreme Council of the Islamic Revolution in Iraq (SCIRI) led by Ibrahim Al-Jaaferi of the Daíwa party, The INC militia of Ahmed Chalabi, and the INA militia of Iyad Allawi.

All these groups are involved in terrorist activities against Iraqi civilians. The latter three groups, entered Iraq on the back of U.S. tanks, without valid Iraqi citizenship papers.

The Kurdish militia are the Occupation’s most loyal collaborators, receiving arms and money from their masters. Together with the occupying forces, they are responsible for wide scale atrocities in Iraqi towns and villages.

Together with the Peshmerga, Israeli Mossad agents and U.S. forces, the militia groups went on systematic killings of thousands of prominent Iraqi academics, scientists, politicians and religious leaders. They also participated in the atrocity and total destruction of Fallujah, which is depicted as “the storming of Fallujah” in most mainstream media. The city was completely destroyed and still a “no go zone” for Iraqis. Other Iraqi towns and cities have not escaped this deliberate destruction.

——————–

SHIA CLERIC MUQTADA AL-SADR BLAMES US FORCES FOR SUNDAY MASSACRE March 13, 06

Excerpts only…

BAGHDAD: Shia cleric Muqtada al-Sadr …said terrorists carried out the bombing “under US air cover” arguing that the halt of telephone connections before the incident was proof of the cooperation between the terrorists and the occupier to “destabilise the security of this Shia region.”

“I find Sunnis and Shias innocents of this act,” he added.

———————–

SICK STRATEGIES FOR SENSELESS SLAUGHTER

Excerpts only…

Khadduri’s report went like this:

(1) “A few days ago, an American manned check point confiscated the driver license of a driver and told him to report to an American military camp near Baghdad airport for interrogation and in order to retrieve his license… we have forwarded your papers and license to al-Kadhimia police station for processing. …The driver did leave in a hurry, but was soon alarmed with a feeling that his car was driving as if carrying a heavy load, and he also became suspicious of a low flying helicopter that kept hovering overhead, as if trailing him. He stopped the car and inspected it carefully. He found nearly 100 kilograms of explosives hidden in the back seat and along the two back doors.

(2) On May 13, 2005, a 64 years old Iraqi farmer, Haj Haidar Abu Sijjad, took his tomato load in his pickup truck from Hilla to Baghdad, accompanied by Ali, his 11 years old grandson. They were stopped at an American check point and were asked to dismount. ….A minute later, his grandson told him that he saw one of the American soldiers putting a grey melon size object in the back among the tomato containers.

“They intended it to explode in Baghdad and claim that it is the work of the ‘terrorists’, or ‘insurgents’ or who call themselves the ‘Resistance’.

Norman Finkelstein: The Media Lynching of Jimmy Carter

December 8, 2006
Words Even an Ex-President Can't Say in America
The Media Lynching of Jimmy Carter
By NORMAN FINKELSTEIN

http://www.counterpunch.org/finkelstein12082006.html

It seems Israel's "supporters" have conscripted me in their lynching of Jimmy Carter. Count me out. True, the historical part of Carter's book, Palestine Peace Not Apartheid, contains errors in that it repeats standard Israeli propaganda. However, Carter's analysis of the impasse in the "peace process" as well as his description of Israeli policy in the West Bank is accurate - and, frankly, that's all that matters.

A wag once said that there is no Pravda (Truth) in Izvestia (News) and no Izvestia in Pravda. The same can be said of our Pravda (The New York Times) and Izvestia (The Washington Post). Today both party organs ran feature stories trashing Carter using Kenneth Stein's resignation from the Carter Center as the hook. (I was sitting in the airport when this earth-shattering story came on CNN.) But like John Galt, many people must have wondered, Who (the hell) is Kenneth Stein? Stein wrote exactly one scholarly book on the Israel-Palestine conflict more than two decades ago (The Land Question in Palestine, 1984). Even in his heyday, Stein was a nonentity. When Joan Peters's hoax From Time Immemorial was published, I asked his opinion of it. He replied that it had "good points and bad points." Just like the Protocols of the Elders of Zion.

Later Stein wrote a sick essay the main thesis of which was, "the Palestinian Arab community had been significantly prone to dispossession and dislocation before the mass exodus from Palestine began" - so the Zionist ethnic cleansing of Palestine in 1948 was really no big deal ("One Hundred Years of Social Change: The Creation of the Palestinian Refugee Probem," in Laurence Silberstein (ed.), New Perspectives on Israeli History, 1991).

The Pravda ( NYT) story was written by two reporters who seem to have made a beeline for the newsroom from their bat mitzvahs. They quote Stein to the effect that Carter's book is "replete with factual errors, copied materials not cited, superficialities, glaring omissions and simply invented segments". I doubt there's much to this. Most of the background material is Carter's reminiscences. Maybe he copied from Rosalyn's diary (she was his note taker). Then Pravda reports that "a growing chorus of academics...have taken issue with the book". Who do they name? Alan Dershowitz and David Makovsky. Makovsky is resident hack at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, the Israel Lobby's "think"-tank.

Pravda saw no irony in citing Dershowitz's expertise for a story on fabrication, falsification and plagiarism regarding a book on the Israel-Palestine conflict. As always, one can only be awed by the party discipline at our Pravda. It makes one positively wistful for the days when commissars quoted Stalin on linguistics.

Norman Finkelstein's most recent book is Beyond Chutzpah: On the misuse of anti-Semitism and the abuse of history (University of California Press). His web site is www.NormanFinkelstein.com.

Prof F.A. Boyle: US involved in 9/11 and Anthrax attacks!?

University of Illinois Professor Dr Franics A. Boyle Questions U.S. Involvement in Anthrax and 9/11 Attacks
Submitted by dz on Thu, 12/14/2006 - 1:51am
US Government Biological Weapons Legislator Says 2001 Anthrax Attacks Part Of Government Bio-warfare Program - infowars.net

The real culprits behind the 2001 anthrax attack on Congress were most likely US government scientists at the army's Ft. Detrick, MD., bioterrorism lab according to a former government biological weapons legislator and University of Illinois Professor.

Dr Franics A. Boyle says the FBI covered up these facts and has also quite clearly stated that he doubts the official government story that 19 arabs with boxcutters perpetrated the attacks of 9/11.

Boyle is a leading American professor, practitioner and advocate of international law. He was responsible for drafting the Biological Weapons Anti-Terrorism Act of 1989, the American implementing legislation for the 1972 Biological Weapons Convention. He served on the Board of Directors of Amnesty International (1988-1992), and represented Bosnia- Herzegovina at the World Court. Professor Boyle teaches international law at the University of Illinois, Champaign. He holds a Doctor of Law Magna Cum Laude as well as a Ph.D. in Political Science, both from Harvard University.

"I believe the FBI knows exactly who was behind these terrorist anthrax attacks upon the United States Congress in the Fall of 2001, and that the culprits were US government-related scientists involved in a criminal US government bio-warfare program," Boyle says in his new book Biowarfare and Terrorism.
..
The whole thing "appears to be a cover-up orchestrated by the FBI." according to Dr Boyle.

Boyle goes on to inquire, "Could the real culprits behind the terrorist attacks on 11 September 2001, and the immediately following terrorist anthrax attacks upon Congress ultimately prove to be the same people? Could it truly be coincidental that two of the primary intended victims of the terrorist anthrax attacks - Senators Daschle and Leahy - were holding up the speedy passage of the pre-planned USA Patriot Act ... an act which provided the federal government with unprecedented powers in relation to US citizens and institutions?"

Clearly Dr Boyle has a hard time believing what the government says happened on 9/11.

James Abourezk: The Israel Lobby Terrorizes Congress

Letter from James Abourezk, former US Senator from South Dakota to Jeff Blankfort on the Israel Lobby
Jeff Blankfort

http://www.uruknet.de/?p=m28769&hd=&size=1&l=e


Israel Lobby Terrorizes US Congress
- Former Senator James Abourezk

December 4, 2006

The following letter was sent to me today by James Abourezk, former US Senator from South Dakota, and he readily complied when I asked that I be allowed to forward it to my list because what he had to say is of the utmost importance, given last month's election and all the new faces in Congress...


Dear Jeff:

I just finished reading your \n critique of Noam Chomsky\'s positions in an e mail sent to me by Tony \n Saidy.

I had never paid much attention to Chomsky\'s writings, as I \n had all along assumed that he was correct and proper in his position on \n the Arab-Israeli conflict.

But now, upon learning that his first \n assumption is that Israel is simply doing what the imperial leaders in the \n U.S. wants them to do, I concur with you that this assumption is \n completely wrong.

I can tell you from personal experience that, at \n least in the Congress, the support Israel has in that body is based \n completely on political fear--fear of defeat by anyone who does not do \n what Israel wants done. I can also tell you that very few members of \n Congress--at least when I served there--have any affection for Israel or \n for its Lobby. What they have is contempt, but it is silenced by fear of \n being found out exactly how they feel. I\'ve heard too many cloakroom \n conversations in which members of the Senate will voice their bitter \n feelings about how they\'re pushed around by the Lobby to think otherwise. \n In private one hears the dislike of Israel and the tactics of the Lobby, \n but not one of them is willing to risk the Lobby\'s animosity by making \n their feelings public.

Thus, I see no desire on the part of Members \n of Congress to further any U.S. imperial dreams by using Israel as their \n pit bull. The only exceptions to that rule are the feelings of Jewish \n members, whom, I believe, are sincere in their efforts to keep U.S. money \n flowing to Israel. But that minority does not a U.S. imperial policy \n make.

Secondly, the Lobby is quite clear in its efforts to suppress \n any congressional dissent from the policy of complete support for Israel \n which might hurt annual appropriations. Even one voice is attacked, as I \n was, on grounds that if Congress is completely silent on the issue, the \n press will have no one to quote, which effectively silences the press as \n well. Any journalists or editors who step out of line are quickly brought \n under control by well organized economic pressure against the newspaper \n caught sinning.",1] ); //-->


Dear Jeff:

I just finished reading your critique of Noam Chomsky's positions in an e mail sent to me by Tony Saidy.

I had never paid much attention to Chomsky's writings, as I had all along assumed that he was correct and proper in his position on the Arab-Israeli conflict.

But now, upon learning that his first assumption is that Israel is simply doing what the imperial leaders in the U.S. wants them to do, I concur with you that this assumption is completely wrong.

I can tell you from personal experience that, at least in the Congress, the support Israel has in that body is based completely on political fear--fear of defeat by anyone who does not do what Israel wants done. I can also tell you that very few members of Congress--at least when I served there--have any affection for Israel or for its Lobby. What they have is contempt, but it is silenced by fear of being found out exactly how they feel. I've heard too many cloakroom conversations in which members of the Senate will voice their bitter feelings about how they're pushed around by the Lobby to think otherwise. In private one hears the dislike of Israel and the tactics of the Lobby, but not one of them is willing to risk the Lobby's animosity by making their feelings public.

Thus, I see no desire on the part of Members of Congress to further any U.S. imperial dreams by using Israel as their pit bull. The only exceptions to that rule are the feelings of Jewish members, whom, I believe, are sincere in their efforts to keep U.S. money flowing to Israel. But that minority does not a U.S. imperial policy make.

Secondly, the Lobby is quite clear in its efforts to suppress any congressional dissent from the policy of complete support for Israel which might hurt annual appropriations. Even one voice is attacked, as I was, on grounds that if Congress is completely silent on the issue, the press will have no one to quote, which effectively silences the press as well. Any journalists or editors who step out of line are quickly brought under control by well organized economic pressure against the newspaper caught sinning.

I once made a trip through the Middle East, taking \n with me a reporter friend who wrote for Knight-Ridder newspapers. He was \n writing honestly about what he saw with respect to the Palestinians and \n other countries bordering on Israel. The St. Paul Pioneer press executives \n received threats from several of their large advertisers that their \n advertising would be terminated if they continued publishing the \n journalist\'s articles. It\'s a lesson quickly learned by those who \n controlled the paper.

With respect to the positions of several \n administrations on the question of Israel, there are two things that bring \n them into line: One is pressure from members of Congress who bring that \n pressure resulting in the demands of AIPAC, and the other is the desire on \n the part of the President and his advisers to keep their respective \n political parties from crumbling under that pressure. I do not recall a \n single instance where any administration saw the need for Israel\'s \n military power to advance U.S. Imperial interests. In fact, as we saw in \n the Gulf War, Israel\'s involvement was detrimental to what Bush, Sr. \n wanted to accomplish in that war. They had, as you might remember, to \n suppress any Israeli assistance so that the coalition would not be \n destroyed by their involvement.

So far as the argument that we need \n to use Israel as a base for U.S. operations, I\'m not aware of any U.S. \n bases there of any kind. The U.S. has enough military bases, and fleets, \n in the area to be able to handle any kind of military needs without using \n Israel. In fact I can\'t think of an instance where the U.S. would want to \n involve Israel militarily for fear of upsetting the current allies the \n U.S. has, i.e., Saudi Arabia and the Emirates. The public in those \n countries would not allow the monarchies to continue their alliance with \n the U.S. should Israel become involved.",1] ); //-->

I once made a trip through the Middle East, taking with me a reporter friend who wrote for Knight-Ridder newspapers. He was writing honestly about what he saw with respect to the Palestinians and other countries bordering on Israel. The St. Paul Pioneer press executives received threats from several of their large advertisers that their advertising would be terminated if they continued publishing the journalist's articles. It's a lesson quickly learned by those who controlled the paper.

With respect to the positions of several administrations on the question of Israel, there are two things that bring them into line: One is pressure from members of Congress who bring that pressure resulting in the demands of AIPAC, and the other is the desire on the part of the President and his advisers to keep their respective political parties from crumbling under that pressure. I do not recall a single instance where any administration saw the need for Israel's military power to advance U.S. Imperial interests. In fact, as we saw in the Gulf War, Israel's involvement was detrimental to what Bush, Sr. wanted to accomplish in that war. They had, as you might remember, to suppress any Israeli assistance so that the coalition would not be destroyed by their involvement.

So far as the argument that we need to use Israel as a base for U.S. operations, I'm not aware of any U.S. bases there of any kind. The U.S. has enough military bases, and fleets, in the area to be able to handle any kind of military needs without using Israel. In fact I can't think of an instance where the U.S. would want to involve Israel militarily for fear of upsetting the current allies the U.S. has, i.e., Saudi Arabia and the Emirates. The public in those countries would not allow the monarchies to continue their alliance with the U.S. should Israel become involved.

I suppose one could argue \n that Bush\'s encouragement of Israel in the Lebanon war this summer was the \n result of some imperial urge, but it was merely an extension of the U.S. \n policy of helping Israel because of the Lobby\'s continual pressure. In \n fact, I heard not one voice of opposition to the Israeli invasion of \n Lebanon this summer (except Chuck Hagel). Lebanon always has been a "throw \n away" country so far as the congress is concerned, that is, what happens \n there has no effect on U.S. interests. There is no Lebanon Lobby. The same \n was true in 1982, when the Congress fell completely silent over the \n invasion that year.

I think in the heart of hearts of both members \n of congress and of the administrations they would prefer not to have \n Israel fouling things up for U.S. foreign policy, which is to keep oil \n flowing to the Western world to prevent an economic depression. But what \n our policy makers do is to juggle the Lobby\'s pressure on them to support \n Israel with keeping the oil countries from cutting off oil to the western \n nations. So far they\'ve been able to do that. With the exception of King \n Feisal and his oil embargo, there hasn\'t been a Saudi leader able to stand \n up to U.S. policy.

So I believe that divestment, and especially \n cutting off U.S. aid to Israel would immediately result in Israel\'s giving \n up the West Bank and leaving the Gaza to the Palestinians. Such pressure \n would work, I think, because the Israeli public would be able to determine \n what is causing their misery and would demand that an immediate peace \n agreement be made with the Palestinians. It would work because of the \n democracy there, unlike sanctions against a dictatorship where the public \n could do little about changing their leaders\' minds. One need only look at \n the objectives of the Israeli Lobby to determine how to best change their \n minds. The Lobby\'s principal objectives are to keep money flowing from the \n ",1] ); //-->

I suppose one could argue that Bush's encouragement of Israel in the Lebanon war this summer was the result of some imperial urge, but it was merely an extension of the U.S. policy of helping Israel because of the Lobby's continual pressure. In fact, I heard not one voice of opposition to the Israeli invasion of Lebanon this summer (except Chuck Hagel). Lebanon always has been a "throw away" country so far as the congress is concerned, that is, what happens there has no effect on U.S. interests. There is no Lebanon Lobby. The same was true in 1982, when the Congress fell completely silent over the invasion that year.

I think in the heart of hearts of both members of congress and of the administrations they would prefer not to have Israel fouling things up for U.S. foreign policy, which is to keep oil flowing to the Western world to prevent an economic depression. But what our policy makers do is to juggle the Lobby's pressure on them to support Israel with keeping the oil countries from cutting off oil to the western nations. So far they've been able to do that. With the exception of King Feisal and his oil embargo, there hasn't been a Saudi leader able to stand up to U.S. policy.

So I believe that divestment, and especially cutting off U.S. aid to Israel would immediately result in Israel's giving up the West Bank and leaving the Gaza to the Palestinians. Such pressure would work, I think, because the Israeli public would be able to determine what is causing their misery and would demand that an immediate peace agreement be made with the Palestinians. It would work because of the democracy there, unlike sanctions against a dictatorship where the public could do little about changing their leaders' minds. One need only look at the objectives of the Israeli Lobby to determine how to best change their minds. The Lobby's principal objectives are to keep money flowing from the

Jim Abourezk