Letter to the Washington Report on Middle East Affairs: No Planes on 911

Patty Goldstein’s letter regarding 911 Truth in the December 2010 issue of the Washington Report on Middle East Affairs caught my eye. She complained that in the previous issue in a feature presenting three views of Ground Zero Islamophobia, none of the authors questioned the official story of 9/11. Her letter in turn supported the majority view that four passenger planes were hijacked and crashed that day.

My letter to the Washington Report follows. I suspect there’s a good chance they’ll print it in their next issue.

Saturday, December 11, 2010

The Washington Review of Middle East Affairs

To the editor:

Thanks for printing Patty Goldstein’s letter regarding “The Truth About 911,” and for your helpful response in the December 2010 issue. I agree with Ms Goldstein that the evidence is overwhelming that the official story cannot be true. Indeed I go further. There’s a subset of the 911 Truth movement who advocate the No Planes Theory (NPT), which holds that there were no plane crashes on 911, no hijackings and no hijackers. We believe this theory better reflects the (circumstantial) evidence; in particular that no independently verified plane wreckage and no bodies of plane victims have ever appeared or been produced. The relatively short article that persuaded me was (the late) Gerard Holmgren’s “Manufactured Terrorism,” and when Morgan Reynolds followed up with an article providing additional detail, I had sufficient information to summarize their work in my own article titled: “Holmgren and Reynolds on No Planes on 911”

Among other things Holmgren lays out the evidence that the “planes” were a product of computer generated imagery, and Reynolds goes into detail explaining the requirement for wreckage in any plane crash, similar to the physics involved when an insect strikes a windscreen. The NPT points even more strongly to the theory that the 911 terror attacks were completely homegrown, and thus there was no need for Israeli involvement in their planning and execution; although I gather there is evidence that the Israelis had foreknowledge. (Search for No Planes on 911; See also: “Top 10 reasons why no planes hit the WTC on 9/11/01”)

Patty Goldstein and I—and millions of others--also agree that there’s been no accountability for the 911 crimes or for the hyper-militarism, which was evidently its intended aftermath. Perhaps we split hairs over whether the goal of the perpetrators was a latter day anti-Muslim Crusade, or whether the current war on Moslem and Arab and Central Asian nations was simply a venue for their larger ambition of permanent war, with Moslems and Arabs and others merely their latest convenient victims.

Sincerely,

Ronald Bleier

HC's comments on George Antonius's The Arab Awakening

George Antonius was born in 1891, a Lebanese Christian, educated at Cambridge, and worked in the British Administration in Cairo during WW1, moved to Palestine only in 1921, but was wholly absorbed in the Arab cause, of which Palestine was the flashpoint. His book appeared in 1938 in Britain and 39 in the US. It is probably the first reliable account in English (or any European
language) of modern Arab nationalism, going back to the mid-19th c, and most of all, of the betrayal of the Arabs by the British in WW1.

The Arabs were very brave in their revolt against the Turks and their
military contribution was invaluable. The Turks repressed the
revolutionary plotters in Damascus and Beirut ruthlessly, rounding up
and torturing and hanging dozens of patriots. A Turkish-German force
sent to the Arabian peninsula forced the Sharif of Mecca's hand before
his preparations were complete, but he proceeded on his own
initiative, summoned British help and took the area of Mecca and Jidda
to start. This timely move kept enemy forces out of Arabia, relieving
a threat to the British base at Aden, and to British colonies in East
Africa, and bottled up a Turkish garrison of 14,000 in Medina almost
until the end of the war. In fact as the Arabs took Aqaba, threatened
Ma'an and harassed the Hejaz railway, they were engaging more Turks
than the British under Murray in Sinai and Palestine.

The British betrayal started during the war, with Sykes-Picot and then
the Balfour Decl. Interestingly, Antonious says that Sykes came to his
senses about the enormity of the betrayal of his secret diplomacy, and
died from the great influenza epidemic, in Paris, as he was
arguing with the British delegation to the Versailles conf. In late
1917 the Sharif and Arab notables in Cairo sought reassurance from the
Brits that their wartime promise of independence still held, as the
Bolsheviks had released the Sykes-Picot text, to which imperial Russia
was a party, which they found in the czarist archives, and Balfour was
of course publicized in Nov. They received such assurances
categorically; Allenby was just starting his Palestine campaign and
the Arabs were his right flank.

The betrayal culminated in the San Remo protocol of 1920, which
dismembered Syria and awarded the Mandates to Britain and France, and
also incorporated the Balfour Decl. Antonious writes very eloquently:

"The decisions taken at San Remo were made public on the 5th of May,
and their promulgation gave birth to a new sentiment in the Arab
world--contempt for the powers of the West. It was not only the
denial of the two cherished goals of independence and unity that
provoked the revulsion of feeling, but also, and more profoundly, the
breach of faith. The distinction is an important one: it foreshadows
the subsequent transition from disappointment to despair,.and in it
lies the key to the upheavals that followed. In the eyes of the Arabs,
the San Remo decisions were a betrayal, and the fact that they
violated a compact sealed in blood made the betrayal more hateful and
despicable."

The Sharif released the texts of his correspondence with McMahon,
British High Commissioner in Cairo, in Arabic, and Antonius studied
and collated them for his book. He argued convincingly that they did
not exclude Palestine from the area promised to Sharif Husain, which
had been debated in British politics since the early 1920s, and
Britain finally released the correspondence in 1939. Antonius
interviewed Sharif Husain before he died, and many important Arab
participants, incl Husains's sons. The last part of his last chapter
is about Palestine, written in 1938, and he clearly sees the danger to
the Arab position, writes most strongly about the Arab claim to the
country, and also grants the Jews rights on liberal democratic, but emphatically not national terms. The importance of Antonius and hiswork is attested by a 2001 biography by Susan Silsby Boyle, "The Betrayal of Palestine".

It gets better; there's an illuminating account of Lawrence. He did not invent the Aqaba campaign as claimed in his book (and featured in the movie). The idea arose from Auda of the Howeitat (the Anthony Quinn character in the film) and was approved by Faisal, before Lawrence was told. He went along, but not as leader or strategist or adviser, only as a British
observer. The Arabs needed no lessons in such warfare from Lawrence; crossing deserts to make daring raids was exactly their strength.

Letters re body scans and pat downs and 'dangerous' terrorists

The New York Daily News
Letter to columnist  Joanna Molloy

November 16, 2010

Dear Joanna Molloy:

I was  disappointed to find that you support the new TSA rules ('Junk' Science, NY Daily News, 11.16.10).  

You say safety is at stake but your credibility, I suspect, is even more at stake.

I'd be interested to see if you have  evidence that these pat downs and full body scans are making us any safer.

We depend on people like yourself to help us fight back against Big Brother, especially in outrageous and incredibly expensive cases such as this. We might have hoped for some common sense and a determination to help us struggle to hold onto our freedom and dignity.

Sincerely,

Ronald Bleier

***

The New York Times
Letter to the Editor

November 18, 2010

 

To the Editor:

Re Editorial, 11.17.10 : “Accountability for Torture” (in Britain)”

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/17/opinion/17wed2.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=accountability%20for%20torture%20(in%20Britain)&st=cse

Thanks for addressing the Obama administration's shameful performance as it continues to cover up and institutionalize the illegal detention and torture polices of the Bush-Cheney years.

 

However when you write that none of the “truly dangerous terrorists [held in Guantanamo]  have been brought to justice” you seem to take for granted that the claims of the Bush and Obama administrations have merit despite the lack of  evidence of criminal or terrorist activity beyond that which has been elicited by “enhanced interrogation” techniques.

 

Are they truly dangerous terrorists or are they alleged dangerous terrorists?

 

Sincerely,

Ronald Bleier

 

Ilan Pappé: Neo-Zionists Recapture the history of 1948

 

An abridgement of Ilan Pappé’s 2009 article, “The Vicissitudes of the 1948 Historiography [i] of Israel,” in the Journal of Palestine Studies  is available on the DESIP website at:

 

http://desip.igc.org/MiddleEast/MidEPappe.htm#_edn1

 

Pappé’s article describes the two-fold transition from the original Zionist myths to the New Historians, only to culminate in the relatively quick re-emergence of the neo-Zionists. Pappé observes that the neo-Zionists view the catastrophe of the Palestinians as an essential element making possible the State of Israel.

 

Selections from the abridgment follow.

 

Ilan Pappé

“The Vicissitudes of the 1948 Historiography of Israel”

 

History is more than a simple sequencing of events. It’s a way of extracting a plot out of collected facts. Current political realities inevitably influence the agendas of historians--especially when the subject involves a disputed land and when the narrative is seen as playing a crucial, even existential, role in that land’s ongoing struggle and self-image.

 

In view of the political demands, it should not be surprising that the case of Palestine and particularly the narrative of the 1948 war has undergone two major transitions in less than two decades. First from the classical Zionist narrative of a heroic Jewish struggle for survival that ended in the voluntary flight of the Palestinians, to the ‘New History’ narrative of the 1980s. This new narrative fundamentally challenged the earlier version, but around the year 2000, it gave way to what I will call the “neo-Zionist” narrative that re-embraced the spirit, if not the details, of the original Zionist version. This two-fold transition encompassed the movement from adherence to the national consensus, to recognition by certain elites of its many contradictions and fabrications [the post-Zionist phase], to the current phase of a rejection of the post-Zionist questioning of the national consensus.

 

The time that elapsed between the challenge posed by the New Historians/post-Zionists and their disappearance was short, less than two decades. The reason for this brevity is doubtless because the 1948 war is not only a story closely linked to current politics but is also a foundational myth.

 

Foundational myths provide the narrative that justifies the existence of the state, and as long as they remain relevant to the existing social order, they retain their force. Since the social order had not essentially changed since 1948, society quickly reverted to its long held beliefs. And because the history of the 1948 war is linked to the future direction of the country, conclusions about it remain extremely relevant to the political scene.

 

The new neo-Zionist historiography didn’t exactly repeat itself. …The difference from the neo-Zionist version lay in the response or interpretation of the facts. What the New Historians saw as human and civil rights abuses or even atrocities and war crimes are treated in the new research as normal and sometimes even commendable behavior by the Israeli military. First and foremost was the categorical rejection of the New Historian view that the dispossession of the Palestinians was an Israeli crime. The neo-Zionists attacked them on moral grounds for dangerously undermining the legitimacy of the state. Succinctly articulating this approach is a quote from an article in the journal Techelet: “No nation would be able to keep its vitality if its historical narrative were to be presented in public as morally defunct.”

 

Testimony of a Palestinian POW from the 1948 war.

 

We were loaded into waiting trucks…Under guard we were driven to Um Khalid…and from there to forced labor. We had to cut and carry stones all day. Our daily food was only one potato in the morning and half a dried fish at night. They beat anyone who disobeyed orders. After 15 days they moved 150 men to another camp. I was one of them. It was a shock for me to leave my two brothers behind. As we left the others, we were lined up and ordered to strip naked. To us this was most degrading. We refused. Shots were fired at us. Our names were read: we had to respond ‘Sir’ or else. We were moved to a new camp in Ijlil village. There we were put immediately to forced labor, which consisted of moving stones from Arab demolished houses. We remained without food for two days, then they gave us a dry piece of bread.

 

Read more:

 

http://desip.igc.org/MiddleEast/MidEPappe.htm#_edn1

 

 

---

[i] Wikipedia defines historiography as the study of the history and methodology of the discipline of history.

Fascism in the US: Thanks, Obama

Talk about betrayal. Read below the first two paragraphs of the following article on Obama's Justice Department raiding homes in Minneapolis and Chicago in September. The article was written by a lawyer for the People's Law Office in Chicago and posted on Mondoweiss. It's gonna be harder now to talk about Republicans bringing Fascism to the US. --RB

http://mondoweiss.net/2010/11/u-s-justice-department-prepares-for-the-ominous-expansion-of-law-prohibiting-material-support-for-terrorism.html#more-29137

U.S. Justice Department prepares for the ominous expansion of law prohibiting ‘material support’ for terrorism

by Michael Deutsch on November 10, 2010 ·

In late September the FBI carried out a series of raids of homes and anti-war offices of public activists in Minneapolis and Chicago. Following the raids the Obama Justice Department subpoenaed 14 activists to a grand jury in Chicago and also subpoenaed the files of several anti-war and community organizations. In carrying out these repressive actions, the Justice department was taking its lead from the Supreme Court’s 6-3 opinion last June in Holder v. the Humanitarian Law Project which decided that non-violent First Amendment speech and advocacy “coordinated with” or “under the direction of” a foreign group listed by the Secretary of State as “terrorist” was a crime.

The search warrants and grand jury subpoenas make it quite clear that the federal prosecutors are intent on accusing public non-violent political organizers, many affiliated with Freedom Road Socialist Organization (FRSO), of providing “material support,” through their public advocacy, for the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP) and the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC). The Secretary of State has determined that both the PLFP and the FARC “threaten US national security, foreign policy or economic interests,” a finding not reviewable by the Courts, and listed both groups as foreign terrorist organizations (FTO).

...

Michael Deutsch is a lawyer with the People's Law Office in Chicago and has been representing political activists and victims of government repression for the past 40 years.

Read more:

http://mondoweiss.net/2010/11/u-s-justice-department-prepares-for-the-ominous-expansion-of-law-prohibiting-material-support-for-terrorism.html#more-29137

Disappointing Obama? + Stanley Heller:One Nation Rally: Which Nation?

Included below are the first three paragraphs of Stanley Heller's excellent Counterpunch article pointing out or reminding us that the Left seems to be bereft of any mechanism or ability to lobby Obama, no matter the issue or the maelstrom that he's pouring us into.

 

One of my mantras has been that Obama has long ago shown his true colors as a Bush-Cheney manqué (unsuccessful stand-in) and so  if the Republicans don't take at least one  House of Congress, he'll be very disappointed, perhaps devastated. It's called "pulling a Clinton." Clinton left the presidency with a high degree of popularity as a direct result of Republican control of Congress midway in his first term. That way he was able to pose as a leader by vetoing a portion of the worst they had to offer.

 

Since  Obama has gone over to the dark side he'll only be comfortable when his real allies are in control.

(An interesting question is to what extent Obama intends to change course now that he's gotten rid of--if that's what happened--some of the most right-wing people in his administration: Emanuel, Jones, Summers.

 

One of the issues some have been following is the rate at which Obama has fallen behind his predecessor in filling judicial appointments. Could it be a result of his unwillingness to appoint those who would be acceptable to his base?  Until recently I found it hard to believe that he would delay and delay until the Republicans controlled the Senate. Well such has turned out to be the case. Now what's going to happen if it turns out that the Tea Party has thrown a spanner into the works by denying Republican control of the upper House?  Once again, who's going to be the most disappointed person in D.C.? 

***

 

Timidity on the Mall

October 7, 2010

http://counterpunch.org/heller10072010.html

By STANLEY HELLER

 

The “One Nation Working Together” rally was billed as a chance to “demand the changes we voted for”. That slogan was just for the suckers. There was barely any criticism of the Administration from the main stage, just bleats for jobs and justice.

 

You would think that up on the main stage there would be giant banners with progressive slogans, “Obama, Hire Millions Now” “Defend Public Education from the Privatizers”, “Why are a Million Blacks in Prison?”, “Cut the Pentagon Budget in Half”. But there were no banners at all. Instead there were flags, lots of American flags.

 

None of the rally speakers were announced beforehand. That's always a big draw. Was it stupidity or just an effort to avoid showing that “peace” would not be part of the demonstration. Bless his heart, rally speaker Harry Belafonte did vigorously denounce our wars and he actually condemned the Afpak surge saying, “The President's decision to escalate the war in that region alone costs the nation $33 billion”. He didn't challenge the President to bring the troops home, but no one else on the main stage criticized Obama on anything.

 

Read more:

http://counterpunch.org/heller10072010.html

A summary or précis of Walid Khalidi ‘s article “The Hebrew Reconquista of Palestine” in the Autumn 2009 issue of the Journal of Palestine Studies  has been posted on the DESIP website at:

http://desip.igc.org/MiddleEast/khalidiMEReconquista.htm 

Professor Khalidi’s article, about twice as long as the précis, addresses some of the myths regarding the transformation of the former Palestine into the State of Israel. 

Here are a few selections from the summary. 

Since the issue [of who should inherit Palestine was divine right], questions of who fired the first shot, and who did or did not accept partition are mere diversions and irrelevancies.

 

The genius of the Zionist narrative is its ability to depict the Palestinians’

resistance to this plan to dispossess them as Palestinian aggression, and the

Zionist drive to impose this revolutionary status quo on the Palestinians by force

of arms as Jewish self-defense. 

Aggression and offensive action were built into the very concept of the UN

partition resolution. The area of the proposed Jewish state was 15 million dunams

(1 dunam = 1,000 sq meters) while Jewish land ownership in 1948 totaled 1.7

million dunams. The UN was effectively saying to the Yishuv: go seize those

additional 13.3 million dunams that you don’t own from those who do.

 

The outcome of the [1948] regular war was already sealed in favor of Israel by the time it

began. The “existential threat” supposedly posed by the Arab armies, like the

ostensible equity and moral viability of the UN partition resolution, is a myth.

 Ben Gurion was without doubt the most capable political leader operating in the

Middle East in the 40s and 50s. He had his priorities right. Unlike the leaders of

the Irgun and Stern gang who fought the British, Ben Gurion understood that the

real enemy was the Palestinians and Arabs. (Although one could argue that it

came down to a question of shared responsibility: Stern and Irgun would fight the

British-–with discreet help from Ben Gurion–-and so Ben Gurion could devote the

bulk of his energies to uprooting the natives.)

 

Perhaps the mother of all ironies is that Ben-Gurion spent 1916 researching the

history of Palestine in—of all places—the New York Public Library. One of the

conclusions of his research was that the Palestinian peasantry were the real

descendents of the ancient Hebrews. 

Read more:

http://desip.igc.org/MiddleEast/khalidiMEReconquista.htm

Walid Khalidi: Reconquering Palestine

A summary or précis of Walid Khalidi ‘s article “The Hebrew Reconquista of Palestine” in the Autumn 2009 issue of the Journal of Palestine Studies  has been posted on the DESIP website at:

http://desip.igc.org/MiddleEast/khalidiMEReconquista.htm

Professor Khalidi’s article, about twice as long as the précis, addresses some of the myths regarding the transformation of the former Palestine into the State of Israel. 

Here are a few selections from the summary. 

Since the issue [of who should inherit Palestine was divine right], questions of who fired the first shot, and who did or did not accept partition are mere diversions and irrelevancies.

 

The genius of the Zionist narrative is its ability to depict the Palestinians’

resistance to this plan to dispossess them as Palestinian aggression, and the

Zionist drive to impose this revolutionary status quo on the Palestinians by force

of arms as Jewish self-defense.

 

Aggression and offensive action were built into the very concept of the UN

partition resolution. The area of the proposed Jewish state was 15 million dunams

(1 dunam = 1,000 sq meters) while Jewish land ownership in 1948 totaled 1.7

million dunams. The UN was effectively saying to the Yishuv: go seize those

additional 13.3 million dunams that you don’t own from those who do.

 

The outcome of the [1948] regular war was already sealed in favor of Israel by the time it

began. The “existential threat” supposedly posed by the Arab armies, like the

ostensible equity and moral viability of the UN partition resolution, is a myth.

 

Ben Gurion was without doubt the most capable political leader operating in the

Middle East in the 40s and 50s. He had his priorities right. Unlike the leaders of

the Irgun and Stern gang who fought the British, Ben Gurion understood that the

real enemy was the Palestinians and Arabs. (Although one could argue that it

came down to a question of shared responsibility: Stern and Irgun would fight the

British-–with discreet help from Ben Gurion–-and so Ben Gurion could devote the

bulk of his energies to uprooting the natives.)

 

Perhaps the mother of all ironies is that Ben-Gurion spent 1916 researching the

history of Palestine in—of all places—the New York Public Library. One of the

conclusions of his research was that the Palestinian peasantry were the real

descendents of the ancient Hebrews. 

Read more:

http://desip.igc.org/MiddleEast/khalidiMEReconquista.htm

Obama and Palestine: We're easily satisfied

It seems less often than more when published political analysis reflects reality. But I was rewarded for my patience in the latest issue of the New York Review of Books (July 15, 2010) when I  read the following in David Shulman’s article on “Eyeless in Gaza.”

Maintaining the occupation is, of course, incompatible with making peace, and indeed it should be clear by now to all that the present Israeli leadership has no interest in resolving the conflict. Quite the contrary: the ongoing proximity talks with the Palestinian Authority are no more than a diversion. I know of no one in Israel who takes them seriously, least of all the Netanyahu government. Gaza itself provides another helpful distraction. The very idea of peace based on mutuality, compromise, and at least minimal respect for the dignity of the other side is anathema to the men and women in the Cabinet who are making the decisions. [dated June 16, 2010; Shulman is identified as a Professor of Humanities Studies at the Hebrew University]

Perhaps I liked Prof Shulman’s clarity because it was not inconsistent with my own suggestion that Obama's Middle East policy is really Rahm Emanuel's Middle East policy, which has opportunistically stood on the shoulders of the previous Bush-Cheney-Eliot Abrams Middle East "policy."

Bush administration policy was to give free rein to the most right wing elements in their administration to do their worst to the Palestinians. Accordingly they (very cleverly we must admit) engineered the Hamas electoral victory in January 2006. They insisted on going through with the election because they knew Hamas would win. And they also engineered the Hamas takeover of Gaza in June 2007.

[See The Gaza Bombshell Vanity Fair 2008

According to Dahlan, it was Bush who had pushed legislative elections in the Palestinian territories in January 2006, despite warnings that Fatah was not ready.]

Thus Washington and Tel Aviv  had a perfect pretext to starve Gaza –NOT into submission -–submission to what? – -- but to starve them in preparation for the next step: expulsion and mass murder whenever  the political situation should be deemed appropriate. The Israelis are in no rush. They know time is on their side. (And their timetable has been speeded up by a decade or more by Bush and now Obama.)

Thus the purpose of Operation Cast Lead of December January 2008-2009 -- which Obama could have stopped. Destroy as much of Gaza’s infrastructure as possible. So the Israeli blockade against building materials going to Gaza makes sense since the Israelis have no intention of allowing what they destroyed to be rebuilt. It’s a plan that couldn’t be implemented without the approval of the Obama administration.

Here as in almost every other critical area, Obama makes a mockery of his theme of change, as by this time, 18 months into his term of office,  he stands exposed as having no independent policy or plan other than to allow and assist Israel to do its worst. Just like Bush-Cheney.

Many are familiar with the Hebrew song, Dayenu, which is traditionally sung on Passover: Dayenu means: it is sufficient for us; we are satisfied: or in the case below:  we would be satisfied.

With a slight twist to the lyrics we might sing to Obama: Dayenu: We understand that you have no intention of lifting the blockade of Gaza. That’s ok. But perhaps you can do something to repair Gaza’s sewage system destroyed in Cast Lead so that the many tons of raw sewage that flow daily into the Mediterranean can instead be treated and the Palestinians and their guests can once again enjoy their beaches. Dayenu.

Obama’s Plan A was to bark loudly about an end to settlement activity, a plan that was intended to fail. So little thought was given to the plan that the U.S. was caught by surprise when the Abbas “Authority” cleverly decided to take it seriously and refused to negotiate with the Israelis until it was implemented.

But it doesn’t matter. The Palestinians can refuse all they want. The surprise is that the White House doesn’t seem to have a face saving Plan B other than to show the white flag of surrender.

Here’s a nice symptom  of the surrender flag from Mondowiess’s invaluable site.

by Adam Horowitz on July 7, 2010

http://mondoweiss.net/

Robert Dreyfuss reports:

Yesterday, Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu set up another illegal Jewish settlement, this time on the White House lawn. And, it appears, President Obama has agreed to serve as its armed guard.

So complete was Obama’s identification with Israel yesterday that he actually referred to Israel as “us” before correcting himself:

“We strongly believe that, given its size, its history, the region that it’s in, and the threats that are leveled against us – against it, that Israel has unique security requirements.”

One often hears things like: Hamas isn't hurt by the blockade since they get plenty of revenue from their taxes on what comes through the tunnels on the Egyptian border. It's the ordinary people of Gaza who are hurt. This of course is true, but surely the U.S. and Israel are aware of what’s going on.

Which goes to show that the blockade isn't intended against Hamas. Like Arafat, Hamas is Israel's friend, giving the government all the pretext they need to impose as much hardship and cruelty and oppression on the Palestinians as they can devise each month.

Yes, the blockade is intended to immiserate the Gazans and the larger Palestinians community. It’s a signal that the Israelis have the power to tell them they don't belong in land which Israel covets and to prepare themselves for  the day when they are to be shown the door.

Ah, if only Hamas would agree to give up Gilad Shalit. Unconditionally. That would show the Israelis that the Palestinians want peace. I actually heard this from a Pulitzer Prize winning journalist on NPR, on a liberal talk show.

The last thing the Israeli government wants is the return of Gilad Shalit –which if they really wanted him back, it could be done in 48 hours. Like Arafat and Hamas, Shalit is a poster boy for Palestinian intransigence. If Shalit were returned, he'd only have to be replaced --probably at the cost of 15 or 20 or 1,000 or more Palestinian lives. 

Letters to Editors re Gaza Flotilla

The New York Daily News

June 8, 2010

 

To the Editor:

Thanks for your editorial, "The nature of the beasts," regarding the Gaza flotilla.

I'm wondering if you will print a correction  since Israel has effectively admitted that the "Shut up and go back to Auschwitz," statement was created in an Israeli government laboratory where it doctored the tape [see the testimony below]  in an attempt to discredit those who were protesting the Gaza blockade. Israel is evidently shameless -- and much worse. I trust there is more integrity in the offices of one of NYC's great newspapers.

Sincerely,

Ronald Bleier

 

 

From Democracy Now with Amy Goodman, 6.7.2010

 

http://www.democracynow.org/2010/6/7/israel_rejects_call_for_international_probe

AMY GOODMAN: You reported on this as soon as the IDF released its doctored audio. This is the initial clip the IDF released last week.

 

ISRAELI SHIP: [inaudible] This is the Israeli navy. You are approaching an area which is under a naval blockade.

 

UNIDENTIFIED MAN: Shut up. Go back to Auschwitz.

 

UNIDENTIFIED WOMAN: We have permission from the Gaza Port Authority to enter.

 

UNIDENTIFIED MAN: We’re helping Arabs going against the US. Don’t forget 9/11, guys.

 

AMY GOODMAN: Max Blumenthal, can you explain what you found fishy about this clip? Also, the IDF’s retraction and your thoughts on that? Also, you managed to get an earlier apology from the IDF last week regarding a press release they sent out two days after the assault claiming that approximately forty flotilla passengers, quote, "are mercenaries belonging to the Al Qaeda terror organization." When you questioned the Israeli military press office, you didn’t get the evidence you asked for, but press release was modified. The original headline was changed from "Attackers of the IDF Soldiers Found to be Al Qaeda Mercenaries" to read, quote, "Attackers of the IDF Soldiers Found Without Identification Papers." Explain what’s happened in these cases, the doctored audio and the press release.

 

MAX BLUMENTHAL: Well, as soon as I arrived here in Israel, it became pretty clear to me that the IDF’s press operation was being run by someone with the journalistic integrity of James O’Keefe. First I found this press release where the IDF claimed that forty people onboard the Mavi Marmara were al-Qaeda mercenaries, and their evidence was that they had night-vision goggles and possibly gas masks, which clearly proves they’re linked to bin Laden. So I called the IDF along with my journalistic colleague Lia Tarachansky, who called them in Hebrew. I called them in English. We both got the same response: there is no evidence. This claim came from Netanyahu’s inner circle. And they immediately changed the press release to say forty passengers "found without identification" onboard the Mavi Marmara, basically retracting the al-Qaeda claim.

 

The second lie we were able to basically prove was that the IDF had doctored the footage you played, which sounds sort of like a prank call by a mentally deficient pre-adolescent. And clearly what the IDF and what the Israeli government is trying to do is present the confrontation with the flotilla in the context of the Holocaust to further incite nationalistic sentiment among the Israeli public. And it succeeded. But they have admitted that they doctored the footage and have now released, after releasing a previous audio clip, which showed—which presented entirely different audio from the same exchange, a new audio clip presenting different audio, which they claim is the full exchange. But now they’ve claimed that a lot of this audio did not come from the Mavi Marmara, the Turkish ship. So their story isn’t holding up.

 

And what this demonstrates is that nothing that the IDF says can be trusted, not one single word.

***

Susan L. Rosenbluth

Publisher and Editor-in-Chief

The Jewish Voice and Opinion

Englewood, NJ 07631

 

June 18, 2010

Dear Susan L. Rosenbluth:

Thank you for your article “The ‘Armada of Hate’ Had Only One Goal: Force Israel to End Its Legal Blockade So Gaza Can Get Weapons,” June 2010, Vol 23 No 8. 

I found your article confusing because you seem to indicate that it’s appropriate for Israel to impose a blockade on Gaza because the territory is controlled by Hamas. But at the same time you cite statistics to seem to indicate that there is no humanitarian crisis raised by the blockade because a sufficient amount of trucks with supplies arrive in Gaza each day. 

However, according to Oxfam, the number of trucks of relief items allowed in to Gaza was just 22 percent of what it was before the blockade was tightened in 2007. 

According to a recent report of the Gisha organization for freedom, Israel today [before Israel’s 6.18.10 announcement] allows 97 items to be brought into Gaza, compared to 4,000 before the siege. The same report noted that a large Israeli supermarket holds 10,000-15,000 items. 

In addition, the Red Cross said more than 100 essential medicines and many basic medical supplies are no longer available in Gaza due to the blockade. A new report by the Israeli human rights group B’Tselem says the blockade has led to economic collapse in Gaza: 95 percent of Gaza’s factories have closed, 98 percent of residents suffer from blackouts, and 93 percent of Gaza’s water is polluted. 

Also, I understand that there is extensive damage to Gaza’s sewage system. According to Oxfam, damage to the sewage system results in 28 Olympic swimming pools of raw sewage pumped into the sea of Gaza every day, leading to what experts fear is blanket nitrate poisoning of the population. 

It’s difficult to understand how the justice of Israeli control over Gaza is reflected in such conditions. 

As far as whether the blockade is legal according to international law, the International Committee of the Red Cross declared, "The whole of Gaza’s civilian population is being punished for acts for which they bear no responsibility. The closure therefore constitutes a collective punishment imposed in clear violation of Israel’s obligations under international humanitarian law."

Sincerely,

Ronald Bleier

 

Prison Planet: IDF SHOT SLEEPING PEOPLE ON THE AID FLOTILLA!

 Here's the first part of the Prison Planet report. Democracy Now also quoted eyewitnesses who said the IDF came in shooting.

Notice how effective are the Israelis even in the face of the clearest brutality and viciousness  in getting their spin across.

One of the still  mysterious points. The report below suggests that about 20 people, not 9,  were killed. And I think it was a BBC report (on NYC public radio, 6.3.10) which quoted Turkish sources as saying that not all the people on the Mavi Marmara are accounted for.

***

 

IDF SHOT SLEEPING PEOPLE ON THE AID FLOTILLA!

 

http://www.doomdaily.com/2010/israel-forces-fired-on-sleeping-civillians-under-cover-of-darkness/

 

Israel Forces Fired On Sleeping Civillians Under Cover Of Darkness

 

Heavily armed soldiers "began to shoot the moment their feet hit the deck"
Steve Watson
Prisonplanet.com
May 31st, 2010

 

While the Israeli government is praising it's soldiers as heroes and saying they were acting in self defence by firing on unarmed civilians flying a white flag in international waters, one group involved with the Freedom Flotilla has a quite different story.
A spokeswoman for Israel Defence Forces (IDF), Avital Leibovich, claims that Israeli officers gave several warnings before boarding the the Turkish boat, the Mavi Marmara.
Somehow, according to Leibovich, when the soldiers did board the boat, they were then attacked by unarmed activists and relieved of their guns – a claim that is not backed up by video footage of the ambush.
Leibovich told reporters "We found ourselves in the middle of a lynching,"
"We didn't look for confrontation but it was a massive attack," she said. "What happened was a last resort."
This story is on its face ridiculous.
The following press release came from Freegaza.com , one of the aid groups involved in the flotilla, in the wake of the attack:
Under darkness of night, Israeli commandoes dropped from a helicopter onto the Turkish passenger ship, Mavi Marmara, and began to shoot the moment their feet hit the deck.
They fired directly into the crowd of civilians asleep. According to the live video from the ship, two have been killed, and 31 injured. Al Jazeera has just confirmed the numbers.
Streaming video shows the Israeli soldiers shooting at civilians, and our last SPOT beacon said, "HELP, we are being contacted by the Israelis."
As things currently stand 20 people are thought to have been killed in the attack.
While the IDF and the Israeli government claim that their soldiers were attacked by violent political agitators wielding knives, several videos of those on board the boats and scenes from their voyage reveal that they are peaceful civilians that could not possibly constitute any threat to one of the most powerful armies on the planet.
In the following clip American born pro-Palestinian activist Huwaida Arraf, the Free Gaza Movement chairperson and delegation co-coordinator for the flotilla, explains the mission of the flotilla noting that "Israel is threatening to attack us, to use force if necessary when it is obvious that we are average civilians, we don't constitute any threat except for the fact that we want to stand up for the right of the Palestinian people to lead a life with dignity."

 

Read more:

http://www.doomdaily.com/2010/israel-forces-fired-on-sleeping-civillians-under-cover-of-darkness/

 

Gilad Atzmon: Israeli Butchery at Sea

There's going to be a lot about this. Here's an early account from an Israeli activist Gilad Atzmon  (h/t Israel Shamir) who predicted a bloody outcome simply from the Israeli government's spin days and hours earlier that the victims were terrorists and carried weapons. Also interesting is that Atzmon tried to warn the activists, some of whom, he points out,  would be older people, that there would be violence. As Atzmon writes, the Israeli Cabinet, the military elites (and no doubt Netanyahu himself, not to mention Barak) planned the attack in advance.

In a Monday morning BBC report/interview carried on NY public radio, the BBC reporter couldn't understand why these Free Gaza ships carrying cement and supplies would continue.

If I had to guess, this story will last only two or three days. It would be nice to think that the victims will not have died in vain.

***

 

http://www.gilad.co.uk/writings/israeli-butchery-at-sea-by-gilad-atzmon.html

 

Israeli Butchery at Sea

by Gilad Atzmon  
Monday, May 31, 2010 

 

As I write this piece the scale of the Israeli lethal slaughter at sea is yet to be clear. However we already know that at around 4am Gaza time, hundreds of IDF commandos stormed the Free Gaza international humanitarian fleet. We learn from the Arab press that at least 16 peace activists have been murdered and more than 50 were injured.  Once again it is devastatingly obvious that Israel is not trying to hide its true nature: an inhuman murderous collective  fuelled by a psychosis and driven by paranoia.

 

For days the Israeli government  prepared the Israeli society for the massacre at sea. It said that the Flotilla carried weapons, it had ‘terrorists’ on board. Only yesterday evening it occurred to me that this Israeli malicious media spin was there to prepare the Israeli public for a full scale Israeli deadly military operation in international waters.  Make no mistake. If I knew exactly where Israel was heading and the possible

 

consequences, the Israeli cabinet and military elite were fully aware of it all the way along.  What happened yesterday wasn’t just a pirate terrorist  attack. It was actually murder in broad day light even though it happened in the dark. 

 

Yesterday at 10 pm I contacted Free Gaza and shared with them everything I knew. I obviously grasped that hundreds of peace activists most of them elders, had very little chance against the Israeli killing machine. I was praying all night for our brothers and sisters.  At 5am GMT the news broke to the world. In international waters Israel raided an innocent international convoy of boats carrying cement, paper and medical aid to the besieged Gazans. The Israelis were using live ammunition murdering and injuring everything around them.

 

Today we will see demonstrations around the world, we will see many events mourning our dead.  We may even see some of Israel’s friends ‘posturing’ against the slaughter. Clearly this is not enough.

 

The massacre that took place yesterday was a premeditated Israeli operation. Israel wanted blood because it believes that its ‘power of deterrence’  expands with the more dead it leaves behind. The Israeli decision to use hundreds of commando soldiers against civilians was taken by the Israeli cabinet together with the Israeli top military commanders. What we saw yesterday wasn’t just a failure on the ground. It was actually an institutional failure of a morbid society that a long time ago lost touch with humanity. 

 

It is no secret that Palestinians are living in a siege for years. But it is now down to the nations to move on and mount the ultimate pressure on Israel and its citizens. Since the massacre yesterday was committed by a popular army that followed instructions given by a ‘democratically elected' government, from now on, every Israeli  should be considered as a  suspicious war criminal unless proved different.

 

Considering the fact that Israel stormed naval vessels sailing under Irish, Turkish and Greek flags. Both NATO  members and EU countries must immediately cease their  relationships with  Israel  and close their airspace to Israeli airplanes.   

 

Considering yesterday’s news about Israeli nuclear submarines being stationed in the Gulf, the world must react quickly and severely.  Israel is now officially mad and deadly. The Jewish State is not just careless about human life,  as we have been following  the Israeli press campaign leading to the slaughter,  Israel actually  seeks pleasure in inflicting pain and devastation on others.

Glenn Greenwald on Obama's next Supreme Court pick

Friends:

Remember how it was in the bad old days of Bush-Cheney?  They would pile one horror on top of another to the point where when the next one came down, our reaction became: So what's new?

At least in those days we could look forward 2,4, 6, 8 years and comfort ourselves with the thought that at least then we'll have the opportunity to change the direction of our govt.

 

Are we at a similar point now?  We read about Obama's not unlikely next pick for the Supreme Court to replace one of its aging liberal members and we say: So what's new? We're getting inured  to Obama's atrocities just as in the bad old days. But what relief can we look forward to in the next 2,4, 6, 8 years?

***

Glenn Greenwald

 Mar 26, 2010

The horrible prospect of Supreme Court Justice Cass Sunstein

Glenn Greenwald writes:

The N.Y. Times bizarrely claims that choosing this long-time defender of Bush radicalism would "excite the left"....
http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/03/26/court

 

The New York Times' Peter Baker has an article today on Obama's leading candidates to replace Stevens, in which one finds this strange passage:

The president’s base hopes he will name a full-throated champion to counter Justice Antonin Scalia, the most forceful conservative on the bench. . . . The candidates who would most excite the left include the constitutional scholars Harold Hongju Koh, Cass R. Sunstein and Pamela S. Karlan.

While that's probably true of Koh and Karlan, it's absolutely false with regard to Sunstein, who is currently Obama's Chief of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs.  From the beginning of the War on Terror, Cass Sunstein turned himself into one of the most reliable Democratic cheerleaders for Bush/Cheney radicalism and their assault on the Constitution and the rule of law. 

 

Here are some of the lowlights of Sunstein's record abstracted from Greenwald's article.

He:

* Defended Bush's military commissions and wrongly predicted that the courts would uphold these commissions [Does this put Sunstein in Clarence Thomas territory?]

*Defended Bush's warrantless wiretapping

*According to the Washington Post,

Sunstein argues that Bush's decision to conduct surveillance of Americans without court approval flowed from Congress's vote to allow an armed struggle against al-Qaeda. "If you can kill them, why can't you spy on them?" Sunstein said, adding that this is a minority view.

 

Read Greenwald's blog

The horrible prospect of Supreme Court Justice Cass Sunstein

http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/03/26/court

 

In January 2010, two months before the Supreme Court opening became a news item, Greenwald warned his readers of:

Obama confidant's spine-chilling proposal
Cass Sunstein wants the government to "cognitively infiltrate" anti-government groups
Cass Sunstein wants the government to ... Sunstein advocates that the Government's stealth infiltration should be accomplished by sending covert agents into "chat rooms, ...
By Glenn Greenwald
Friday, January 15, 2010

http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/01/15/sunstein

 

 

 

Unmasking Obama’s Middle East policy

What's going on in Israel U.S. relations? Since Israel’s recent slap in the face of their greatest protector and supporter during VP Biden’s visit, there’s been a lot of noise in the media about the incident's effect on U.S. Israeli relations. But since there’s no visible policy change either in Tel Aviv or in Washington, we can surmise that the brouhaha is simply a distraction from the Obama administration's deeply hostile intentions towards the Palestinians in their struggle for justice and for their human and national rights.

Many Obama supporters had hoped that with the departure of the Bush-Cheney regime there would be some respite from their open malevolence and vicious hostility to the whole Arab and Muslim world. We didn’t expect real justice for the Palestinians, we weren't hoping for miracles. We understood the fealty that that the power of the Zionist lobby imposes on Congress and the White House and that the cause of one person, one vote, a country for all its citizens was not going to be on the agenda.

Nevertheless we had hopes that at the very least, the worst of the previous administration's animus towards all things Palestinian was behind us. But as we approach the first days of spring 2010, we find that behind the latest public drama between the two countries, we are facing the depressing and brutal truth that the Obama administration, with its agenda seemingly set by chief of staff Rahm Emanuel, a committed Zionist, has the same ruthless intentions towards the Palestinians as had the previous U.S. regime.

What's the evidence? In a word: concrete, as in: By their actions ye shall know them. Israel's bloody Operation Cast Lead in December-January 2009-2010 (an operation that could have been headed off or curtailed by President-elect Obama, a point we didn't realize until a year later) was intended and was successful in destroying the best part of Gaza's remaining infrastructure, its schools, hospitals, government buildings, farms, factories, hothouses, much of its housing and on and on. ** It was a brutal, pitiless, more than twenty-day operation against an absolutely helpless and trapped population, which if it happened to Jews, would have been termed the greatest pogrom against them in more than 50 years. But since Jews conducted this attack, it has been accepted as a legitimate defensive action in much of the Western world.

Bad enough, but what about the aftermath? The Gaza community wasn’t asking for much under the circumstances. At the very least they might have expected that the Obama administration do what was necessary to allow them to import concrete and building materials so that they could begin putting something of their lives back together. One can imagine some of the behind- the-scenes pleading by Palestinian representatives and their supporters to the Obama administration: Can’t you at least allow us to rebuild some of the damage?

No, answers back the U.S. We can't. We won't. The U.S. doesn't say that outright, or at least I haven’t heard such a thing. In fact I haven't heard one statement made by a high or not so high U.S. official on the subject, although I'm sure there's a State Department document somewhere to the effect that Israel has every right to defend itself in the ways it sees fit.

No, the only people I've heard on the subject are Israeli spokespeople who most often are unembarrassed to intone: Sorry, we'd love to let you have as much concrete as you want except that we're scared that if you do so, well, who knows what you might do with it? You might use it to cast stones at us if and when we are required to cross the border again with our infantry and our tanks and F-15s.

The effect of U.S./Israeli policy is to ensure that the damage done to the infrastructure of Gaza, which was the apparent point of the Cast Lead operation, is never repaired so as to make it as difficult as possible for the Palestinians to live in their land and to struggle for their rights.

It’s called creeping transfer, creeping expulsion and Obama, led by Rahm Emanuel, has chosen to cast his lot with those who support Israeli policy.
***

**Wikipedia’s entry on the subject documents much of the damage caused by the Cast Lead operation. [Numbers in brackets refer to the footnotes they cite.]

On 27 December Israel began a wave of airstrikes [26] on the Gaza Strip with the stated aim of stopping the rocket attacks from and arms smuggling into the territory,[27][28] damaging or destroying tens of thousands of homes,[29] 15 of Gaza’s 27 hospitals and 43 of its 110 primary health care facilities,[30] 800 water wells,[31] 186 greenhouses,[32] and nearly all of its 10,000 family farms[33]; leaving 50,000 homeless,[34] 400,000-500,000 without running water,[34][35] one million without electricity,[35], and resulting in acute food shortages. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaza_War

***

Note:
Just as I was finishing my latest bout of editing this blog entry, I noticed that Alex Cockburn and my mentor, colleague and friend, Jeffrey Blankfort, had recently weighed in on the same subject. I decided not to read their articles before I posted mine, partly because I was afraid that I’d want to modify my own too long delayed post. --RB

See Alexander Cockburn, March 19 - 21, 2010
"My Fellow Americans, Tonight I'm Going to Talk Frankly About a Pesky Little Nation Called Israel ... " http://counterpunch.org

Jeffrey Blankfort, “A Crisis in U.S. / Israeli Relations? Sure. But ...
Why Israel Always Prevails,” March 19 - 21, 2010
http://counterpunch.org/blankfort03192010.html


Special mention also of recent posts by Dr. Stephen Sniegoski, author of The Transparent Cabal, an important study of neocon influence in promoting the Iraq War, who has been following these issues and shedding much light.

Counterpunch: Top Ten Reasons to Kill the Senate Health Care Bill:Obama and Rahm Cheer Republican Victory in Mass: An End to Reform

Thanks to Alex Cockburn for highlighting the poison below about the Senate Health Care Bill.  As of this writing, how many if any of the insults below will pass in some kind of health care "reform."  But if all of the execrable provisions or some of them pass, wouldn't it be interesting that when the Dems had 60 votes they needed all 60 so that the worst elements could be forced through by a single Senator -- like Lieberman. Now that they don't have 60, will it take only 51 to pass some of the outrages below, and pay off Big Pharma and Big Insurance (redundant), BHO's major contributors?

 

In his lead article for the same issue of CP, "2010: Is The Future Behind Us?" Alex Cockburn refers more than once to the power of Obama's chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel in shaping and forcing through the legislation he prefers: anti-abortion for one; and by implication, blocking legislation he opposes. I wonder if people -- besides Marcy Wheeler and Jane Hamsher of firedoglake and emptywheel -- are starting to wake up to who is really the president and who is the empty suit whose words get emptier every week.

 

It's a nice question how upset Rahm and Obama really are by the Massachusetts loss since their goal seems to be to lose the Democratic majority -- perhaps in both Houses, just like Clinton -- so that the pressure --pressure? what pressure? -- for reform will fade into a memory from last year. Their only embarrassment is the public relations blow and this simply gives a chance for Obama  --again and again-- to sound like he's the populist while he plays  the delaying game. Their plan which has worked for them like a charm, seems to be to create the vacuum that will open the door to the lobbyists and the Tea Baggers whose job it is to make plenty of noise -- the less reality-related the better. Their cacophony gives cover to Rahm, as he dispatches marching orders to Reid and Pelosi, ensuring that only his right wing agenda gets through.

***

 

Top Ten Reasons to Kill the Senate Health Care Bill

 

from CounterPunch (hard copy edition) vol. 16, No. 22, Dec. 16-31, 2009

January 4, 2010

CounterPuncher Chuck Spinney sends us this note:

 

I got this from a friend who works on budget issues in Congress. If true, this list would explain why Insurance stock just rose to all time highs.

 

• Forces you to pay up to 8% of your income to private insurance corporations – whether you want to or not.

 

• If you refuse to buy the insurance, you’ll have to pay penalties of up to 2% of your annual income to the IRS.

 

• Many will be forced to buy poor-quality insurance they can’t afford to use, with $11,900 in annual out-of-pocket expenses over and above their annual premiums.

 

• Massive restriction on a wo-man’s right to choose, designed to trigger a challenge to Roe v. Wade in the Supreme Court.

 

• Paid for by taxes on the middle-class insurance plan you have right now through your employer, causing them to cut back benefits and increase copays.

 

• Many of the taxes to pay for the bill start now, but most Americans won’t see any benefits – like an end to discrimination against those with preexisting conditions – until 2014, when the program begins.

 

• Allows insurance companies to charge people who are older 300% more than others.

 

• Grants monopolies to drug companies that will keep generic versions of expensive biotech drugs from ever coming to market.

 

• No re-importation of prescription drugs, which would save consumers $100 billion over 10 years.

 

• The cost of medical care will continue to rise, and insurance premiums for a family of four will rise an average of $1,000 a year – meaning, in 10 years, your family’s insurance premium will be $10,000 more annually than it is right now.

Diebold and Health Care: Bradblog on Election for Kennedy Seat

Who should we root for in the Tuesday special election for senator in Massachusetts: the Republican or the Democrat?  Do we want to stop the  terrible health care reform bill or do we want a Democrat Senator in Kennedy's old seat? I say we take the Republican for 6 years: a good trade off.

 

Some of the implications of the Bradblog item below.

 

How long now has it been since we've given up hoping that an incoming Obama administration would help do something regarding the computer voting machine fraud (see below)  and move to establish fair elections in this country?  Has it been 6 months already that we've given up hoping for reform from the Emanuel administration.

On that score, it's a testament to Rahm Emanuel effectiveness that we can't get ONE Democrat to vote against the health care monstrosity. He's as powerful as Cheney was apparently when it comes to ensuring that only the legislation he wants, gets passed. That includes further restrictions on abortion, a huge windfall for the insurance industry and big pharma. We can't even roll back the Bush monstrosities on the costs of medications; nor will we have the Canada option we used to have.

 

Interesting or ironic that Emanuel/Obama really don't want a Democratic controlled Congress, certainly not a 60 vote majority in the Senate. On the other hand, they want this health care giveaway bill. Tough call.

Where's Walter Karp when we need him?  He's the one who explained that when Democrats win the White House and/or Congress their big challenge is how to dampen hopes for reform. In Indispensable Enemies (1993) he shows that the last thing the Party wants is an activist base pushing and shoving with reform proposals and competing for power. Republicans have an easier time since their platform is anti-Reform.

But this is Emanuel's time so it looks like one way or another the health care disaster will somehow pass.

***

 

 

Easily Hacked Diebold Machines to Determine Winner of 'Toss-Up' Special Election for U.S. Senate in MA
Written by Nathan Barker and Brad Friedman

 

http://www.bradblog.com/?p=7650

 

Since writing today's piece for Upstate New York's right-leaning Gouverneur Times, a new poll has come out this morning showing the Republican Scott Brown now leading the Democrat Martha Coakley by 4 points in
the race for the U.S. Senate seat formerly held by a Democrat named Kennedy for nearly 60 years.
As of last night, when I filed the story with them, the latest survey from a Democratic-leaning pollster showed Coakley up by 8, though a day or two earlier, Republican Rasmussen had Brown down only by 2 points.
Suffice to say it's now officially "a toss-up", at least according to the Rothenberg Political Report, and to all
the Dems and Reps now sweating out what was previously thought to have been an easy Democratic win.
With the 60th "filibuster-proof" Senate seat now hanging precariously in the balance, I'm sure you'll be delighted to hear that the winner will now be whoever Diebold declares it to be. The near-entirety of the
state will vote next Tuesday on paper ballots to be counted by Diebold op-scan systems. The same ones used dubiously in the New Hampshire Primary in 2008, and the same ones notoriously hacked --- resulting in a flipped mock election --- in HBO's Emmy-nominated Hacking Democracy.
And to make matters even worse, the notorious LHS Associates --- the private company with the criminal background, who has admitted to illegally tampering with memory cards during elections, and who has a Director of Sales and Marketing who embarrassed himself with obscene comments here at The BRAD BLOG some years ago, resulting in his being barred from CT by their Sec. of State --- sells and services almost all
of MA's voting machines along with those in the rest of New England.
Read my detailed coverage of the entire sad affair over at Gouverneur Times today. And yes, here we go again...

http://www.bradblog.com/?p=7650