One interesting tidbit is that Glenn Greenwald isn't even publicly aware that the war on terror is totally bogus since the US, Israel and other states like the UK plan and execute virtually all the significant terror, especially the high profile events like 9/11. Has anyone else besides Greenwald exposed the NYT for their complicity? --Ronald
Glenn Greewald
NYT circulates fear-mongering claims on FISA debate
Tuesday June 10, 2008
The New York Times' Eric Lichtblau has a long, prominent article today on the pending debate over FISA and telecom amnesty -- headlined: "Return to Old Spy Rules Is Seen as Deadline Nears" -- that features (and endorses) virtually every blatant falsehood that has distorted these spying issues from the beginning, and which is built on every shoddy journalistic practice that has made clear debate over these issues almost impossible. The article strongly suggests that a so-called "compromise" is imminent, a "compromise" which will deliver to the President virtually everything he seeks in the way of new warrantless eavesdropping powers and telecom amnesty.
One paragraph after the next in Lichtblau's article features shrill warnings, mostly from unnamed "officials," about all the scary things that will happen if Congressional Democrats do not quickly pass a new FISA bill that is similar to the Rockefeller/Cheney Senate bill and that is agreeable to the President. If a "compromise" isn't reached, reports the article, then we'll all have to live under the so-called "old" FISA law -- meaning the law used by the U.S. to defend itself from 1978 until August, 2007 and then again from February, 2008 until the present. Moreover, the one-year surveillance orders obtained last August under the now-expired Protect America Act are set to expire in August, 2008. We learn from Lichtblau's article that this would be so very dangerous because:
* expiration of the one-year PAA orders in August would create "a situation that some officials predict could leave worrisome gaps in intelligence";
* if no deal is reached, then "'We'll start losing intelligence capabilities,' Senator Christopher S. Bond of Missouri said";
* "government and Congressional officials said in interviews that they saw [reversion to FISA] as a dangerous step backward" because "government lawyers, analysts and linguists would once again have to prepare individual warrants, potentially thousands of them, for surveillance of terrorism targets overseas."
* Scarier still: "Telecommunications companies would also have to spend considerable time shutting down existing wiretaps, and then start them up again if ordered under new warrants, officials said."
* Without any explanation as to why, Lichtblau grants anonymity to an administration official to oh-so-bravely-and-valuably spout the administration line: "A senior intelligence official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said the administration was concerned that reverting to the older standards and requiring individual warrants for each wiretap would create a severe gap in overseas intelligence by raising the bar for foreign surveillance collection."
* "Attorney General Michael B. Mukasey has described the idea of reverting to the older standards of foreign surveillance as 'unthinkable.'"
* As always, pitifully frightened Congressional Democrats feed these claims: "'Until August, were O.K.,' said one senior Democratic Congressional aide involved in the negotiations. "After August, we're not O.K."
Read more:
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/
Wednesday, June 11, 2008
Thursday, May 15, 2008
Dual Loyalty on the Upper West Side + Justin Raimondo on Obama on bended knee to the Lobby
NYC Upper West Side Jews having trouble with Obama?
Anecdotally from my Upper West Side health club. One Jewish supporter of Obama told me that several of his acquaintances were having trouble with Obama. He guessed it was racism. I suggested it might be Israel.
Another -- this one I guessed was a Zionist -- told me about an upcoming forum about Obama at a local synagogue next week. He said there was concern that an Obama presidency might be hurting them in their pocketbooks. When I challenged him, he allowed how there might be other issues of concern.
Here's Justin Raimondo on Obama's response to a Zionist interrogation. What pleasantly surprised me was how much freedom of action he managed to cut out for himself. But it's because of his intelligence and independence that they'll vote against their pocketbooks and for McCain.
It's called dual loyalty, and yes, Bill, it's alive and well on the Upper West Side, not to mention other parts of the city.
Ronald
Justin Raimondo:
Obama vs. The Lobby
No matter how much he grovels, it's never enough
http://www.antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=12834
Anecdotally from my Upper West Side health club. One Jewish supporter of Obama told me that several of his acquaintances were having trouble with Obama. He guessed it was racism. I suggested it might be Israel.
Another -- this one I guessed was a Zionist -- told me about an upcoming forum about Obama at a local synagogue next week. He said there was concern that an Obama presidency might be hurting them in their pocketbooks. When I challenged him, he allowed how there might be other issues of concern.
Here's Justin Raimondo on Obama's response to a Zionist interrogation. What pleasantly surprised me was how much freedom of action he managed to cut out for himself. But it's because of his intelligence and independence that they'll vote against their pocketbooks and for McCain.
It's called dual loyalty, and yes, Bill, it's alive and well on the Upper West Side, not to mention other parts of the city.
Ronald
Justin Raimondo:
Obama vs. The Lobby
No matter how much he grovels, it's never enough
http://www.antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=12834
Washington Post: Quel Surprise: Bush is also bad for Israel
Laura Rozen's useful warandpiece.com blog found this WP article pointing to the obvious: that George W. Bush's policies after all aren't very good for Israel either. The article was written with the common misconception in mind that Bush's policies were intended to be good for Israel. The underlying idea is that his bad policies were mistakes, somehow, miscalculations.
It's interesting how reality has to be twisted like a pretzel, especially when reality is staring us in the face --well ok, my face.
His policies were intended to be as bad for Israel as they are for everywhere else, especially the US, and especially the Middle East (isn't that where Israel is situated?). Bush and Cheney are diehard (pun intended) proponents of Year Zero --destroy everything and then (theoretically) start over. Only they believe in crushing everything and everybody to the point where it's impossible to survive, much less start over.
Interesting that it's taken two terms of Bush for some of these smart guys quoted in the article to wake up to the effects at least of what Bush is doing.
Ronald
WP:
May 13, 2008
Appearing at an Israeli Embassy reception last Thursday to mark the 60th anniversary of the Jewish state, Vice President Cheney voiced a sentiment that is common among many American Jews, evangelicals and others. "Israel has never had a better friend in the White House than the 43rd president of the United States," he said.
Yet as President Bush prepares to return to Jerusalem this week to celebrate the milestone, that assessment is the subject of fierce debate both here and Israel. Few doubt the sincerity of Bush's passion, which has translated into unprecedented backing for Israeli self-defense and the most clearly stated presidential commitment to protect Israel if it is attacked.
But from left to right, Bush also faces criticism for pursuing Middle East policies that, many diplomats and analysts believe, have left Israel more threatened than when he assumed office in January 2001.
"The sum total is that if you measure Israeli security at the beginning of this administration and at the end of the administration, based on things the president either could have done, should have done or failed to do, the report card is pretty negative," said Daniel C. Kurtzer, who served as Bush's first-term ambassador to Israel.
As one former US government officer commented on news that Lebanese Druze leader Jumblatt had basically surrendered to Hizbollah, "Same guys that gave you Gaza gave you this. Do you think any of them are smart enough to see what they've done?" Adds another former US official who served in Lebanon: "This administration is bankrupt in every way -- absolutely hopeless."
Posted by Laura at 11:03 AM
It's interesting how reality has to be twisted like a pretzel, especially when reality is staring us in the face --well ok, my face.
His policies were intended to be as bad for Israel as they are for everywhere else, especially the US, and especially the Middle East (isn't that where Israel is situated?). Bush and Cheney are diehard (pun intended) proponents of Year Zero --destroy everything and then (theoretically) start over. Only they believe in crushing everything and everybody to the point where it's impossible to survive, much less start over.
Interesting that it's taken two terms of Bush for some of these smart guys quoted in the article to wake up to the effects at least of what Bush is doing.
Ronald
WP:
May 13, 2008
Appearing at an Israeli Embassy reception last Thursday to mark the 60th anniversary of the Jewish state, Vice President Cheney voiced a sentiment that is common among many American Jews, evangelicals and others. "Israel has never had a better friend in the White House than the 43rd president of the United States," he said.
Yet as President Bush prepares to return to Jerusalem this week to celebrate the milestone, that assessment is the subject of fierce debate both here and Israel. Few doubt the sincerity of Bush's passion, which has translated into unprecedented backing for Israeli self-defense and the most clearly stated presidential commitment to protect Israel if it is attacked.
But from left to right, Bush also faces criticism for pursuing Middle East policies that, many diplomats and analysts believe, have left Israel more threatened than when he assumed office in January 2001.
"The sum total is that if you measure Israeli security at the beginning of this administration and at the end of the administration, based on things the president either could have done, should have done or failed to do, the report card is pretty negative," said Daniel C. Kurtzer, who served as Bush's first-term ambassador to Israel.
As one former US government officer commented on news that Lebanese Druze leader Jumblatt had basically surrendered to Hizbollah, "Same guys that gave you Gaza gave you this. Do you think any of them are smart enough to see what they've done?" Adds another former US official who served in Lebanon: "This administration is bankrupt in every way -- absolutely hopeless."
Posted by Laura at 11:03 AM
Tuesday, May 13, 2008
Democracy Now: AS’AD ABUKHALIL: US instigates civil war in Lebanon as elsewhere
Amy Goodman's Democracy Now is the only place I've so far found which indicates that the civil war in Lebanon is spurred by the US (although Prof Abukhalil references a good article in the Los Angeles Times.) The US is funding the right wing in Lebanon to prevent stability and democracy there. It's for the purpose of creating a civil war. To the extent that it's happening, the US is succeeding. Which is why those Lebanese players who were for a peaceful resolution have been rubbed out, no doubt with Israeli intelligence help if not direct assistance.
Khalil says it clearly: Something similar is taking place right now in Lebanon, and this is very much similar to what’s happening in Sudan, in Palestine, in Iraq, in Afghanistan and Somalia. The United States is basically instigating, funding and arming civil wars in all those places.
Once again, why would the US be instigating civil war in all these places? One advantage of understanding the criminal sociopathic US leadership for what it is (besides that it explains the data), is that one can predict their actions: do the maximum harm everywhere.
Ronald
May 12, 2008
81 Dead in Lebanon as Hezbollah Clashes with US-Backed Pro-Government Forces
http://www.democracynow.org/2008/5/12/81_dead_in_lebanon_as_hezbollah
AMY GOODMAN: In Lebanon, armed clashes since last Wednesday between Hezbollah-led opposition groups and US-backed pro-government forces have left at least eighty-one people dead, many more wounded. Opposition forces overpowered pro-government militias and took over large parts of the capital city of Beirut late last week before handing over control to the Lebanese army.
The fighting shifted to the north and east of the country over the weekend, and fresh clashes were reported in Beirut this morning. Meanwhile, the Arab League has agreed to send a high-level political delegation to Lebanon to dialogue with leaders from all sides.
The violence, which has been described as the worst since the civil war, erupted last week during a general strike called by the General Federation of Labor Unions to protest the high cost of living.
On Thursday, Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah held a news conference in Beirut to mark what he called the beginning of a “new era” in Lebanese politics. He condemned a decision by the Lebanese cabinet to outlaw Hezbollah’s telecommunications network and dismiss the head of airport security for his alleged ties to the party. Nasrallah said their private communication network was a vital tool in combat and critical to their success during the July 2006 war with Israel. He described the government crackdown as “tantamount to a declaration of war.”
HASSAN NASRALLAH: [translated] If we want to get off of this crisis, to get out of this standoff, of this confrontation, they need to revoke the decisions of the illegitimate government, and they need to go to the dialogue. That’s all. If they want to be stubborn, they will go elsewhere. The game is very dangerous. If they are truly keen about preserving the country, they have only these two solutions.
AMY GOODMAN: Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice criticized Hezbollah and declared US support for the Lebanese government led by Prime Minister Fouad Siniora. But after four days of fighting, Siniora capitulated and announced Saturday the decision regarding Hezbollah’s demands now lay in the hands of the Lebanese army. The army commander, General Michel Suleiman, is slated to be the new president of the country.
For analysis of the situation in Lebanon, I’m now joined on the phone from California by As’ad AbuKhalil, professor of political science at California State University, Stanislaus, and the creator of the Angry Arab News Service blog at angryarab.blogspot.com. We welcome you to Democracy Now!
AS’AD ABUKHALIL: Thank you very much, Amy.
AMY GOODMAN: Can you explain what’s happening in Lebanon right now?
AS’AD ABUKHALIL: Well, yes. I think that people may remember, back in the 1980s, the United States government, for two years in the administration of Ronald Reagan, deployed troops from ’82 to ’84. And there was a civil war, and the United States was supporting the rightwing militias of Israel in Lebanon, and they used the discourse of supporting the central government of Lebanon.
Something similar is taking place right now in Lebanon, and this is very much similar to what’s happening in Sudan, in Palestine, in Iraq, in Afghanistan and Somalia. The United States is basically instigating, funding and arming civil wars in all those places. We hear a lot about this inability of the international community to tolerate armed militias. Of course, Hezbollah is an armed militia, but so are the pro-militias of the government. There’s a Los Angeles Times article today detailing the efforts by the United States and allies to create militias throughout the country. And the Washington Post indicated that this government of the United States spent $1.4 billion to prop up the administration of Siniora in Lebanon.
And basically, what happened in Lebanon in the last few days is a partial coup d’etat that was in response to a full coup d’etat that was engineered by the United States and Saudi Arabia and Israel from behind the scene back in 2005, capitalizing on the assassination of Rafik Hariri.
And things have gotten to this point because America basically is responsible, more than their clients in Lebanon. I mean, there were ideas of dialogue in Lebanon, and things were moving in that direction, and then, suddenly, lo and behold, the Assistant Secretary of State of the United States for the Near East, David Welch, shows up in Lebanon, and he basically wanted to stiffen the resolve of the clients and to basically prevent the possibility of dialogue. And then, Walid Jumblatt, one of the clients of the United States and Saudi Arabia and Lebanon today, escalated by deciding on taking the issue of disarming Hezbollah, which is supported at least by half of the Lebanese, and Lebanese parties, including clients of the United States, agreed that the issues of disarming Hezbollah should be left for internal dialogue of the Lebanese themselves.
But it seems the Bush administration, while it’s sailing into the sunset, wanted to achieve a victory that has long eluded it in Iraq and elsewhere. They were getting too excited about Lebanese affairs in the Washington Post, who were celebrating the so-called Cedar Revolution. Well, they tried to push them further, and look what happened. This is something that experts have warned the United Nations about. If you push things to that point, the other side is going to lash out, and they did lash out, even if one, like me, does not like the scenes of these militias and armed thugs running into the streets of Beirut and so on. But basically, we have to say that this is the doing of US foreign policy, and this is the true face of the Bush Doctrine in the Middle East.
AMY GOODMAN: Can you talk overall about the United States—what you feel the US role should be right now?
AS’AD ABUKHALIL: Well, I mean, just to get out, just to not be as heavily involved. We have to see that US policy is not only in funding and arming the militias in the Anbar province in Iraq or places in Iraq—I mean, Afghanistan, the warlords, or in Lebanon, the various militias. But we have to say that this level of intense tensions and conflict and animosity is the product of a deliberate American-Saudi policy of instigating a Sunni-Shiite conflict, the likes of which Lebanon has never seen. I mean, even somebody like myself who come from a split background—my mother is Sunni, and my father is Shiite—I mean, we’ve never seen anything like this. Saudi media, with the full cooperation of the United States, have been for three years mobilizing the Lebanese opposition, because that’s the only thing they have. I mean, if patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel, sectarianism in Lebanon is the last refuge of scoundrels of the United States and Israel. They have been for serious propagandizing to splitting Sunnis from Shiites in order that they create a militia that can stand up to Hezbollah.
Well, this militia of Hariri’s, as supported by the United States, trained in Jordan, funded by Saudi Arabia, basically didn’t last. It’s very much like the Dahlan gangs in Palestine in Gaza. They do not have a cause. The United States can provide them with weapons and with money; it cannot provide them with a doctrine or an ideology. And that’s why, when push comes to shove, they flee. They flee for their life, just as militias of Israel fled across the border when Israel attacked and left, humiliatingly, South Lebanon in 2000.
AMY GOODMAN: Professor AbuKhalil, we have thirty seconds. What’s next? What do you make of Hassan Nasrallah’s comment that this is a new era in Lebanese politics?
AS’AD ABUKHALIL: Basically, he is saying that they will no more allow this heavy-handed role by the Saudis in Lebanon, and they want to change the balance of forces on the ground. Now, that in itself does not bode well for the future in Lebanon. I fear that Hezbollah may get too intoxicated with their so-called victories on the streets of Lebanon, and they may assert a sectarian agenda that is going to provoke the other side. I worry about a [inaudible] syndrome among the Sunnis of Lebanon.
AMY GOODMAN: I want to thank you very much for being with us. Professor As’ad AbuKhalil teaches political science at California State University at Stanislaus, visiting professor at UC Berkeley.
Khalil says it clearly: Something similar is taking place right now in Lebanon, and this is very much similar to what’s happening in Sudan, in Palestine, in Iraq, in Afghanistan and Somalia. The United States is basically instigating, funding and arming civil wars in all those places.
Once again, why would the US be instigating civil war in all these places? One advantage of understanding the criminal sociopathic US leadership for what it is (besides that it explains the data), is that one can predict their actions: do the maximum harm everywhere.
Ronald
May 12, 2008
81 Dead in Lebanon as Hezbollah Clashes with US-Backed Pro-Government Forces
http://www.democracynow.org/2008/5/12/81_dead_in_lebanon_as_hezbollah
AMY GOODMAN: In Lebanon, armed clashes since last Wednesday between Hezbollah-led opposition groups and US-backed pro-government forces have left at least eighty-one people dead, many more wounded. Opposition forces overpowered pro-government militias and took over large parts of the capital city of Beirut late last week before handing over control to the Lebanese army.
The fighting shifted to the north and east of the country over the weekend, and fresh clashes were reported in Beirut this morning. Meanwhile, the Arab League has agreed to send a high-level political delegation to Lebanon to dialogue with leaders from all sides.
The violence, which has been described as the worst since the civil war, erupted last week during a general strike called by the General Federation of Labor Unions to protest the high cost of living.
On Thursday, Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah held a news conference in Beirut to mark what he called the beginning of a “new era” in Lebanese politics. He condemned a decision by the Lebanese cabinet to outlaw Hezbollah’s telecommunications network and dismiss the head of airport security for his alleged ties to the party. Nasrallah said their private communication network was a vital tool in combat and critical to their success during the July 2006 war with Israel. He described the government crackdown as “tantamount to a declaration of war.”
HASSAN NASRALLAH: [translated] If we want to get off of this crisis, to get out of this standoff, of this confrontation, they need to revoke the decisions of the illegitimate government, and they need to go to the dialogue. That’s all. If they want to be stubborn, they will go elsewhere. The game is very dangerous. If they are truly keen about preserving the country, they have only these two solutions.
AMY GOODMAN: Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice criticized Hezbollah and declared US support for the Lebanese government led by Prime Minister Fouad Siniora. But after four days of fighting, Siniora capitulated and announced Saturday the decision regarding Hezbollah’s demands now lay in the hands of the Lebanese army. The army commander, General Michel Suleiman, is slated to be the new president of the country.
For analysis of the situation in Lebanon, I’m now joined on the phone from California by As’ad AbuKhalil, professor of political science at California State University, Stanislaus, and the creator of the Angry Arab News Service blog at angryarab.blogspot.com. We welcome you to Democracy Now!
AS’AD ABUKHALIL: Thank you very much, Amy.
AMY GOODMAN: Can you explain what’s happening in Lebanon right now?
AS’AD ABUKHALIL: Well, yes. I think that people may remember, back in the 1980s, the United States government, for two years in the administration of Ronald Reagan, deployed troops from ’82 to ’84. And there was a civil war, and the United States was supporting the rightwing militias of Israel in Lebanon, and they used the discourse of supporting the central government of Lebanon.
Something similar is taking place right now in Lebanon, and this is very much similar to what’s happening in Sudan, in Palestine, in Iraq, in Afghanistan and Somalia. The United States is basically instigating, funding and arming civil wars in all those places. We hear a lot about this inability of the international community to tolerate armed militias. Of course, Hezbollah is an armed militia, but so are the pro-militias of the government. There’s a Los Angeles Times article today detailing the efforts by the United States and allies to create militias throughout the country. And the Washington Post indicated that this government of the United States spent $1.4 billion to prop up the administration of Siniora in Lebanon.
And basically, what happened in Lebanon in the last few days is a partial coup d’etat that was in response to a full coup d’etat that was engineered by the United States and Saudi Arabia and Israel from behind the scene back in 2005, capitalizing on the assassination of Rafik Hariri.
And things have gotten to this point because America basically is responsible, more than their clients in Lebanon. I mean, there were ideas of dialogue in Lebanon, and things were moving in that direction, and then, suddenly, lo and behold, the Assistant Secretary of State of the United States for the Near East, David Welch, shows up in Lebanon, and he basically wanted to stiffen the resolve of the clients and to basically prevent the possibility of dialogue. And then, Walid Jumblatt, one of the clients of the United States and Saudi Arabia and Lebanon today, escalated by deciding on taking the issue of disarming Hezbollah, which is supported at least by half of the Lebanese, and Lebanese parties, including clients of the United States, agreed that the issues of disarming Hezbollah should be left for internal dialogue of the Lebanese themselves.
But it seems the Bush administration, while it’s sailing into the sunset, wanted to achieve a victory that has long eluded it in Iraq and elsewhere. They were getting too excited about Lebanese affairs in the Washington Post, who were celebrating the so-called Cedar Revolution. Well, they tried to push them further, and look what happened. This is something that experts have warned the United Nations about. If you push things to that point, the other side is going to lash out, and they did lash out, even if one, like me, does not like the scenes of these militias and armed thugs running into the streets of Beirut and so on. But basically, we have to say that this is the doing of US foreign policy, and this is the true face of the Bush Doctrine in the Middle East.
AMY GOODMAN: Can you talk overall about the United States—what you feel the US role should be right now?
AS’AD ABUKHALIL: Well, I mean, just to get out, just to not be as heavily involved. We have to see that US policy is not only in funding and arming the militias in the Anbar province in Iraq or places in Iraq—I mean, Afghanistan, the warlords, or in Lebanon, the various militias. But we have to say that this level of intense tensions and conflict and animosity is the product of a deliberate American-Saudi policy of instigating a Sunni-Shiite conflict, the likes of which Lebanon has never seen. I mean, even somebody like myself who come from a split background—my mother is Sunni, and my father is Shiite—I mean, we’ve never seen anything like this. Saudi media, with the full cooperation of the United States, have been for three years mobilizing the Lebanese opposition, because that’s the only thing they have. I mean, if patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel, sectarianism in Lebanon is the last refuge of scoundrels of the United States and Israel. They have been for serious propagandizing to splitting Sunnis from Shiites in order that they create a militia that can stand up to Hezbollah.
Well, this militia of Hariri’s, as supported by the United States, trained in Jordan, funded by Saudi Arabia, basically didn’t last. It’s very much like the Dahlan gangs in Palestine in Gaza. They do not have a cause. The United States can provide them with weapons and with money; it cannot provide them with a doctrine or an ideology. And that’s why, when push comes to shove, they flee. They flee for their life, just as militias of Israel fled across the border when Israel attacked and left, humiliatingly, South Lebanon in 2000.
AMY GOODMAN: Professor AbuKhalil, we have thirty seconds. What’s next? What do you make of Hassan Nasrallah’s comment that this is a new era in Lebanese politics?
AS’AD ABUKHALIL: Basically, he is saying that they will no more allow this heavy-handed role by the Saudis in Lebanon, and they want to change the balance of forces on the ground. Now, that in itself does not bode well for the future in Lebanon. I fear that Hezbollah may get too intoxicated with their so-called victories on the streets of Lebanon, and they may assert a sectarian agenda that is going to provoke the other side. I worry about a [inaudible] syndrome among the Sunnis of Lebanon.
AMY GOODMAN: I want to thank you very much for being with us. Professor As’ad AbuKhalil teaches political science at California State University at Stanislaus, visiting professor at UC Berkeley.
Thursday, May 08, 2008
Game Plan Iran -- The Next World War?
The Coming Showdown in Iran
http://judicial-inc.biz/Sunburn_Missile.htm
Check out the link above for a not unlikely game plan of US-Israeli war plans against Iran. The article has excellent graphics and photos and a minimum of text. It’s especially informative about the devastating hardware on both sides. I confess that I hadn’t thought of the inclusion of a false flag attack by Israel taking out a US Carrier (is that 6,000 people?) a la the Israeli 1967 attack on the USS Liberty spy ship. For the sociopathic Bush & Cheney, rubbing out a quick 6,000 US servicepeople would only be an appetizer.
The realization that such a war – perhaps (or inescapably) escalating into a world war (the Russians aren’t going to be too happy with a US attack on Iran) – is not for Oil, not for Israel and not for Empire may help to give us a clearer focus on the danger we face.
For example, the current public position of the government of Iran is that it wouldn't be in US interests to initiate such an attack. But the public position of Iran doesn’t take into account that Bush and Cheney would go ahead with such an attack precisely because it would be devastating to everyone, especially Iran and including the US. $300-500 (or more)/barrel oil for starters would be among the smallest effects.
It’s not unlikely that Bush & Cheney are counting on the general turmoil and chaos and the inevitable aftermath of such an attack as a means to stay in office, just as co-conspirator Rudy Giuliani hoped to do after the 9/11 attacks.
It should go without saying that such an attack would be terrible for Israel as well as it will be for every other country. It may be that our only hope is that Israeli Prime Minister Olmert – - who undoubtedly understands the danger to his country –- has learned his lesson from the disastrous Lebanon war of 2006, largely provoked by Washington, and will manage to withstand the pressure to attack Iran from Bush-Cheney-Elliott Abrams. But Olmert is a thin reed. Once again – as in Lebanon 2006 -- ironically we may be missing the stronger hand of Ariel Sharon.
Ronald
(Note: See below for Scott Ritter's views of the danger. He thinks that there's an 80% chance of such an attack. But didn't I see somewhere else that he had no doubt it would happen?)
Here’s a summary excerpt of the Plan from this site: http://judicial-inc.biz/Sunburn_Missile.htm
After Watching Destruction of Iraq, The Iranians Will Be Forced To Respond
Because Iran is already at total war footing, the attacks will escalate out of control in a matter of days.
• Israel hits Iran's nuclear facilities
• Iran goes to Alert One
• Israel hits a US Carrier and blames Iran
• US hits Iran's navy in northern Persian Gulf
• Iran attacks with all its missiles
Iran has already calculated their response, and they realize their only option is a massive attack. Iran is sitting on a stockpile of Exocet, Sunburn 22 and SS-NX-26 Yakhonts missiles. The Fifth Fleet sits at Qatar, and it is within range of the Sunburn-22 and Yakhonts. Iran is said to have commercial freighters equipped with Exocets that will be in port at the time. Once Israel hits the US carrier (similar to the USS Liberty) then Iran will have no choice but to defend itself.
The 5th Fleet sits in a lake surrounded by Iran's rugged mountains, and will be decimated by the missiles. The US fleet will arrive in the Indian Ocean, but will be helpless because the straits of Hormuz will be showered by a Phalanx of hundreds of Exocets.
Read more:
http://judicial-inc.biz/Sunburn_Missile.htm
Ken wrote:
Please read carefully.
I am passing this on. I do not know when they will go, or even if they will go, but it is clear they want to go.
If you do a Google search on the “USS Liberty” and the “Gulf of Tonkin”, you will see that criminal factions of our government are not above staging a “False Flag Event” (Google the term) to get us embroiled in a bigger,broader and endless war.
I do know that by “naming the game” in advance, we can take some of the shock value away from the bad guys. It is quite possible that by vigilant action to name the game last fall we might have averted a nasty event already, but we will never really know for sure.
The Coming Showdown in Iran
http://judicial-inc.biz/Sunburn_Missile.htm
Scott Ritter: It's 80% Sure
Bob wrote:
A correspondent just led me to this article by the well-informed Scott Ritter. Let's see: I'm no gambler, but 80 percent, or 4 out of 5, chance of war on Iran...seems a very solid bet, bolstered by the new information Ritter imparts (e.g., bombs/bombers enhancement by end of this month...) and driven by the increasingly insane idiot residing in our White House...Bob
http://www.rutlandherald.com:80/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080404/NEWS04/804040381/1002/NEWS01
Ritter says White House preparing for war in Iran
April 4, 2008
By ED BARNA Herald Correspondent
MIDDLEBURY — Scott Ritter, former head of weapons inspection in Iraq who protested there were no weapons of mass destruction to justify an invasion, believes the same is true for Iran.
But there is an 80 percent chance of war with Iran, he told about 200 people Wednesday at Middlebury College as part of a series of talks facilitated by the Vermont Peace and Justice Center.
The pattern of preparations for such a conflict has been steadily developing and involves Congress as well as the Bush-Cheney administration, he said.
People ask him if he feels vindicated by the absence of WMDs in Iraq, he said, but "there isn't any vindication in being right about this one." A war with Iran would hasten the ongoing decline of American standing in the world, and afterward Russia and China would be ready to take advantage of the resulting power vacuum, he said.
Read more:
http://www.rutlandherald.com:80/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080404/NEWS04/804040381/1002/NEWS01
http://judicial-inc.biz/Sunburn_Missile.htm
Check out the link above for a not unlikely game plan of US-Israeli war plans against Iran. The article has excellent graphics and photos and a minimum of text. It’s especially informative about the devastating hardware on both sides. I confess that I hadn’t thought of the inclusion of a false flag attack by Israel taking out a US Carrier (is that 6,000 people?) a la the Israeli 1967 attack on the USS Liberty spy ship. For the sociopathic Bush & Cheney, rubbing out a quick 6,000 US servicepeople would only be an appetizer.
The realization that such a war – perhaps (or inescapably) escalating into a world war (the Russians aren’t going to be too happy with a US attack on Iran) – is not for Oil, not for Israel and not for Empire may help to give us a clearer focus on the danger we face.
For example, the current public position of the government of Iran is that it wouldn't be in US interests to initiate such an attack. But the public position of Iran doesn’t take into account that Bush and Cheney would go ahead with such an attack precisely because it would be devastating to everyone, especially Iran and including the US. $300-500 (or more)/barrel oil for starters would be among the smallest effects.
It’s not unlikely that Bush & Cheney are counting on the general turmoil and chaos and the inevitable aftermath of such an attack as a means to stay in office, just as co-conspirator Rudy Giuliani hoped to do after the 9/11 attacks.
It should go without saying that such an attack would be terrible for Israel as well as it will be for every other country. It may be that our only hope is that Israeli Prime Minister Olmert – - who undoubtedly understands the danger to his country –- has learned his lesson from the disastrous Lebanon war of 2006, largely provoked by Washington, and will manage to withstand the pressure to attack Iran from Bush-Cheney-Elliott Abrams. But Olmert is a thin reed. Once again – as in Lebanon 2006 -- ironically we may be missing the stronger hand of Ariel Sharon.
Ronald
(Note: See below for Scott Ritter's views of the danger. He thinks that there's an 80% chance of such an attack. But didn't I see somewhere else that he had no doubt it would happen?)
Here’s a summary excerpt of the Plan from this site: http://judicial-inc.biz/Sunburn_Missile.htm
After Watching Destruction of Iraq, The Iranians Will Be Forced To Respond
Because Iran is already at total war footing, the attacks will escalate out of control in a matter of days.
• Israel hits Iran's nuclear facilities
• Iran goes to Alert One
• Israel hits a US Carrier and blames Iran
• US hits Iran's navy in northern Persian Gulf
• Iran attacks with all its missiles
Iran has already calculated their response, and they realize their only option is a massive attack. Iran is sitting on a stockpile of Exocet, Sunburn 22 and SS-NX-26 Yakhonts missiles. The Fifth Fleet sits at Qatar, and it is within range of the Sunburn-22 and Yakhonts. Iran is said to have commercial freighters equipped with Exocets that will be in port at the time. Once Israel hits the US carrier (similar to the USS Liberty) then Iran will have no choice but to defend itself.
The 5th Fleet sits in a lake surrounded by Iran's rugged mountains, and will be decimated by the missiles. The US fleet will arrive in the Indian Ocean, but will be helpless because the straits of Hormuz will be showered by a Phalanx of hundreds of Exocets.
Read more:
http://judicial-inc.biz/Sunburn_Missile.htm
Ken wrote:
Please read carefully.
I am passing this on. I do not know when they will go, or even if they will go, but it is clear they want to go.
If you do a Google search on the “USS Liberty” and the “Gulf of Tonkin”, you will see that criminal factions of our government are not above staging a “False Flag Event” (Google the term) to get us embroiled in a bigger,broader and endless war.
I do know that by “naming the game” in advance, we can take some of the shock value away from the bad guys. It is quite possible that by vigilant action to name the game last fall we might have averted a nasty event already, but we will never really know for sure.
The Coming Showdown in Iran
http://judicial-inc.biz/Sunburn_Missile.htm
Scott Ritter: It's 80% Sure
Bob wrote:
A correspondent just led me to this article by the well-informed Scott Ritter. Let's see: I'm no gambler, but 80 percent, or 4 out of 5, chance of war on Iran...seems a very solid bet, bolstered by the new information Ritter imparts (e.g., bombs/bombers enhancement by end of this month...) and driven by the increasingly insane idiot residing in our White House...Bob
http://www.rutlandherald.com:80/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080404/NEWS04/804040381/1002/NEWS01
Ritter says White House preparing for war in Iran
April 4, 2008
By ED BARNA Herald Correspondent
MIDDLEBURY — Scott Ritter, former head of weapons inspection in Iraq who protested there were no weapons of mass destruction to justify an invasion, believes the same is true for Iran.
But there is an 80 percent chance of war with Iran, he told about 200 people Wednesday at Middlebury College as part of a series of talks facilitated by the Vermont Peace and Justice Center.
The pattern of preparations for such a conflict has been steadily developing and involves Congress as well as the Bush-Cheney administration, he said.
People ask him if he feels vindicated by the absence of WMDs in Iraq, he said, but "there isn't any vindication in being right about this one." A war with Iran would hasten the ongoing decline of American standing in the world, and afterward Russia and China would be ready to take advantage of the resulting power vacuum, he said.
Read more:
http://www.rutlandherald.com:80/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080404/NEWS04/804040381/1002/NEWS01
Saturday, April 26, 2008
Glenn Greenwald: Bush's Phantom Syrian WMDs
Once again, Glenn Greenwald nails it on the latest disinformation/fear campaign against Syria. This time the transparency of the lies is laughably (I wish) obvious. As Greemwald points out there's little push-back in the media, and, he might have added, the candidates for president. Can you imagine Obama or Clinton challenging Bush on this issue? At best they'll be quiet as mice. Yet another indication of the depths to which monsters like Bush & Cheney can bring us as they count on Zionist support as they beat the drums to enlarge the war against Syria and Iran (and Lebanon if they can squeeze it in.)
But is anyone asking why Bush and Cheney are still desperately trying to make more war happen?
It's not, as Xymphora is fond of saying, a war for the Jews. No, they are cleverly using the Zionists to further their endless war agenda.
Now, why would they want to make more war? For oil? Do people still believe this? What do you have to do to show that it's not to the benefit of anyone -- ok, a handful of the base will, for a short time rake in more of the windfall. But that can't be sufficient reason to further destroy the US and world economy, not to mention the incredible suffering on top of what's already going on worldwide with food and energy costs.
All we have left -- in conventional terms -- is Empire.
People like to use this as an explanation for the Bush-Cheney unprovoked aggression (and all the other destruction they manage) but this explanation doesn't address the anomaly that everything Bush is doing is WEAKENING the American Empire as fast as possible. The military has all kinds of readiness issues. Empire is for building up, and Bush and Cheney are only for destruction.
When are people going to understand that when we say that we're at the mercy of criminal psychopaths, it's not an exaggeration. It's the literal truth.
I snorted with laughter this morning when I heard the proposal that Bush and Cheney should release some oil from the national oil reserve. As if anyone thinks that they would do ANYTHING that would help people. Reminds me that I recall being mystified during the last couple of years of the Clinton administration. At a certain moment there was a spike in the oil price and Clinton quickly acted to release oil which had the desired effect. But all the while the predictable right wing voices howled in protest. It took me awhile to figure out that they were opposed on principle to any government action that would help people. It might give people a reason to vote for the Democrats.
One way to explain Bush's low poll numbers is to observe that people understand on some level that he's not interested in helping them.
Ronald
***
Glenn Greenwald wrote:
Friday April 25, 2008
Skepticism toward Bush claims about Syria and North Korea
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/?last_story=/opinion/greenwald/2008/01/07/media_coverage/
There are multiple reasons why substantial skepticism is warranted concerning the Bush administration's claims that the structure which Israeli jets destroyed inside Syria last September was a nuclear reactor Syria was developing with the aid of North Korea. Such skepticism, however, is difficult to find in most (though not all) American press accounts, which do little other than repeat Government claims without challenge.
Read more:
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/?last_story=/opinion/greenwald/2008/01/07/media_coverage/
***
See similarly JOHN W. FARLEY on Counterpunch:
http://counterpunch.org/farley04252008.html
The Media Falls for Fake News Once Again: Syrian Nukes: the Phantom Menace
Last September 6, Israel bombed a Syrian building at Dair el Zor. In the immediate aftermath of the bombing, little was said in public, by either Israel or Syria, but later the Israelis started claiming that the Syrians were building a nuclear reactor. On the radio today (April 25), I heard NPR's Tom Jelton repeat, as if it were undisputed fact, the US. government claim to have "proof" of a Syrian-North Korean nuclear connection. Now I see that AP writers Pamela Hess and Deb Reichmann have a story headlined "White House says Syria 'must come clean' about nuclear work," while ABC news has a video entitled "Syria's Nuclear Reactor".
Are the wonderful mainstream media, who gave us Saddam's mythical Weapons of Mass Destruction, lying to us again? The answer is yes.
Read more:
http://counterpunch.org/farley04252008.html
But is anyone asking why Bush and Cheney are still desperately trying to make more war happen?
It's not, as Xymphora is fond of saying, a war for the Jews. No, they are cleverly using the Zionists to further their endless war agenda.
Now, why would they want to make more war? For oil? Do people still believe this? What do you have to do to show that it's not to the benefit of anyone -- ok, a handful of the base will, for a short time rake in more of the windfall. But that can't be sufficient reason to further destroy the US and world economy, not to mention the incredible suffering on top of what's already going on worldwide with food and energy costs.
All we have left -- in conventional terms -- is Empire.
People like to use this as an explanation for the Bush-Cheney unprovoked aggression (and all the other destruction they manage) but this explanation doesn't address the anomaly that everything Bush is doing is WEAKENING the American Empire as fast as possible. The military has all kinds of readiness issues. Empire is for building up, and Bush and Cheney are only for destruction.
When are people going to understand that when we say that we're at the mercy of criminal psychopaths, it's not an exaggeration. It's the literal truth.
I snorted with laughter this morning when I heard the proposal that Bush and Cheney should release some oil from the national oil reserve. As if anyone thinks that they would do ANYTHING that would help people. Reminds me that I recall being mystified during the last couple of years of the Clinton administration. At a certain moment there was a spike in the oil price and Clinton quickly acted to release oil which had the desired effect. But all the while the predictable right wing voices howled in protest. It took me awhile to figure out that they were opposed on principle to any government action that would help people. It might give people a reason to vote for the Democrats.
One way to explain Bush's low poll numbers is to observe that people understand on some level that he's not interested in helping them.
Ronald
***
Glenn Greenwald wrote:
Friday April 25, 2008
Skepticism toward Bush claims about Syria and North Korea
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/?last_story=/opinion/greenwald/2008/01/07/media_coverage/
There are multiple reasons why substantial skepticism is warranted concerning the Bush administration's claims that the structure which Israeli jets destroyed inside Syria last September was a nuclear reactor Syria was developing with the aid of North Korea. Such skepticism, however, is difficult to find in most (though not all) American press accounts, which do little other than repeat Government claims without challenge.
Read more:
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/?last_story=/opinion/greenwald/2008/01/07/media_coverage/
***
See similarly JOHN W. FARLEY on Counterpunch:
http://counterpunch.org/farley04252008.html
The Media Falls for Fake News Once Again: Syrian Nukes: the Phantom Menace
Last September 6, Israel bombed a Syrian building at Dair el Zor. In the immediate aftermath of the bombing, little was said in public, by either Israel or Syria, but later the Israelis started claiming that the Syrians were building a nuclear reactor. On the radio today (April 25), I heard NPR's Tom Jelton repeat, as if it were undisputed fact, the US. government claim to have "proof" of a Syrian-North Korean nuclear connection. Now I see that AP writers Pamela Hess and Deb Reichmann have a story headlined "White House says Syria 'must come clean' about nuclear work," while ABC news has a video entitled "Syria's Nuclear Reactor".
Are the wonderful mainstream media, who gave us Saddam's mythical Weapons of Mass Destruction, lying to us again? The answer is yes.
Read more:
http://counterpunch.org/farley04252008.html
Friday, April 25, 2008
Xymphora: Pennsylvania Touch Screens Love Hillary
Popular Canadian blogger Xymphora's note below on the PA primary reminds me that I've been meaning for weeks to write up my blog notes to the NYT article shortly after the Feb 5 NY State primary which informed us that in about 80 of 6,000+ precincts in NYC, Obama received Zero votes, including in a heavily black district in Harlem and in Brooklyn's Bed-Sty.
Xymphora's concerns below about PA are similar to the situation in the NH primary and who knows how many other states where the totals required adjustment in order to skew towards Hillary. (In some NH districts Ron Paul also received zero votes in the "unofficial" count.)
It's disheartening, shall we say, that we can't trust ANY of the numbers from these primaries not even in NYC which still allows voting on our trusty lever machines which with routine maintenance could last another 50 years. So it's not simply the fault of computerized voting machines . It seems that political operatives are in place at central locations who are allowed to adjust the numbers which they get from local precincts. That seems to be the way that Bush won Florida in 2000, and Florida and Ohio in 2004, as well as his "3 million" vote win over Kerry in 2004. As Mark Crispin Miller has pointed out, it's beyond credibility that Bush's national vote total INCREASED by 11 million votes from 2000 to 2004.
Thus we Americans are well into our Banana Republic stage. Will we ever emerge?
Ronald
***
Xymphora wrote:
Wednesday, April 23, 2008
http://xymphora.blogspot.com/
Pennsylvania exit polls
Some people will believe anything other than the obvious:
"It’s clear that a sizable chunk of those questioned after they voted lied to the pollsters. The exit polls showed a 5 point margin for Hillary. In the end the margin was approximately twice that."
So lemme get this straight: people who voted for Hillary were so embarrassed by that fact that they lied to exit pollsters and claimed they voted for Obama? Does that make any sense? Or does it make more sense that Pennsylvania, a state which makes heavy use of unverifiable computer touch-screen voting, was the victim of vote fraud? The difference between five percent and ten percent is the difference between Hillary having to drop out and Hillary staying in to help McCain win in November, a goal shared by both the Republicans (who own the computer voting machine companies) and Hillary (so she can run again in 2012).
Xymphora's concerns below about PA are similar to the situation in the NH primary and who knows how many other states where the totals required adjustment in order to skew towards Hillary. (In some NH districts Ron Paul also received zero votes in the "unofficial" count.)
It's disheartening, shall we say, that we can't trust ANY of the numbers from these primaries not even in NYC which still allows voting on our trusty lever machines which with routine maintenance could last another 50 years. So it's not simply the fault of computerized voting machines . It seems that political operatives are in place at central locations who are allowed to adjust the numbers which they get from local precincts. That seems to be the way that Bush won Florida in 2000, and Florida and Ohio in 2004, as well as his "3 million" vote win over Kerry in 2004. As Mark Crispin Miller has pointed out, it's beyond credibility that Bush's national vote total INCREASED by 11 million votes from 2000 to 2004.
Thus we Americans are well into our Banana Republic stage. Will we ever emerge?
Ronald
***
Xymphora wrote:
Wednesday, April 23, 2008
http://xymphora.blogspot.com/
Pennsylvania exit polls
Some people will believe anything other than the obvious:
"It’s clear that a sizable chunk of those questioned after they voted lied to the pollsters. The exit polls showed a 5 point margin for Hillary. In the end the margin was approximately twice that."
So lemme get this straight: people who voted for Hillary were so embarrassed by that fact that they lied to exit pollsters and claimed they voted for Obama? Does that make any sense? Or does it make more sense that Pennsylvania, a state which makes heavy use of unverifiable computer touch-screen voting, was the victim of vote fraud? The difference between five percent and ten percent is the difference between Hillary having to drop out and Hillary staying in to help McCain win in November, a goal shared by both the Republicans (who own the computer voting machine companies) and Hillary (so she can run again in 2012).
Sunday, April 13, 2008
Patrick J. Buchanan: Petraeus Points to War with Iran
Robert Stiver wrote:
Here's the latest commentary by an informed, deeply concerned citizen:
http://www.antiwar.com/pat/?articleid=12673 ("Petraeus Points to War With Iran," by Patrick Buchanan, April 11th, 2008)
(I disagree with one element of Buchanan's analysis: "The general's testimony is forcing Bush's hand...." Petraeus is, IMHO, an ambitious, willing military-side stooge for the Cheney-led zionazineocons [note particularly the odious Lieberman in the article] and the dry-drunkenly adolescent, bellicose, irrational Bush. A lethal combination, and Gates and Mullen -- with Fallon gone and no longer providing adult supervision -- today added additional voice to the warmongering set....)
The Evil USrael Empire is on the march to war...Bob
***
Ronald wrote:
It's hard to improve on Bob's comment and Buchanan's short article.. One question that comes to mind: why do Bush and Cheney want to go to war against Iran and use their nuclear arsenal?
Bob suggests that it is for Israel's benefit. But such an adventure is just as dangerous for Israel as it is for the rest of the world, not least the US. (Just imagine what $200-300/ barrel oil will do to the world's economy.)
This reminds me: haven't we read recently that Putin warned Bush not to attack Iran? But if Putin did so, that might only spur Bush and Cheney to go ahead. Once again, we ask for what purpose?
One result (if not the only result) will be chaos, destruction, and more war. Does that cohere with wars for oil, for Empire or for Israel? Does that put Cheney and Bush squarely in the tradition of US presidents or does it suggest that they are exceptional, as in pathologically criminal, intent only on the elimination of the possibility of civil life everywhere just as they have succeeded in accomplishing in Afghanistan, Iraq, Somalia, Kenya, Palestine, elsewhere? Is Empire strengthened by these disasters? Are we achieving more or less control over ($110/barrel) oil?
Ronald
***
Petraeus Points to War With Iran
by Patrick J. Buchanan
April 11, 2008
http://www.antiwar.com/pat/?articleid=12673
The neocons may yet get their war on Iran.
Ever since President Nouri al-Maliki ordered the attacks in Basra on the Mahdi Army, Gen. David Petraeus has been laying the predicate for U.S. air strikes on Iran and a wider war in the Middle East.
Iran, Petraeus told the Senate Armed Services Committee, has "fueled the recent violence in a particularly damaging way through its lethal support of the special groups."
These "special groups" are "funded, trained, armed and directed by Iran's Quds Force with help from Lebanese Hezbollah. It was these groups that launched Iranian rockets and mortar rounds at Iraq's seat of government (the Green Zone) ... causing loss of innocent life and fear in the capital."
Is the Iranian government aware of this – and behind it?
"President Ahmadinejad and other Iranian leaders" promised to end their "support for the special groups," said the general, but the "nefarious activities of the Quds force have continued."
Are Iranians then murdering Americans, asked Joe Lieberman:
"Is it fair to say that the Iranian-backed special groups in Iraq are responsible for the murder of hundreds of American soldiers and thousands of Iraqi soldiers and civilians?"
"It certainly is. ... That is correct," said Petraeus.
The following day, Petraeus told the House Armed Services Committee, "Unchecked, the 'special groups' pose the greatest long-term threat to the viability of a democratic Iraq."
Translation: The United States is now fighting the proxies of Iran for the future of Iraq.
The general's testimony is forcing Bush's hand, for consider the question it logically raises: If the Quds Force and Hezbollah, both designated as terrorist organizations, are arming, training and directing "special groups" to "murder" Americans, and rocket and mortar the Green Zone to kill our diplomats, and they now represent the No. 1 threat to a free Iraq, why has Bush failed to neutralize these base camps of terror and aggression?
Hence, be not surprised if President Bush appears before the TV cameras, one day soon, to declare:
"My commanding general in Iraq, David Petraeus, has told me that Iran, with the knowledge of President Ahmadinejad, has become a privileged sanctuary for two terrorist organizations – Hezbollah and the Quds Force of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard – to train, arm and direct terrorist attacks on U.S. and coalition forces, despite repeated promises to halt this murderous practice.
"I have therefore directed U.S. air and naval forces to begin air strikes on these base camps of terror. Our attacks will continue until the Iranian attacks cease."
Because of the failures of a Democratic Congress elected to end the war, Bush can now make a compelling case that he would be acting fully within his authority as commander-in-chief.
In early 2007, Nancy Pelosi pulled down a resolution that would have denied Bush the authority to attack Iran without congressional approval. In September, both Houses passed the Kyl-Lieberman resolution designating the Iranian Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization.
Courtesy of Congress, Bush thus has a blank check for war on Iran. And the signs are growing that he intends to fill it in and cash it.
Israel has been hurling invective at Iran and conducting security drills to prepare its population for rocket barrages worse than those Hezbollah delivered in the Lebanon War.
Adm. William "Fox" Fallon, the Central Command head who opposed war with Iran, has been removed. Hamas and Hezbollah have been stocking up on Qassam and Katyusha rockets.
Vice President Cheney has lately toured Arab capitals.
And President Ahmadinejad just made international headlines by declaring that Tehran will begin installing 6,000 advanced centrifuges to accelerate Iran's enrichment of uranium.
This is Bush's last chance to strike and, when Iran responds, to effect its nuclear castration. Are Bush and Cheney likely to pass up this last chance to destroy Iran's nuclear facilities and effect the election of John McCain? For any attack on Iran's "terrorist bases" would rally the GOP and drive a wedge between Obama and Hillary.
Indeed, Sen. Clinton, who voted to declare Iran's Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization, could hardly denounce Bush for ordering air strikes on the Revolutionary Guards' Quds Force, when Petraeus testified, in her presence, that it is behind the serial murder of U.S. soldiers.
The Iranians may sense what is afoot. For Tehran helped broker the truce in the Maliki-Sadr clash in Basra, and has called for a halt to the mortar and rocket attacks on the Green Zone.
With a friendly regime in Baghdad that rolled out the red carpet for Ahmadinejad, Iran has nothing to gain by war. Already, it is the big winner from the U.S. wars that took down Tehran's Taliban enemies, decimated its al-Qaeda enemies and destroyed its Sunni enemies, Saddam and his Baath Party.
No, it is not Iran that wants a war with the United States. It is the United States that has reasons to want a short, sharp war with Iran.
[Another quibble: Do Bush and Cheney want a short war? Will a short or long war help them stay in power longer? Although I'm wondering if Cheney's health may play a role. He seems to be sounding weaker than ever. --RB]
COPYRIGHT CREATORS SYNDICATE, INC.
Here's the latest commentary by an informed, deeply concerned citizen:
http://www.antiwar.com/pat/?articleid=12673 ("Petraeus Points to War With Iran," by Patrick Buchanan, April 11th, 2008)
(I disagree with one element of Buchanan's analysis: "The general's testimony is forcing Bush's hand...." Petraeus is, IMHO, an ambitious, willing military-side stooge for the Cheney-led zionazineocons [note particularly the odious Lieberman in the article] and the dry-drunkenly adolescent, bellicose, irrational Bush. A lethal combination, and Gates and Mullen -- with Fallon gone and no longer providing adult supervision -- today added additional voice to the warmongering set....)
The Evil USrael Empire is on the march to war...Bob
***
Ronald wrote:
It's hard to improve on Bob's comment and Buchanan's short article.. One question that comes to mind: why do Bush and Cheney want to go to war against Iran and use their nuclear arsenal?
Bob suggests that it is for Israel's benefit. But such an adventure is just as dangerous for Israel as it is for the rest of the world, not least the US. (Just imagine what $200-300/ barrel oil will do to the world's economy.)
This reminds me: haven't we read recently that Putin warned Bush not to attack Iran? But if Putin did so, that might only spur Bush and Cheney to go ahead. Once again, we ask for what purpose?
One result (if not the only result) will be chaos, destruction, and more war. Does that cohere with wars for oil, for Empire or for Israel? Does that put Cheney and Bush squarely in the tradition of US presidents or does it suggest that they are exceptional, as in pathologically criminal, intent only on the elimination of the possibility of civil life everywhere just as they have succeeded in accomplishing in Afghanistan, Iraq, Somalia, Kenya, Palestine, elsewhere? Is Empire strengthened by these disasters? Are we achieving more or less control over ($110/barrel) oil?
Ronald
***
Petraeus Points to War With Iran
by Patrick J. Buchanan
April 11, 2008
http://www.antiwar.com/pat/?articleid=12673
The neocons may yet get their war on Iran.
Ever since President Nouri al-Maliki ordered the attacks in Basra on the Mahdi Army, Gen. David Petraeus has been laying the predicate for U.S. air strikes on Iran and a wider war in the Middle East.
Iran, Petraeus told the Senate Armed Services Committee, has "fueled the recent violence in a particularly damaging way through its lethal support of the special groups."
These "special groups" are "funded, trained, armed and directed by Iran's Quds Force with help from Lebanese Hezbollah. It was these groups that launched Iranian rockets and mortar rounds at Iraq's seat of government (the Green Zone) ... causing loss of innocent life and fear in the capital."
Is the Iranian government aware of this – and behind it?
"President Ahmadinejad and other Iranian leaders" promised to end their "support for the special groups," said the general, but the "nefarious activities of the Quds force have continued."
Are Iranians then murdering Americans, asked Joe Lieberman:
"Is it fair to say that the Iranian-backed special groups in Iraq are responsible for the murder of hundreds of American soldiers and thousands of Iraqi soldiers and civilians?"
"It certainly is. ... That is correct," said Petraeus.
The following day, Petraeus told the House Armed Services Committee, "Unchecked, the 'special groups' pose the greatest long-term threat to the viability of a democratic Iraq."
Translation: The United States is now fighting the proxies of Iran for the future of Iraq.
The general's testimony is forcing Bush's hand, for consider the question it logically raises: If the Quds Force and Hezbollah, both designated as terrorist organizations, are arming, training and directing "special groups" to "murder" Americans, and rocket and mortar the Green Zone to kill our diplomats, and they now represent the No. 1 threat to a free Iraq, why has Bush failed to neutralize these base camps of terror and aggression?
Hence, be not surprised if President Bush appears before the TV cameras, one day soon, to declare:
"My commanding general in Iraq, David Petraeus, has told me that Iran, with the knowledge of President Ahmadinejad, has become a privileged sanctuary for two terrorist organizations – Hezbollah and the Quds Force of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard – to train, arm and direct terrorist attacks on U.S. and coalition forces, despite repeated promises to halt this murderous practice.
"I have therefore directed U.S. air and naval forces to begin air strikes on these base camps of terror. Our attacks will continue until the Iranian attacks cease."
Because of the failures of a Democratic Congress elected to end the war, Bush can now make a compelling case that he would be acting fully within his authority as commander-in-chief.
In early 2007, Nancy Pelosi pulled down a resolution that would have denied Bush the authority to attack Iran without congressional approval. In September, both Houses passed the Kyl-Lieberman resolution designating the Iranian Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization.
Courtesy of Congress, Bush thus has a blank check for war on Iran. And the signs are growing that he intends to fill it in and cash it.
Israel has been hurling invective at Iran and conducting security drills to prepare its population for rocket barrages worse than those Hezbollah delivered in the Lebanon War.
Adm. William "Fox" Fallon, the Central Command head who opposed war with Iran, has been removed. Hamas and Hezbollah have been stocking up on Qassam and Katyusha rockets.
Vice President Cheney has lately toured Arab capitals.
And President Ahmadinejad just made international headlines by declaring that Tehran will begin installing 6,000 advanced centrifuges to accelerate Iran's enrichment of uranium.
This is Bush's last chance to strike and, when Iran responds, to effect its nuclear castration. Are Bush and Cheney likely to pass up this last chance to destroy Iran's nuclear facilities and effect the election of John McCain? For any attack on Iran's "terrorist bases" would rally the GOP and drive a wedge between Obama and Hillary.
Indeed, Sen. Clinton, who voted to declare Iran's Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization, could hardly denounce Bush for ordering air strikes on the Revolutionary Guards' Quds Force, when Petraeus testified, in her presence, that it is behind the serial murder of U.S. soldiers.
The Iranians may sense what is afoot. For Tehran helped broker the truce in the Maliki-Sadr clash in Basra, and has called for a halt to the mortar and rocket attacks on the Green Zone.
With a friendly regime in Baghdad that rolled out the red carpet for Ahmadinejad, Iran has nothing to gain by war. Already, it is the big winner from the U.S. wars that took down Tehran's Taliban enemies, decimated its al-Qaeda enemies and destroyed its Sunni enemies, Saddam and his Baath Party.
No, it is not Iran that wants a war with the United States. It is the United States that has reasons to want a short, sharp war with Iran.
[Another quibble: Do Bush and Cheney want a short war? Will a short or long war help them stay in power longer? Although I'm wondering if Cheney's health may play a role. He seems to be sounding weaker than ever. --RB]
COPYRIGHT CREATORS SYNDICATE, INC.
Thursday, April 10, 2008
Free Trade -- Starving the Poor and impoverishing the Middle Class
Free Trade – Starving the Poor and Middle Class
Now that it’s clear that prices for food all over the world are going through the roof it should be even clearer that so-called free trade, which is dominated by the intention of the stronger powers to eliminate local agriculture, is making a major contribution to starving the poorest peoples, and making the classes just above – including the middle classes -- more and more hungry.
Now that it’s clear that prices for food all over the world are going through the roof it should be even clearer that so-called free trade, which is dominated by the intention of the stronger powers to eliminate local agriculture, is making a major contribution to starving the poorest peoples, and making the classes just above – including the middle classes -- more and more hungry.
Friday, April 04, 2008
Amira Hass (November 2007): Powerless in Gaza: Drinking Dirty Water; And Sewage Untreated
Perhaps there are others like myself for whom Amira Hass is hard to read because the celebrated (and in certain circles, excoriated) Israeli journalist describes everyday reality with unfailing precision and economy. The reality she describes is hard to take because there is little hope for change. There is little hope for change in part (in large part?) because for Zionists the Palestinian people are dehumanized. In this context dehumanizing Palestinians means that whatever is done to them, even the slow genocide that is ongoing, is basically OK, or at worst something to be tolerated. Supporters of Zionism rationalize and tolerate these State crimes against millions of people because to be critical of them would represent a challenge to the cause of a Jewish state in the former Palestine. A Jewish state somehow rises above its crimes against non Jews. A Jewish state means that there can be no crimes against non Jews.
Ronald
***
Ha'aretz | 07 Nov 2007
http://peoplesgeography.com/2007/11/12/amira-hass-a-moment-before-the-lights-go-out/
A Moment Before the Lights Go Out
by Amira Hass
Alan Johnston, the BBC correspondent kidnapped in Gaza, related in an interview that at a relatively early stage, he started suffering from all kinds of aches because of the water he drank. This was the same water that the kidnappers drank, but Johnston’s unaccustomed body sent warning signals: This is not water that is fit for drinking. And this is the water that reaches most of the taps in the Gaza Strip. Salty, in a few places brackish to contaminated, with an oily consistency. That is clearly felt when bathing.
The reason is an ancient one: overpumping because Gaza must make do with the waters from its aquifer alone. It is as if we were to say to the residents of Be’er Sheva: make do with the water that flows nearby. The water sources in the rest of the country are not for you.
Over the last few years, there have been some improvised private and public solutions. Private water purification plants in homes and commercial companies that sell purified water.
The municipalities, for their part, set up large brackish water desalination facilities and several central taps. Thousands of people go there daily to fill up jerry-cans with water that will not taste like it came from a puddle and will not cause diarrhea, infections, kidney problems and who knows what else.
The electricity and fuel supply to Gaza has already been reduced to below the level of basic human needs. An additional reduction will affect the above solutions to the water problem, and beyond. “To darken Gaza,” as some of the security experts among us have recently proposed, does not end merely with darkened homes at night. You don’t have to be an expert in public health to realize that it would create an endless chain reaction of public health problems and environmental blights.
Today, around a year and a half after Israel bombed the transformer station in Gaza, only 193 megawatts out of the 240 or so it needs is supplied to the Strip.
The water network is the biggest energy consumer in the Gaza Strip: it requires approximately 25 megawatts of the 240 megawatts the Gaza Strip needs.
The 135 wells across the Gaza Strip that supply water, poor quality as it may be, cannot function if the electricity and diesel fuel supply is cut further. The same is true of sewage treatment plants.
Already now, each day, no water is supplied to around 15 percent of the Strip’s residents. Each area receives water only every other day. The water is pumped electrically and stored in home reservoirs on every rooftop. Power outages are frequent.
When a power outage in a given area occurs on a day when the municipalities channel water to it, the houses are denied water for three, and sometimes even four, days.
The water network also needs around 150,000 litres of diesel fuel per month. The sewage system needs around 100,000 litres.
The Coastal Municipalities Water Utility, the supplier of sewage and water services in the Gaza Strip obtained only 60,000 liters of diesel fuel in October, because the quantity of fuels sold from Israel to the Gaza Strip was reduced. And this is before “the darkening” proposed by Ehud Barak and Matan Vilnai.
The water company must choose to favor the sewage system over the water system. As the deputy CEO of the company, Maher Najjar, explains: The collapse of the sewage system entails a bigger humanitarian threat.
Just imagine a huge flood of sewage. Hence, for example, the seven wells in the northern Gaza Strip that are diesel operated were allocated only 2,000 litres of diesel in early November, instead of the 10,500 liters needed to operate them.
Even before the lights go out, Israel is prohibiting the entry of raw materials into the Gaza Strip.
No one is talking any more about dozens of development projects that have consequently been frozen, such as the one to desalinate well water that serves the residents of the El Bureij refugee camp. Let them continue drinking the water that endangers their health.
Raw material is not the only thing Israel is barring entry of: Vital spare parts are also being barred entry. In the Gaza City sewage treatment facility there are several minor malfunctions.
However, Israel is barring the entry of the spare parts needed to repair them. Sewage undergoes only minimal treatment before it flows into the sea. And the sea, of course, doesn’t stop at the Erez or Rafiah checkpoints.
***
Ronald
***
Ha'aretz | 07 Nov 2007
http://peoplesgeography.com/2007/11/12/amira-hass-a-moment-before-the-lights-go-out/
A Moment Before the Lights Go Out
by Amira Hass
Alan Johnston, the BBC correspondent kidnapped in Gaza, related in an interview that at a relatively early stage, he started suffering from all kinds of aches because of the water he drank. This was the same water that the kidnappers drank, but Johnston’s unaccustomed body sent warning signals: This is not water that is fit for drinking. And this is the water that reaches most of the taps in the Gaza Strip. Salty, in a few places brackish to contaminated, with an oily consistency. That is clearly felt when bathing.
The reason is an ancient one: overpumping because Gaza must make do with the waters from its aquifer alone. It is as if we were to say to the residents of Be’er Sheva: make do with the water that flows nearby. The water sources in the rest of the country are not for you.
Over the last few years, there have been some improvised private and public solutions. Private water purification plants in homes and commercial companies that sell purified water.
The municipalities, for their part, set up large brackish water desalination facilities and several central taps. Thousands of people go there daily to fill up jerry-cans with water that will not taste like it came from a puddle and will not cause diarrhea, infections, kidney problems and who knows what else.
The electricity and fuel supply to Gaza has already been reduced to below the level of basic human needs. An additional reduction will affect the above solutions to the water problem, and beyond. “To darken Gaza,” as some of the security experts among us have recently proposed, does not end merely with darkened homes at night. You don’t have to be an expert in public health to realize that it would create an endless chain reaction of public health problems and environmental blights.
Today, around a year and a half after Israel bombed the transformer station in Gaza, only 193 megawatts out of the 240 or so it needs is supplied to the Strip.
The water network is the biggest energy consumer in the Gaza Strip: it requires approximately 25 megawatts of the 240 megawatts the Gaza Strip needs.
The 135 wells across the Gaza Strip that supply water, poor quality as it may be, cannot function if the electricity and diesel fuel supply is cut further. The same is true of sewage treatment plants.
Already now, each day, no water is supplied to around 15 percent of the Strip’s residents. Each area receives water only every other day. The water is pumped electrically and stored in home reservoirs on every rooftop. Power outages are frequent.
When a power outage in a given area occurs on a day when the municipalities channel water to it, the houses are denied water for three, and sometimes even four, days.
The water network also needs around 150,000 litres of diesel fuel per month. The sewage system needs around 100,000 litres.
The Coastal Municipalities Water Utility, the supplier of sewage and water services in the Gaza Strip obtained only 60,000 liters of diesel fuel in October, because the quantity of fuels sold from Israel to the Gaza Strip was reduced. And this is before “the darkening” proposed by Ehud Barak and Matan Vilnai.
The water company must choose to favor the sewage system over the water system. As the deputy CEO of the company, Maher Najjar, explains: The collapse of the sewage system entails a bigger humanitarian threat.
Just imagine a huge flood of sewage. Hence, for example, the seven wells in the northern Gaza Strip that are diesel operated were allocated only 2,000 litres of diesel in early November, instead of the 10,500 liters needed to operate them.
Even before the lights go out, Israel is prohibiting the entry of raw materials into the Gaza Strip.
No one is talking any more about dozens of development projects that have consequently been frozen, such as the one to desalinate well water that serves the residents of the El Bureij refugee camp. Let them continue drinking the water that endangers their health.
Raw material is not the only thing Israel is barring entry of: Vital spare parts are also being barred entry. In the Gaza City sewage treatment facility there are several minor malfunctions.
However, Israel is barring the entry of the spare parts needed to repair them. Sewage undergoes only minimal treatment before it flows into the sea. And the sea, of course, doesn’t stop at the Erez or Rafiah checkpoints.
***
Saturday, March 29, 2008
Dirk Jan ten Geuzendam, Bobby Fischer in Iceland: Alone and Self Reliant to the End
Dirk Jan ten Geuzendam,
“A Lone King Has Wandered Off,”
New In Chess, 2008, No. 2.
A long memorial article on Bobby Fischer (1943-2008) was just published in New In Chess detailing the author’s trip to Iceland after Bobby died. The author interviewed as many people in Iceland as he could find who knew Fischer and he gained invaluable information from several people including Saemi Palsson, a special person who had the ability to calm all kinds of situations and issues. Saemi served as Bobby’s bodyguard for the 1972 match and for a short time afterwards when Bobby returned to the States, and once again befriended Bobby in 2005 when he came to spend his last years in Iceland.
According to the article, Bobby could’ve lived for another decade or two had he chosen to accept medical treatment in Iceland for his failed kidney. As it was he died prematurely – and apparently in great pain. He would only allow the doctors to arrange for blood tests, but would allow no further medical treatment, least of all a replacement kidney which could have been arranged; or more routine medical assistance which could have saved him. The author believes that Bobby’s ideology kept him from accepting any outside help including medical help.
The article details some of the extraordinary lengths made by particular Icelanders to arrange for the world championship match in 1972 and to get Bobby out of jail in Japan in 2005. One reader (me) guesses that the reason that the Japanese authorities imprisoned him was on the orders of the Bush administration who wanted to punish him and make him suffer.
The Icelandic Parliament passed a special act awarding Bobby an Icelandic passport which enabled him to travel and live there for his last years. Reading once again between the lines, one can guess that the U.S. and Japan backed off when Iceland went public with its initiative to provide a home for Bobby.
One of Bobby’s traits was his lifelong suspicion and detestation of anyone making a buck off his name and his fame. Even when discussions took place about a documentary about Bobby focusing on his last years in Iceland, Bobby for a time turned against his friend, Saemi Palsson, because the latter was to get fifteen per cent while Bobby got forty.
This reminded me of an incident that I had heard about decades earlier which supposedly took place around the time Bobby became U.S. Chess Champion at the age of 14. The way I recall the story is that a promotional event was arranged for Bobby in the Catskills where he was to be paid for an appearance there. After the event, the unscrupulous promoter left the young and friendless Bobby with nothing, not even the fare to return home. I wouldn’t be surprised if it was incidents like this which helped to form Bobby’s paranoia.
In an accompanying article by Jan Timman, formerly one of the world’s top 10 grandmasters, which details some of Bobby’s deep analysis of positions from grandmaster games, the author recalls a conversation that Bobby had as a young man with one of his friends about an upcoming international tournament. “So what’s the big deal if you lose a game or two – that won’t be the end of the world,” the friend said to Bobby. Bobby’s response was to look at his friend strangely, as if his comment was outlandish. Such a response perhaps sheds some light on Bobby’s attitude regarding competitive chess after he won the world championship.
“A Lone King Has Wandered Off,”
New In Chess, 2008, No. 2.
A long memorial article on Bobby Fischer (1943-2008) was just published in New In Chess detailing the author’s trip to Iceland after Bobby died. The author interviewed as many people in Iceland as he could find who knew Fischer and he gained invaluable information from several people including Saemi Palsson, a special person who had the ability to calm all kinds of situations and issues. Saemi served as Bobby’s bodyguard for the 1972 match and for a short time afterwards when Bobby returned to the States, and once again befriended Bobby in 2005 when he came to spend his last years in Iceland.
According to the article, Bobby could’ve lived for another decade or two had he chosen to accept medical treatment in Iceland for his failed kidney. As it was he died prematurely – and apparently in great pain. He would only allow the doctors to arrange for blood tests, but would allow no further medical treatment, least of all a replacement kidney which could have been arranged; or more routine medical assistance which could have saved him. The author believes that Bobby’s ideology kept him from accepting any outside help including medical help.
The article details some of the extraordinary lengths made by particular Icelanders to arrange for the world championship match in 1972 and to get Bobby out of jail in Japan in 2005. One reader (me) guesses that the reason that the Japanese authorities imprisoned him was on the orders of the Bush administration who wanted to punish him and make him suffer.
The Icelandic Parliament passed a special act awarding Bobby an Icelandic passport which enabled him to travel and live there for his last years. Reading once again between the lines, one can guess that the U.S. and Japan backed off when Iceland went public with its initiative to provide a home for Bobby.
One of Bobby’s traits was his lifelong suspicion and detestation of anyone making a buck off his name and his fame. Even when discussions took place about a documentary about Bobby focusing on his last years in Iceland, Bobby for a time turned against his friend, Saemi Palsson, because the latter was to get fifteen per cent while Bobby got forty.
This reminded me of an incident that I had heard about decades earlier which supposedly took place around the time Bobby became U.S. Chess Champion at the age of 14. The way I recall the story is that a promotional event was arranged for Bobby in the Catskills where he was to be paid for an appearance there. After the event, the unscrupulous promoter left the young and friendless Bobby with nothing, not even the fare to return home. I wouldn’t be surprised if it was incidents like this which helped to form Bobby’s paranoia.
In an accompanying article by Jan Timman, formerly one of the world’s top 10 grandmasters, which details some of Bobby’s deep analysis of positions from grandmaster games, the author recalls a conversation that Bobby had as a young man with one of his friends about an upcoming international tournament. “So what’s the big deal if you lose a game or two – that won’t be the end of the world,” the friend said to Bobby. Bobby’s response was to look at his friend strangely, as if his comment was outlandish. Such a response perhaps sheds some light on Bobby’s attitude regarding competitive chess after he won the world championship.
Friday, March 28, 2008
Jeffrey St. Clair: Hillary's Berserker Ambition
Some (much?) of St Clair's piece is fevered well past where I would go (i.e., the stuff on Ford, Reagan, Carter, Obama) however, it's most useful for its collection of some of the sordid history of the Clintons. St Clair is the only one I've seen (doubtless there are others) who has hinted if not made the case that the Clintons purposefully worked to ensure a Republican congress in 1994, 1996 (2000?)so as to be able to resist pressure to enact a progressive agenda.
St Clair also leaves out Clinton's responsibility for WTC 93 and Oklahoma City both of which involved the FBI and perhaps (doubtless!) other government agencies.
St Clair mentions the bombing of Serbia. Has someone done more on Clinton & GW Bush (and GHW Bush?) and the KLA? If it were only GW Bush I could understand the connection to criminal enterprises. But why would three administrations ally themselves with the KLA, especially as GHW Bush had strong connections with the Serbs, their enemies? Nor do I understand why GHW Bush and Clinton allowed the wars in the former Yugoslavia. Many will recall that when Clinton needed to be reelected in 1996, he finally put a stop to the wars there very quickly.
St Clair also misses the point I've made elsewhere that Hillary's "mishandling" of the health care initiative was a deliberate and sophisticated operation intended to ensure that no universal single payer option would be allowed.
Ronald
March 24, 2008
Hillary's Berserker Campaign ... for 2012
Blonde Ambition
WWW.Counterpunch.org
http://counterpunch.org/stclair03242008.html
By JEFFREY ST. CLAIR
Hillary Clinton can not win the Democratic nomination for president. The numbers tell the story. Even with robust victories in Pennsylvania, Indiana, West Virginia and Kentucky, Hillary will trail Obama in popular votes and pledged delegates as they enter the convention hall in Denver.
Any other candidate would have been shamed into dropping out long ago. But these are the Clintons and they have no shame.
So why does Hillary persist? Because she hasn't abandoned her aspiration for the White House. Not in 2008, but for 2012. Here's the perverse logic at work.
If Obama defeats McCain in November, it will take an act of treachery beyond anything even the Clintons have ever conjured from their grimoire of political demonology for Hillary to challenge him in 2012. She will be 69 in 2016, almost ready to move into one of the Beverly Nursing Homes, owned by a company she once represented as a corporate lawyer, aggressively protecting the bottom line against such extravagances as healthy meals, clean sheets and proper medical care for the elderly.
Hillary Clinton is the prisoner of an unimpeachable mathematics. So she makes the most of a remorseless situation by doing what the Clintons do best: commit political fratricide. Quite literally, in this case, by knocking off a brother.
In order to realize her vaulting ambition, Hillary must mortally wound Obama as candidate in the fall race against John McCain so that she can run against McCain in 2012.
McCain is at best a one term president. The signs of this are as clear as the scar jagging down his face. McCain, whose resemblance to Lon Chaney becomes eerier by the day, is already an old man, older than Reagan when he was first elected. He is plagued by a cancer he refuses to speak about, a war he refuses to end and an economy that is collapsing beyond the point of recovery. Add to this prospectus, the fact that McCain is prone to the most self-destructive impulses of any American politician since Aaron Burr. His political fate will be sealed before he even swears his oath.
Thus Hillary's berserker strategy against Obama. (For more on "berserkerism" see the SF novels of Fred Saberhagen.)
Down in Mark Penn's dark computer lab, the data culled from pulse polls and focus groups probing the hidden prejudices in the psyche of white America are being packed like shrapnel into political landmines set for Obama: he's unpatriotic, he's un-Christian, he's a Palestinian symp and, yes, he's black. That's three strikes and one head shot.
Exploitation of racial panic is second nature to the power couple Ishmael Reed calls Ma and Pa Clinton. Bill Clinton launched his 1992 campaign by personally overseeing the execution of Ricky Ray Rector, a brain-damaged young black man. He wagged his finger at the rapper Sister Souljah, denouncing her music and political opinions as a danger to young minds. The Clintons pilloried their one-time friend Lani Guinier, for her legal writings on the status of blacks and women and booted Dr. Jocelyn Elders from her position as Surgeon General for her refreshingly candid statements about the utility of condoms and masturbation for sexually active youths.
And that's how they treated people they knew. At a structural level, the Clintons' economic and social agenda, incubated at the conservative Democratic Leadership Council, struck directly at poorest precincts of America, targeting blacks and Hispanics with a fervor not seen since Pat Buchanan and Kevin Phillips crafted the infamous Southern Strategy for Richard Nixon. Hence, the dismantling of welfare, harsh federal crime bills, the refusal to intervene against racial profiling or redress the grievous injustices caused by the racially-motivated sentences handed out for crack cocaine.
The fallout from Ms. Clinton's racially-tinged blitz against Obama will spread far and wide across her party like the toxic particles from a nuclear blast. They've done it all before. The Clintons' reckless first two years in the White House, from the heavy-handed Travel Office fiasco to the fires of Waco and HRC's sophomoric bungling of the health care reform, spurred the GOP takeover of congress in 1994, which they used to their political profit. Then in 1996, Clinton refused to allocate DNC money to tight senate and congressional races, a miserly tactic that allowed the faltering Republicans to retain control of both houses of Congress. It was a cynical decision that many high-ranking Democrats believe constituted a deliberate sabotage of the party's prospects, designed to secure a monopoly-like control of the party apparatus for the Clintons, turning the DNC into their own private PAC.
Read more:
http://counterpunch.org/stclair03242008.html
Jeffrey St. Clair is the author of Been Brown So Long It Looked Like Green to Me: the Politics of Nature and Grand Theft Pentagon. His newest book, Born Under a Bad Sky, will be published this spring. He can be reached at: sitka@comcast.net
Wednesday, March 12, 2008
Eric Alterman: Why (Many?) Jews fear Obama
In the last paragraph of his very good Nation column on why some Jews fear an Obama presidency, Eric Alterman nails it: he cites Obama's brave honesty in front of a Jewish audience in Cleveland. Such a glimpse into the man suggests why we should vote for him and why so many will oppose him.
***
In the last paragraph of his column entitled: (Some) Jews Against Obama, Eric Alterman writes:
What is it that these neocons and their media mouthpieces really fear about an Obama presidency? Perhaps it is honesty about the issue. Speaking to a largely Jewish audience in Cleveland, Obama explained, "There is a strain within the pro-Israel community that says unless you adopt an unwavering pro-Likud approach to Israel, you're anti-Israel and that can't be the measure of our friendship with Israel." Then came his kicker: "One of the things that struck me when I went to Israel was how much more open the debate was around these issues in Israel than they are sometimes here in the United States." No wonder he scares them so...
Read the entire column:
http://bleiersdoc.blogspot.com/2008/03/eric-alterman-why-mainline-jews-fear.html
***
In the last paragraph of his column entitled: (Some) Jews Against Obama, Eric Alterman writes:
What is it that these neocons and their media mouthpieces really fear about an Obama presidency? Perhaps it is honesty about the issue. Speaking to a largely Jewish audience in Cleveland, Obama explained, "There is a strain within the pro-Israel community that says unless you adopt an unwavering pro-Likud approach to Israel, you're anti-Israel and that can't be the measure of our friendship with Israel." Then came his kicker: "One of the things that struck me when I went to Israel was how much more open the debate was around these issues in Israel than they are sometimes here in the United States." No wonder he scares them so...
Read the entire column:
http://bleiersdoc.blogspot.com/2008/03/eric-alterman-why-mainline-jews-fear.html
Saturday, March 08, 2008
Alexander Cockburn: Hillary and Bill: Destroying the Safety Net
Hillary Rodham Clinton brags about bringing the right wing extremist, Dick Morris, into the Clinton administration. Even after Morris was exposed as allowing a prostitute, Sherry Rowlands, to listen in on conversations with the President, Morris still remained an important confidante of the White House and continued to shape White House policy until the very end of Clinton's term. (I have this on the authority of a member of Clinton's policy making team. "We'd be working for hours or days or more on a domestic policy issue. We'd send the memo to the White House and all it took was one phone call from Dick Morris and the policy was trashed."
When Clinton was elected, one of his problems was to block the reforms that he promised as a candidate but that he and Hillary -- who started out as a Goldwater girl -- opposed. So he did nothing about stopping the war in Bosnia -- perhaps his greatest crime. He totally folded on gays in the military when he could have made history and struck a blow for justice.
As a result he was soon a laughing stock on right wing radio and effectively gave Congress over to the Republicans. At that point he was comfortable since he now had an excuse not to push progressive legislation.
But before that, while he still had a Democratic majority in Congress, he had to deal with health care. What to do? The big threat was universal single payer health care which was enormously popular. But he was opposed to that because he is essentially a right winger and because the health care lobby was a big contributor. So he handed it off to Hillary who had the same problem but didn't mind facing down the opprobrium as long as nothing positive was done on the issue. What do you think she'll do when she becomes president?
In Alex Cockburn's March 3, 2008 Nation column he reminds us that it was Monica Lewinksy who saved us from the Clintons' plan to privatize Social Security. Here's the relevant excerpt.
This [handing over the Social Security trust fund to Wall Street] was never a job for Republicans, any more than was welfare "reform." Eradication of the social safety net is a job for the Democratic Party, and by late 1998 Bill Clinton, Robert Rubin and a secret team were far advanced in the attempt. As Robin Blackburn described it on the CounterPunch website in 2004, "It was a desperately close run thing. On the account of members of Clinton's secret White House team, mandated to map out the privatization path for Social Security, they had got as far down the road as fine-tuning the account numbers for Social Security accounts [to be] released to the captious mercies of Wall Street." Then came the Lewinsky scandal. Clinton needed the liberal Democrats in Congress to stave off successful impeachment.
Read the whole article:
http://www.thenation.com/docprem.mhtml?i=20080303&s=cockburn
Note that copyright issues may apply.
When Clinton was elected, one of his problems was to block the reforms that he promised as a candidate but that he and Hillary -- who started out as a Goldwater girl -- opposed. So he did nothing about stopping the war in Bosnia -- perhaps his greatest crime. He totally folded on gays in the military when he could have made history and struck a blow for justice.
As a result he was soon a laughing stock on right wing radio and effectively gave Congress over to the Republicans. At that point he was comfortable since he now had an excuse not to push progressive legislation.
But before that, while he still had a Democratic majority in Congress, he had to deal with health care. What to do? The big threat was universal single payer health care which was enormously popular. But he was opposed to that because he is essentially a right winger and because the health care lobby was a big contributor. So he handed it off to Hillary who had the same problem but didn't mind facing down the opprobrium as long as nothing positive was done on the issue. What do you think she'll do when she becomes president?
In Alex Cockburn's March 3, 2008 Nation column he reminds us that it was Monica Lewinksy who saved us from the Clintons' plan to privatize Social Security. Here's the relevant excerpt.
This [handing over the Social Security trust fund to Wall Street] was never a job for Republicans, any more than was welfare "reform." Eradication of the social safety net is a job for the Democratic Party, and by late 1998 Bill Clinton, Robert Rubin and a secret team were far advanced in the attempt. As Robin Blackburn described it on the CounterPunch website in 2004, "It was a desperately close run thing. On the account of members of Clinton's secret White House team, mandated to map out the privatization path for Social Security, they had got as far down the road as fine-tuning the account numbers for Social Security accounts [to be] released to the captious mercies of Wall Street." Then came the Lewinsky scandal. Clinton needed the liberal Democrats in Congress to stave off successful impeachment.
Read the whole article:
http://www.thenation.com/docprem.mhtml?i=20080303&s=cockburn
Note that copyright issues may apply.
Tuesday, March 04, 2008
Evidence from Vanity Fair: Bush-Cheney-Abrams Plotted Hamas Victory and Palestinian Civil War
The Electronic Intifada summary below of Vanity Fair's article on "The Gaza Bombshell," by David Rose (April 2008) is excellent and includes valuable links. In addition, the quotes from the Vanity Fair article immediately below my comments are noteworthy in revealing at least one thing I, for one, didn't know, i.e., Condi Rice is as hard line as Elliott Abrams. I had previously thought that she was reluctantly going along with the most vicious of the Bush-Cheney plans to destroy the Palestinian people (as part of their permanent war agenda) in part because she realized that she couldn't stop them.
Another item that one can deduce from the Electronic Intifada summary is the US hand in assassinating Arafat. Previously I had thought that it was an entirely Israeli operation, which confused me because I knew that the Israelis well understood his value as the great boogeyman they could always hold up to justify their outrages. Bush ordering Arafat’s death is much more understandable.
Reading the entire 14 page Vanity Fair article is not exactly a waste of time, but it's filled with typical Zionist omission, misdirection and misinformation. However it has at least one (or two?) redeeming elements. Between the lines one can deduce that the Hamas victory over Fatah in the January 2006 Palestinian Parliamentary elections was the INTENTION of Bush-Cheney-Elliott Abrams. Abbas and Fatah had for months been complaining to the U.S. that they "weren’t ready” for elections. Thus, despite US protestations quoted by Vanity Fair, it was as clear to the U.S. as it was to Fatah that Hamas would win. Vanity Fair quotes a Fatah commander, Khalid Jaberi (who happens to be opposed to Fatah leader Dahlan):
“You know,” he says, “since the takeover, we’ve been trying to enter the brains of Bush and Rice, to figure out their mentality. We can only conclude that having Hamas in control serves their overall strategy, because their policy was so crazy otherwise.”
The part that Vanity Fair doesn’t bother to explain is that a Hamas victory would enable the U.S. strategy of further squeezing the Palestinians since they would have a Zionist supported excuse to refuse to deal with Hamas.
Another tidbit from the Vanity Fair article confirms what we understood: Washington’s active involvement to ensure that attempts by Hamas and Abbas to form a unity government would fail.
Ronald
***
Excerpt from Vanity Fair article: The Gaza Bombshell, by David Rose, April 2008.
Vanity Fair has obtained confidential documents, since corroborated by sources in the U.S. and Palestine, which lay bare a covert initiative, approved by Bush and implemented by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Deputy National Security Adviser Elliott Abrams, to provoke a Palestinian civil war. The plan was for forces led by Dahlan, and armed with new weapons supplied at America's behest, to give Fatah the muscle it needed to remove the democratically elected Hamas-led government from power. (The State Department declined to comment."
"We were sitting in Abbas's office in Ramallah, and I explained the whole thing to Condi. And she said, 'Yes, we have to make an effort to do this. There's no other way."
"Walles and Abbas both knew what to expect from Hamas if these instructions were followed: rebellion and bloodshed. For that reason, the memo states, the U.S. was already working to strengthen Fatah's security forces. "If you act along these lines, we will support you both materially and politically," the script said. "We will be there to support you." Abbas was also encouraged to "strengthen [his] team" to include "credible figures of strong standing in the international community." Among those the U.S. wanted brought in, says an official who knew of the policy, was Muhammad Dahlan.""Abbas, one official says, agreed to take action within two weeks. It happened to be Ramadan, the month when Muslims fast during daylight hours. With dusk approaching, Abbas asked Rice to join him for iftar—a snack to break the fast. Afterward, according to the official, Rice underlined her position: "So we're agreed? You'll dissolve the government within two weeks?" "Maybe not two weeks. Give me a month. Let's wait until after the Eid," he said, referring to the three-day celebration that marks the end of Ramadan. (Abbas's spokesman said via e-mail: "According to our records, this is incorrect.") Rice got into her armored S.U.V., where, the official claims, she told an American colleague, "That damned iftar has cost us another two weeks of Hamas government."
Read more:
"The Gaza Bombshell," Vanity Fair, April 2008 (http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2008/04/
gaza200804)
_______________________________
UPDATE FROM THE
ELECTRONIC INTIFADA
http://electronicIntifada.net
_______________________________
__
REVEALED: THE US PLAN TO START A PALESTINIAN CIVIL WAR
Report, The Electronic Intifada, 4 March 2008
http://electronicintifada.net/v2/article9366.shtml
United States officials including President George W. Bush
and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice participated in a
conspiracy to arm and train Contra-style Palestinian
militias nominally loyal to the Fatah party to overthrow
the democratically-elected Hamas government in the
Occupied Palestinian Territories, an investigative article
in the April 2008 issue of Vanity Fair has revealed. [1]
The allegations of such a conspiracy, long reported by The
Electronic Intifada, are corroborated in Vanity Fair with
confidential US government documents, interviews with
former US officials, Israeli officials and with Muhammad
Dahlan, the Gaza strongman personally chosen by Bush.
The article, by David Rose, recounts gruesome torture
documented on videotape of Hamas members by the US-armed
and funded militias under Dahlan's control. Hamas had
repeatedly alleged such torture as part of its
justification for its move to overthrow the Dahlan
militias and take full control of the interior of the Gaza
Strip in June 2007.
Vanity Fair reported that it has "obtained confidential
documents, since corroborated by sources in the US and
Palestine, which lay bare a covert initiative, approved by
Bush and implemented by Secretary of State Condoleezza
Rice and Deputy National Security Adviser Elliott Abrams
to provoke a Palestinian civil war." The magazine adds
that the plan "was for forces led by Dahlan, and armed
with new weapons supplied at America's behest, to give
Fatah the muscle it needed to remove the
democratically-elected Hamas-led government from power."
Abrams was one of the key Reagan administration figures
involved in the Iran-Contra scandal in the 1980s, whereby
the US illegally armed militias in Nicaragua to overthrow
the ruling Sandinista government. Abrams was convicted and
later pardoned for lying to Congress.
While it has been known that the US engaged in covert
activity to subvert Palestinian democracy and provoke
Palestinians to shed each other's blood, the extent of the
personal involvement of top US officials in attempting to
dictate the course of events in Palestine -- while
publicly preaching democracy -- has only now been brought
to light.
Muhammad Dahlan's 13 July 2003 letter to then Israeli
defense minister Shaul Mofaz.
Bush met and personally anointed Dahlan as "our guy" in
2003. In July 2007, The Electronic Intifada reported on a
leaked letter written by Dahlan and sent to the Israeli
defense minister in which he confirmed his role in a
conspiracy to overthrow then Palestinian Authority
President Yasser Arafat for whose replacement Bush had
publicly called. Dahlan wrote: "Be certain that Yasser
Arafat's final days are numbered, but allow us to finish
him off our way, not yours. And be sure as well that ...
the promises I made in front of President Bush, I will
give my life to keep."
(http://electronicintifada.net/v2/article7116.shtml)
The US planning to overthrow the government elected by
Palestinians under occupation began immediately after the
Hamas movement won a clear victory in the January 2006
election for the Palestinian Legislative Council. Hamas,
however, proved "surprising resilient."
At a meeting at Abbas' Ramallah headquarters in October
2006, Rice personally ordered Abbas to dissolve the
government headed by Hamas' Ismail Haniyeh "within two
weeks" and replace it with an unelected "emergency
government."
When Abbas failed to act promptly on Rice's order, the US
stepped up its efforts to arm Dahlan in preparation for
the attempted coup. Hamas foiled the coup plot by moving
preemptively against Dahlan's gangs, many of whom refused
to fight despite being furnished with tens of millions of
dollars in weapons and training. The US-conceived
"emergency government" headed by a former World Bank
official, Salam Fayyad, was eventually appointed by Abbas,
but its authority is limited to parts of the
Israeli-occupied West Bank.
While the United States and Israel were the driving forces
behind the civil war and coup plot, others had a hand
including several Arab states and their intelligence
services. "The scheme," Rose writes, "bore some
resemblance to the Iran-contra scandal" in that "some of
the money for the [Nicaraguan] contras, like that for
Fatah, was furnished by Arab allies as a result of US
lobbying."
Endnotes [1] "The Gaza Bombshell," Vanity Fair, April
2008, (http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2008/04/
gaza200804)
Related Links:
Politics of fear, Osamah Khalil (8 October 2007)
http://electronicintifada.net/v2/article9028.shtml
Overcoming the conspiracy against Palestine, Ali Abunimah (18 July 2007)
http://electronicintifada.net/v2/article7116.shtml
Subverting democracy, Joseph Massad (4 July 2007)
http://electronicintifada.net/v2/article7083.shtml
A setback for the Bush doctrine in Gaza, Ali Abunimah, (14 June 2007)
http://electronicintifada.net/v2/article7030.shtml
Palestinian Pinochet Making His Move?, Tony Karon, (21 May 2007)
http://electronicintifada.net/v2/article6925.shtml
The American proxy war in Gaza, Ali Abunimah (3 February 2007)
http://electronicintifada.net/v2/article6494.shtml
Who is Mohammad Dahlan?, Arjan El Fassed (20 December 2006)
http://electronicintifada.net/v2/article6275.shtml
Pinochet in Palestine, Joseph Massad (11 November 2006)
http://electronicintifada.net/v2/article6018.shtml
--
ABOUT US: The Electronic Intifada (EI), found at http://electronicIntifada.net, publishes news, commentary,
Another item that one can deduce from the Electronic Intifada summary is the US hand in assassinating Arafat. Previously I had thought that it was an entirely Israeli operation, which confused me because I knew that the Israelis well understood his value as the great boogeyman they could always hold up to justify their outrages. Bush ordering Arafat’s death is much more understandable.
Reading the entire 14 page Vanity Fair article is not exactly a waste of time, but it's filled with typical Zionist omission, misdirection and misinformation. However it has at least one (or two?) redeeming elements. Between the lines one can deduce that the Hamas victory over Fatah in the January 2006 Palestinian Parliamentary elections was the INTENTION of Bush-Cheney-Elliott Abrams. Abbas and Fatah had for months been complaining to the U.S. that they "weren’t ready” for elections. Thus, despite US protestations quoted by Vanity Fair, it was as clear to the U.S. as it was to Fatah that Hamas would win. Vanity Fair quotes a Fatah commander, Khalid Jaberi (who happens to be opposed to Fatah leader Dahlan):
“You know,” he says, “since the takeover, we’ve been trying to enter the brains of Bush and Rice, to figure out their mentality. We can only conclude that having Hamas in control serves their overall strategy, because their policy was so crazy otherwise.”
The part that Vanity Fair doesn’t bother to explain is that a Hamas victory would enable the U.S. strategy of further squeezing the Palestinians since they would have a Zionist supported excuse to refuse to deal with Hamas.
Another tidbit from the Vanity Fair article confirms what we understood: Washington’s active involvement to ensure that attempts by Hamas and Abbas to form a unity government would fail.
Ronald
***
Excerpt from Vanity Fair article: The Gaza Bombshell, by David Rose, April 2008.
Vanity Fair has obtained confidential documents, since corroborated by sources in the U.S. and Palestine, which lay bare a covert initiative, approved by Bush and implemented by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Deputy National Security Adviser Elliott Abrams, to provoke a Palestinian civil war. The plan was for forces led by Dahlan, and armed with new weapons supplied at America's behest, to give Fatah the muscle it needed to remove the democratically elected Hamas-led government from power. (The State Department declined to comment."
"We were sitting in Abbas's office in Ramallah, and I explained the whole thing to Condi. And she said, 'Yes, we have to make an effort to do this. There's no other way."
"Walles and Abbas both knew what to expect from Hamas if these instructions were followed: rebellion and bloodshed. For that reason, the memo states, the U.S. was already working to strengthen Fatah's security forces. "If you act along these lines, we will support you both materially and politically," the script said. "We will be there to support you." Abbas was also encouraged to "strengthen [his] team" to include "credible figures of strong standing in the international community." Among those the U.S. wanted brought in, says an official who knew of the policy, was Muhammad Dahlan.""Abbas, one official says, agreed to take action within two weeks. It happened to be Ramadan, the month when Muslims fast during daylight hours. With dusk approaching, Abbas asked Rice to join him for iftar—a snack to break the fast. Afterward, according to the official, Rice underlined her position: "So we're agreed? You'll dissolve the government within two weeks?" "Maybe not two weeks. Give me a month. Let's wait until after the Eid," he said, referring to the three-day celebration that marks the end of Ramadan. (Abbas's spokesman said via e-mail: "According to our records, this is incorrect.") Rice got into her armored S.U.V., where, the official claims, she told an American colleague, "That damned iftar has cost us another two weeks of Hamas government."
Read more:
"The Gaza Bombshell," Vanity Fair, April 2008 (http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2008/04/
gaza200804)
_______________________________
UPDATE FROM THE
ELECTRONIC INTIFADA
http://electronicIntifada.net
_______________________________
__
REVEALED: THE US PLAN TO START A PALESTINIAN CIVIL WAR
Report, The Electronic Intifada, 4 March 2008
http://electronicintifada.net/v2/article9366.shtml
United States officials including President George W. Bush
and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice participated in a
conspiracy to arm and train Contra-style Palestinian
militias nominally loyal to the Fatah party to overthrow
the democratically-elected Hamas government in the
Occupied Palestinian Territories, an investigative article
in the April 2008 issue of Vanity Fair has revealed. [1]
The allegations of such a conspiracy, long reported by The
Electronic Intifada, are corroborated in Vanity Fair with
confidential US government documents, interviews with
former US officials, Israeli officials and with Muhammad
Dahlan, the Gaza strongman personally chosen by Bush.
The article, by David Rose, recounts gruesome torture
documented on videotape of Hamas members by the US-armed
and funded militias under Dahlan's control. Hamas had
repeatedly alleged such torture as part of its
justification for its move to overthrow the Dahlan
militias and take full control of the interior of the Gaza
Strip in June 2007.
Vanity Fair reported that it has "obtained confidential
documents, since corroborated by sources in the US and
Palestine, which lay bare a covert initiative, approved by
Bush and implemented by Secretary of State Condoleezza
Rice and Deputy National Security Adviser Elliott Abrams
to provoke a Palestinian civil war." The magazine adds
that the plan "was for forces led by Dahlan, and armed
with new weapons supplied at America's behest, to give
Fatah the muscle it needed to remove the
democratically-elected Hamas-led government from power."
Abrams was one of the key Reagan administration figures
involved in the Iran-Contra scandal in the 1980s, whereby
the US illegally armed militias in Nicaragua to overthrow
the ruling Sandinista government. Abrams was convicted and
later pardoned for lying to Congress.
While it has been known that the US engaged in covert
activity to subvert Palestinian democracy and provoke
Palestinians to shed each other's blood, the extent of the
personal involvement of top US officials in attempting to
dictate the course of events in Palestine -- while
publicly preaching democracy -- has only now been brought
to light.
Muhammad Dahlan's 13 July 2003 letter to then Israeli
defense minister Shaul Mofaz.
Bush met and personally anointed Dahlan as "our guy" in
2003. In July 2007, The Electronic Intifada reported on a
leaked letter written by Dahlan and sent to the Israeli
defense minister in which he confirmed his role in a
conspiracy to overthrow then Palestinian Authority
President Yasser Arafat for whose replacement Bush had
publicly called. Dahlan wrote: "Be certain that Yasser
Arafat's final days are numbered, but allow us to finish
him off our way, not yours. And be sure as well that ...
the promises I made in front of President Bush, I will
give my life to keep."
(http://electronicintifada.net/v2/article7116.shtml)
The US planning to overthrow the government elected by
Palestinians under occupation began immediately after the
Hamas movement won a clear victory in the January 2006
election for the Palestinian Legislative Council. Hamas,
however, proved "surprising resilient."
At a meeting at Abbas' Ramallah headquarters in October
2006, Rice personally ordered Abbas to dissolve the
government headed by Hamas' Ismail Haniyeh "within two
weeks" and replace it with an unelected "emergency
government."
When Abbas failed to act promptly on Rice's order, the US
stepped up its efforts to arm Dahlan in preparation for
the attempted coup. Hamas foiled the coup plot by moving
preemptively against Dahlan's gangs, many of whom refused
to fight despite being furnished with tens of millions of
dollars in weapons and training. The US-conceived
"emergency government" headed by a former World Bank
official, Salam Fayyad, was eventually appointed by Abbas,
but its authority is limited to parts of the
Israeli-occupied West Bank.
While the United States and Israel were the driving forces
behind the civil war and coup plot, others had a hand
including several Arab states and their intelligence
services. "The scheme," Rose writes, "bore some
resemblance to the Iran-contra scandal" in that "some of
the money for the [Nicaraguan] contras, like that for
Fatah, was furnished by Arab allies as a result of US
lobbying."
Endnotes [1] "The Gaza Bombshell," Vanity Fair, April
2008, (http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2008/04/
gaza200804)
Related Links:
Politics of fear, Osamah Khalil (8 October 2007)
http://electronicintifada.net/v2/article9028.shtml
Overcoming the conspiracy against Palestine, Ali Abunimah (18 July 2007)
http://electronicintifada.net/v2/article7116.shtml
Subverting democracy, Joseph Massad (4 July 2007)
http://electronicintifada.net/v2/article7083.shtml
A setback for the Bush doctrine in Gaza, Ali Abunimah, (14 June 2007)
http://electronicintifada.net/v2/article7030.shtml
Palestinian Pinochet Making His Move?, Tony Karon, (21 May 2007)
http://electronicintifada.net/v2/article6925.shtml
The American proxy war in Gaza, Ali Abunimah (3 February 2007)
http://electronicintifada.net/v2/article6494.shtml
Who is Mohammad Dahlan?, Arjan El Fassed (20 December 2006)
http://electronicintifada.net/v2/article6275.shtml
Pinochet in Palestine, Joseph Massad (11 November 2006)
http://electronicintifada.net/v2/article6018.shtml
--
ABOUT US: The Electronic Intifada (EI), found at http://electronicIntifada.net, publishes news, commentary,
Sunday, March 02, 2008
Ronald Bleier: Book Review: Annie Machon' s Spies Lies and Whistleblowers: MI5 & MI6, Agents of Terror
Here are the first three paragraphs of a review by Ronald Bleier of Annie Machon's 2005 book, Spies, Lies and Whistleblowers: MI5, MI6 And the Shayler Affair . To read the entire review (3800 words)go to: http://desip.igc.org/machon.html
Some of the main themes of corruption, illegality and sponsorship of terror in the British security services and in the broader culture are encapsulated by two quotes from the book.
We joined the services to stop terrorism, not become involved in it.”
“It appears that we have given up on the notion of due process, fair trials and democratic rights in Britain.”
-- Annie Machon
It’s the (Intelligence and Security) Services, Stupid: A review of Annie Machon’s Spies, Lies and Whistleblowers: MI5, MI6 And the Shayler Affair
By Ronald Bleier
February 2008
In August 1997 two ex- MI5 officers, David Shayler and his companion Annie Machon, fled to France in connection with their plan to expose corruption and mismanagement in MI5 and MI6, Britain’s domestic and foreign intelligence services. Both highly rated agents, they had spent years unsuccessfully attempting to redress issues of corruption and mismanagement. Spies, Lies tells their story in remarkable and eye opening detail as they blow the whistle on outmoded procedures, low officer morale and drunkenness, and on misguided and illegal operations. Their book traces the steps by which they came to the alarming conclusion that the intelligence and security services have devolved into the enablers and initiators of terror.
At the heart of the book is the exposure of a sensational case of MI6 collusion with an Islamic extremist group that tried to assassinate Colonel Gaddafi. The public didn’t learn of the plot until the New York Times (NYT) published an account on August 5, 1998 under the interrogative title: “Did the British government try to assassinate Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi the Libyan leader, in February 1996 by planting a bomb under his motorcade?” The Times noted that MI6 paid $160,000 to the group. (pp. 247- 250) The NYT story was soon confirmed on BBC’s Panorama TV program and a few months later, in November 1998, the government of Libya showed TV footage of the attack.
Machon explains that she and Shayler decided to voluntarily leave the service about a year before they fled England. They coordinated their flight with the publication of an article by Shayler in the Mail on Sunday, the sister publication of Britain’s popular newspaper, The Daily Mail. They fled in order to give the newly elected Labour government led by Tony Blair time to investigate their evidence. They were optimistic about getting a fair hearing since Blair had just won an election by a landslide on a reform platform that included human rights and an ethical foreign policy. (p. 192)
Read more:
http://desip.igc.org/machon.html
Some of the main themes of corruption, illegality and sponsorship of terror in the British security services and in the broader culture are encapsulated by two quotes from the book.
We joined the services to stop terrorism, not become involved in it.”
“It appears that we have given up on the notion of due process, fair trials and democratic rights in Britain.”
-- Annie Machon
It’s the (Intelligence and Security) Services, Stupid: A review of Annie Machon’s Spies, Lies and Whistleblowers: MI5, MI6 And the Shayler Affair
By Ronald Bleier
February 2008
In August 1997 two ex- MI5 officers, David Shayler and his companion Annie Machon, fled to France in connection with their plan to expose corruption and mismanagement in MI5 and MI6, Britain’s domestic and foreign intelligence services. Both highly rated agents, they had spent years unsuccessfully attempting to redress issues of corruption and mismanagement. Spies, Lies tells their story in remarkable and eye opening detail as they blow the whistle on outmoded procedures, low officer morale and drunkenness, and on misguided and illegal operations. Their book traces the steps by which they came to the alarming conclusion that the intelligence and security services have devolved into the enablers and initiators of terror.
At the heart of the book is the exposure of a sensational case of MI6 collusion with an Islamic extremist group that tried to assassinate Colonel Gaddafi. The public didn’t learn of the plot until the New York Times (NYT) published an account on August 5, 1998 under the interrogative title: “Did the British government try to assassinate Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi the Libyan leader, in February 1996 by planting a bomb under his motorcade?” The Times noted that MI6 paid $160,000 to the group. (pp. 247- 250) The NYT story was soon confirmed on BBC’s Panorama TV program and a few months later, in November 1998, the government of Libya showed TV footage of the attack.
Machon explains that she and Shayler decided to voluntarily leave the service about a year before they fled England. They coordinated their flight with the publication of an article by Shayler in the Mail on Sunday, the sister publication of Britain’s popular newspaper, The Daily Mail. They fled in order to give the newly elected Labour government led by Tony Blair time to investigate their evidence. They were optimistic about getting a fair hearing since Blair had just won an election by a landslide on a reform platform that included human rights and an ethical foreign policy. (p. 192)
Read more:
http://desip.igc.org/machon.html
Tuesday, February 26, 2008
Aidan Monaghan: Missing 911 Black Box Numbers
The article below points to another bit of evidence (or the lack of it) suggesting that no large passenger planes (or any planes at all) crashed anywhere in the US on 9/11/01, certainly not in NYC, the Pentagon or Shankesville, PA. One can add this to the growing body of the lack of evidence that any planes were employed by that day's terrorists (none of whom were Muslim).
For example: not one bit of independently verified wreckage has been produced; none of the alleged hijackers' names were on the passenger lists; the physics of planes crashing through buildings, leaving an outline of their shape and then disappearing without a trace is simply impossible, and much more.
The two best articles I'm aware of on the subject are Gerard Holmgren,'s "Manufactured Terrorism – The Truth About Sept 11," (2004, revised 2006). www.911closeup.com/index.shtml?ID=51; (suitable for 9/11-101 --see below) and Morgan Reynolds, "We Have Some Holes in the Plane Stories," (March 2006). http://nomoregames.net/index.php?page=911&subpage1=we_have_holes (also come to think of it, suitable for 9/11-101)
My own essay summarizing their findings can be found at: http://desip.igc.org/NoPlanesOn911.html#note2
Warning/Disclaimer: If the evidence suggesting controlled demolition of the WTC towers and the lack of evidence of a large passenger plane crashing at the Pentagon and in PA can be said to be 9/11 -101, the No Planes Theory is post graduate level research due to the effectiveness of the fake videos of the plane crashing into the second tower at the WTC.
It's difficult to get past the bemused incredulity of most people, even so called 911 Truth people, on the subject. Nor is it clear that the truth will ever come out, vide JFK, RFK, MLK and so on. Many of us know the truth, or perhaps more accurately, No Planers like myself have looked closely at the evidence and are perfectly comfortable with our truth, but since there is virtually no prospect of accountability, we all remain effectively imprisoned deep inside of the official story, despite the widespread awareness of the power of computer generated imagery (CGI) and the long and deep history by now of the ruthless viciousness of the Bush-Cheney regime.
Ronald
***
9/11 Aircraft 'Black Box' Serial Numbers Mysteriously Absent
http://911blogger.com/node/14081
by Aidan Monaghan
Of all major U.S. airline crashes within the U.S. investigated and published by the National Transportation Safety Board during the past 20 years, the 9/11 'black boxes' are virtually the only ones without listed serial numbers.
NTSB American Airlines flight 77 flight data recorder report, not noting a device serial number:
http://www.911myths.com/AAL77_fdr.pdf
NTSB United Airlines flight 93 flight data recorder report, not noting a device serial number:
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB196/doc04.pdf
The United States government alleges that 4 registered Boeing commercial passenger aircraft were used in the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, yet has failed to produce any physical evidence collected from the 3 9/11 crash scenes positively tied to these federally registered United and American airlines aircraft. Despite the release of abundant information regarding the 9/11 flights and the aircraft reportedly used, specific information that would confirm official allegations regarding the identity of these aircraft has been mysteriously withheld or denied upon request.
The federally registered aircraft reportedly used during the 9/11 attacks:
- American Airlines flight 11 (N334AA), United Airlines flight 175 (N612UA), American Airlines flight 77 (N644AA) and United Airlines flight 93 (N591UA).
With flight data recorder serial number data that is virtually always provided within NTSB reports of major U.S. commercial airline crashes that occur within U.S. territory, one can trace an installed device to a particular registered aircraft through manufacturer or Federal Aviation Administration records.
The following e-mail was provided by a Susan Stevenson of the NTSB on 12/26/2007, in response to a 12/16/2007 public correspondence e-mail inquiry:
"Yes. NTSB investigators rarely encounter a scenario when the identification of an accident aircraft is not apparent. But during those occasions, investigators will record serial numbers of major components, and then contact the manufacturer of those components in an attempt to determine what aircraft the component was installed upon."
A 11/26/2007 Freedom of Information Act request of the Federal Aviation Administration for the last known serial numbers of the flight data recorders and other components contained by the aircraft said to have been used during the 9/11 attacks, was unlawfully denied.
Background:
http://www.911blogger.com/node/13149
A 1/3/2008 e-mail reply from a Loren Cochran, a FOIA specialist with the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, regarding the FAA FOIA denial reads as follows:
[Read more; http://911blogger.com/node/14081 ]
For example: not one bit of independently verified wreckage has been produced; none of the alleged hijackers' names were on the passenger lists; the physics of planes crashing through buildings, leaving an outline of their shape and then disappearing without a trace is simply impossible, and much more.
The two best articles I'm aware of on the subject are Gerard Holmgren,'s "Manufactured Terrorism – The Truth About Sept 11," (2004, revised 2006). www.911closeup.com/index.shtml?ID=51; (suitable for 9/11-101 --see below) and Morgan Reynolds, "We Have Some Holes in the Plane Stories," (March 2006). http://nomoregames.net/index.php?page=911&subpage1=we_have_holes (also come to think of it, suitable for 9/11-101)
My own essay summarizing their findings can be found at: http://desip.igc.org/NoPlanesOn911.html#note2
Warning/Disclaimer: If the evidence suggesting controlled demolition of the WTC towers and the lack of evidence of a large passenger plane crashing at the Pentagon and in PA can be said to be 9/11 -101, the No Planes Theory is post graduate level research due to the effectiveness of the fake videos of the plane crashing into the second tower at the WTC.
It's difficult to get past the bemused incredulity of most people, even so called 911 Truth people, on the subject. Nor is it clear that the truth will ever come out, vide JFK, RFK, MLK and so on. Many of us know the truth, or perhaps more accurately, No Planers like myself have looked closely at the evidence and are perfectly comfortable with our truth, but since there is virtually no prospect of accountability, we all remain effectively imprisoned deep inside of the official story, despite the widespread awareness of the power of computer generated imagery (CGI) and the long and deep history by now of the ruthless viciousness of the Bush-Cheney regime.
Ronald
***
9/11 Aircraft 'Black Box' Serial Numbers Mysteriously Absent
http://911blogger.com/node/14081
by Aidan Monaghan
Of all major U.S. airline crashes within the U.S. investigated and published by the National Transportation Safety Board during the past 20 years, the 9/11 'black boxes' are virtually the only ones without listed serial numbers.
NTSB American Airlines flight 77 flight data recorder report, not noting a device serial number:
http://www.911myths.com/AAL77_fdr.pdf
NTSB United Airlines flight 93 flight data recorder report, not noting a device serial number:
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB196/doc04.pdf
The United States government alleges that 4 registered Boeing commercial passenger aircraft were used in the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, yet has failed to produce any physical evidence collected from the 3 9/11 crash scenes positively tied to these federally registered United and American airlines aircraft. Despite the release of abundant information regarding the 9/11 flights and the aircraft reportedly used, specific information that would confirm official allegations regarding the identity of these aircraft has been mysteriously withheld or denied upon request.
The federally registered aircraft reportedly used during the 9/11 attacks:
- American Airlines flight 11 (N334AA), United Airlines flight 175 (N612UA), American Airlines flight 77 (N644AA) and United Airlines flight 93 (N591UA).
With flight data recorder serial number data that is virtually always provided within NTSB reports of major U.S. commercial airline crashes that occur within U.S. territory, one can trace an installed device to a particular registered aircraft through manufacturer or Federal Aviation Administration records.
The following e-mail was provided by a Susan Stevenson of the NTSB on 12/26/2007, in response to a 12/16/2007 public correspondence e-mail inquiry:
"Yes. NTSB investigators rarely encounter a scenario when the identification of an accident aircraft is not apparent. But during those occasions, investigators will record serial numbers of major components, and then contact the manufacturer of those components in an attempt to determine what aircraft the component was installed upon."
A 11/26/2007 Freedom of Information Act request of the Federal Aviation Administration for the last known serial numbers of the flight data recorders and other components contained by the aircraft said to have been used during the 9/11 attacks, was unlawfully denied.
Background:
http://www.911blogger.com/node/13149
A 1/3/2008 e-mail reply from a Loren Cochran, a FOIA specialist with the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, regarding the FAA FOIA denial reads as follows:
[Read more; http://911blogger.com/node/14081 ]
Friday, February 22, 2008
NYT Covers Alison Weir's Talk in Connecticut: Zionists Create Backlash
I was introduced to the work of the indefatigable Alison Weir through her superb 2005 article in The Link on the coverage and non coverage of Israel-Palestine.
http://www.ameu.org/summary1.asp?iid=262
So I was pleasantly surprised to see a relatively fair feature article in the New York Times reporting on her appearances in Greenwich, Connecticut last week.
Speech on the Mideast Brings Opinions to a Boil
By PETER APPLEBOME
February 17, 2008 Greenwich, Conn.
Read the article:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/17/nyregion/17towns.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=speech+on+the+Mideast+brings+Opinions+to+a+Boil&st=nyt&oref=slogin
As reporter Peter Applebome points out, her critics’ attempt to censor her talk created a backlash which resulted in a crowd 10x bigger than she might have expected.
At the end of his article, Applebome draws the appropriate lesson for his fellow Zionists: don’t draw unnecessary attention to your opponents.
Applebome was fair enough to record the reaction of the crowd when she finished:
When the speech ended, Ms. Weir was met with thunderous applause, and across the room there was a widespread sense of satisfaction that someone was saying what needed to be said.
“It’s true that our money is going there to kill little kids,” said one well-dressed woman, who spent the speech nodding in agreement and gave only her first name, Jean. “It’s the side we don’t hear, that doesn’t get on the news.”
Read more:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/17/nyregion/17towns.html?_r=1&sq=speech%20on%20the%20Mideast%20brings%20Opinions%20to%20a%20Boil&st=nyt&oref=slogin&scp=1&pagewanted=print
http://www.ameu.org/summary1.asp?iid=262
So I was pleasantly surprised to see a relatively fair feature article in the New York Times reporting on her appearances in Greenwich, Connecticut last week.
Speech on the Mideast Brings Opinions to a Boil
By PETER APPLEBOME
February 17, 2008 Greenwich, Conn.
Read the article:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/17/nyregion/17towns.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=speech+on+the+Mideast+brings+Opinions+to+a+Boil&st=nyt&oref=slogin
As reporter Peter Applebome points out, her critics’ attempt to censor her talk created a backlash which resulted in a crowd 10x bigger than she might have expected.
At the end of his article, Applebome draws the appropriate lesson for his fellow Zionists: don’t draw unnecessary attention to your opponents.
Applebome was fair enough to record the reaction of the crowd when she finished:
When the speech ended, Ms. Weir was met with thunderous applause, and across the room there was a widespread sense of satisfaction that someone was saying what needed to be said.
“It’s true that our money is going there to kill little kids,” said one well-dressed woman, who spent the speech nodding in agreement and gave only her first name, Jean. “It’s the side we don’t hear, that doesn’t get on the news.”
Read more:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/17/nyregion/17towns.html?_r=1&sq=speech%20on%20the%20Mideast%20brings%20Opinions%20to%20a%20Boil&st=nyt&oref=slogin&scp=1&pagewanted=print
Wednesday, February 13, 2008
Poem: After Reading Philip Larkin's "Aubade"
Death is like a birthday
It’s a big day
And should be celebrated – with lots of folks around and wine.
But as often as not – it’s just us
Alone – going nowhere
Gone.
And not coming back. That’s what makes it special.
It’s the shame of it
(As Larkin says)
It took so long to get to the point of NOT having to go out of a Saturday night.
Not having to run from boredom, from youth, from energy.
To find something exciting
Preferably a girl, but a movie’ll do,
Or worse, a TV show with cookies.
Now I’m of an age where I can comfortably sit and read the newspaper
Check my email,
Write my blog.
No problem.
So what’s the problem?
A life has been lived.
No, the problem isn’t dying.
We’re ready for it when it happens.
The problem is
What to do with this mountain of knowledge we’ve stacked up?
The wisdom, the experience -- all tossed into the circular file?
All the books we’ve read --
Opening doors we won’t get to open anymore,
The joy of learning
We’re too tired. The bones are ready for rest.
What good is that mountain we’ve built now we’re dead?
It’s like the gathering up the necessaries for a feast of thousands
Or all the artillery for a major battle.
And upon reaching the field it all turns to dust.
And the dinner guests – they have evaporated.
All that is left
The huge sand dunes of desert
All changing into disintegration
Atoms and molecules
Before your eyes.
It’s a big day
And should be celebrated – with lots of folks around and wine.
But as often as not – it’s just us
Alone – going nowhere
Gone.
And not coming back. That’s what makes it special.
It’s the shame of it
(As Larkin says)
It took so long to get to the point of NOT having to go out of a Saturday night.
Not having to run from boredom, from youth, from energy.
To find something exciting
Preferably a girl, but a movie’ll do,
Or worse, a TV show with cookies.
Now I’m of an age where I can comfortably sit and read the newspaper
Check my email,
Write my blog.
No problem.
So what’s the problem?
A life has been lived.
No, the problem isn’t dying.
We’re ready for it when it happens.
The problem is
What to do with this mountain of knowledge we’ve stacked up?
The wisdom, the experience -- all tossed into the circular file?
All the books we’ve read --
Opening doors we won’t get to open anymore,
The joy of learning
We’re too tired. The bones are ready for rest.
What good is that mountain we’ve built now we’re dead?
It’s like the gathering up the necessaries for a feast of thousands
Or all the artillery for a major battle.
And upon reaching the field it all turns to dust.
And the dinner guests – they have evaporated.
All that is left
The huge sand dunes of desert
All changing into disintegration
Atoms and molecules
Before your eyes.
Tuesday, February 12, 2008
Stephen Zunes: Obama's advisors less neocon than Hillary's
I was getting so depressed after reading a deal about how Obama is far from even a liberal, not to mention a progressive, that it was with some relief that I read Stephen Zunes's piece below. It would be nice to think that the details he offers reflect a bit of reality. Who knows?
Two items.
1. The Zionist issue. Zunes has long been outed as an apologist for Zionism and just as (or even more) important, he follows the Chomsky line that the Zionist lobby is unimportant when it comes to determining US Mideast Policy. (In a speech in January, Chomsky repeated the bogus revisionist line that Israel [and the Lobby] didn't really want us to invade Iraq. He claimed they went along with Bush's plans but really wanted an attack on Iran.) So naturally Obama's cave in to the Zionists is not going to trouble Zunes.
And here I follow some of my friends in the movement who argue that Obama simply has no choice on this issue if he wants to be taken seriously. I know this is heresy, but that's the way reality is in this year of our Lord.
(I haven't gotten around to documenting the slime campaign going around in some communal circles that Obama is a closet Muslim. [JJ Goldberg of the Forward: shame on you!! What's the point of having a "liberal" editor if he's going to go the same depths as the most vicious of the right wing bunch?] But I've noticed that there's been pushback in some places. If Obama gets the nomination what are the odds of a return of the same canard in more mainstream outlets?)
Item Two: Every single Democratic nominee after LBJ with the exception of Clinton has run the sort of presidential campaign that indicated that he wasn't eager to take up, shall we say, the challenges of the presidency. Will Obama be any different? It's impossible to tell in advance, but if he gets the nomination, we'll know soon enough by the way he runs the campaign. If he didn't have race going against him, he'd just as likely slip by the weakness of McCain as a candidate and the Bush legacy, just as Jimmy Carter narrowly got by Ford. One of the few good things about the Clintons is that they want to win. Let's hope Obama does as well. Some of the people close to him would know.
Item 2.5
Zunes argues that Obama's advisors including or especially Brzezinski-- are less likely to go along with Zionist/neocon efforts to extend the war to Iran. We can hope.
Ronald
**
Seth wrote:
What made most impression upon me as I said was Clinton's cheerleading for the war 2002--7. That is not discussed here. It is why I concluded she is DP neo-con, or pretty close. Evidently she's still doing it. "Such confidence in the ability of the United States to impose its will through force is reflected to this day in the strong support for President Bush's troop surge among such Clinton advisors .... Perhaps that was one reason that, during the recent State of the Union address, when Bush proclaimed that the Iraqi surge was working, Clinton stood and cheered while Obama remained seated and silent. "
It's pretty clear that if Clinton got candidacy--as I said--there would be no debate with McCain on war--the war would be buried.SF
Behind Obama and Clinton
By: Stephen Zunes, Editor: John Feffer
February 11, 2008
Published February 4, on Foreign Policy in Focus (www.fpif.org)
Voters on the progressive wing of the Democratic Party are rightly disappointed by the similarity of the foreign policy positions of the two remaining Democratic Party presidential candidates, Senator Hillary Clinton and Senator Barack Obama. However, there are still some real discernable differences to be taken into account. Indeed, given the power the United States has in the world, even minimal differences in policies can have a major difference in the lives of millions of people.
As a result, the kind of people the next president appoints to top positions in national defense, intelligence, and foreign affairs is critical. Such officials usually emerge from among a presidential candidate's team of foreign policy advisors. So, analyzing who these two finalists for the Democratic presidential nomination have brought in to advise them on international affairs can be an important barometer for determining what kind for foreign policies they would pursue as president. For instance, in the case of the Bush administration, officials like Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, and Richard Perle played a major role in the fateful decision to invade Iraq by convincing the president that Saddam Hussein was an imminent threat and that American forces would be treated as liberators.
The leading Republican candidates have surrounded themselves with people likely to encourage the next president to follow down a similarly disastrous path. But what about Senators Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton? Who have they picked to help them deal with Iraq war and the other immensely difficult foreign policy decisions that they'll be likely to face as president?
Contrasting Teams
Senator Clinton's foreign policy advisors tend to be veterans of President Bill Clinton's administration, most notably former secretary of state Madeleine Albright and former National Security Adviser Sandy Berger. Her most influential advisor--and her likely choice for Secretary of State--is Richard Holbrooke. Holbrooke served in a number of key roles in her husband's administration, including U.S. ambassador to the UN and member of the cabinet, special emissary to the Balkans, assistant secretary of state for European and Canadian affairs, and U.S. ambassador to Germany. He also served as President Jimmy Carter's assistant secretary of state for East Asia in propping up Marcos in the Philippines, supporting Suharto's repression in East Timor, and backing the generals behind the Kwangju massacre in South Korea.
Senator Barack Obama's foreign policy advisers, who on average tend to be younger than those of the former first lady, include mainstream strategic analysts who have worked with previous Democratic administrations, such as former national security advisors Zbigniew Brzezinski and Anthony Lake, former assistant secretary of state Susan Rice, and former navy secretary Richard Danzig. They have also included some of the more enlightened and creative members of the Democratic Party establishment, such as Joseph Cirincione and Lawrence Korb of the Center for American Progress, and former counterterrorism czar Richard Clarke. His team also includes the noted human rights scholar and international law advocate Samantha Power--author of a recent New Yorker article on U.S. manipulation of the UN in post-invasion Iraq--and other liberal academics. Some of his advisors, however, have particularly poor records on human rights and international law, such as retired General Merrill McPeak, a backer of Indonesia's occupation of East Timor, and Dennis Ross, a supporter of Israel's occupation of the West Bank.
Contrasting Issues
While some of Obama's key advisors, like Larry Korb, have expressed concern at the enormous waste from excess military spending, Clinton's advisors have been strong supporters of increased resources for the military.
While Obama advisors Susan Rice and Samantha Power have stressed the importance of U.S. multilateral engagement, Albright allies herself with the jingoism of the Bush administration, taking the attitude that “If we have to use force, it is because we are America! We are the indispensable nation. We stand tall, and we see further into the future.”
While Susan Rice has emphasized how globalization has led to uneven development that has contributed to destabilization and extremism and has stressed the importance of bottom-up anti-poverty programs, Berger and Albright have been outspoken supporters of globalization on the current top-down neo-liberal lines.
Obama advisors like Joseph Cirincione have emphasized a policy toward Iraq based on containment and engagement and have downplayed the supposed threat from Iran. Clinton advisor Holbrooke, meanwhile, insists that "the Iranians are an enormous threat to the United States,” the country is “the most pressing problem nation,” and Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is like Hitler.
Iraq as Key Indicator
Perhaps the most important difference between the two foreign policy teams concerns Iraq. Given the similarities in the proposed Iraq policies of Senator Hillary Clinton and Senator Barack Obama, Obama's supporters have emphasized that their candidate had the better judgment in opposing the invasion beforehand. Indeed, in the critical months prior to the launch of the war in 2003, Obama openly challenged the Bush administration's exaggerated claims of an Iraqi threat and presciently warned that a war would lead to an increase in Islamic extremism, terrorism, and regional instability, as well as a decline in America's standing in the world.
Senator Clinton, meanwhile, was repeating as fact the administration's false claims of an imminent Iraqi threat. She voted to authorize President Bush to invade that oil-rich country at the time and circumstances of his own choosing and confidently predicted success. Despite this record and Clinton's refusal to apologize for her war authorization vote, however, her supporters argue that it is no longer relevant and voters need to focus on the present and future.
Indeed, whatever choices the next president makes with regard to Iraq are going to be problematic, and there are no clear answers at this point. Yet one's position regarding the invasion of Iraq at that time says a lot about how a future president would address such questions as the use of force, international law, relations with allies, and the use of intelligence information.
As a result, it may be significant that Senator Clinton's foreign policy advisors, many of whom are veterans of her husband's administration, were virtually all strong supporters of President George W. Bush's call for a U.S. invasion of Iraq. By contrast, almost every one of Senator Obama's foreign policy team was opposed to a U.S. invasion.
Pre-War Positions
During the lead-up to the war, Obama's advisors were suspicious of the Bush administration's claims that Iraq somehow threatened U.S. national security to the extent that it required a U.S. invasion and occupation of that country. For example, Zbigniew Brzezinski, national security advisor in the Carter administration, argued that public support for war “should not be generated by fear-mongering or demagogy.”
By contrast, Clinton's top advisor and her likely pick for secretary of state, Richard Holbrooke, insisted that Iraq remained “a clear and present danger at all times.”
Brzezinski warned that the international community would view the invasion of a country that was no threat to the United States as an illegitimate an act of aggression. Noting that it would also threaten America's leadership, Brzezinski said that “without a respected and legitimate law-enforcer, global security could be in serious jeopardy.” Holbrooke, rejecting the broad international legal consensus against offensive wars, insisted that it was perfectly legitimate for the United States to invade Iraq and that the European governments and anti-war demonstrators who objected “undoubtedly encouraged” Saddam Hussein.
Another key Obama advisor, Joseph Cirincione of the Carnegie Endowment, argued that the goal of containing the potential threat from Iraq had been achieved, noting that “Saddam Hussein is effectively incarcerated and under watch by a force that could respond immediately and devastatingly to any aggression. Inside Iraq, the inspection teams preclude any significant advance in WMD capabilities. The status quo is safe for the American people.”
By contrast, Clinton advisor Sandy Berger, who served as her husband's national security advisor, insisted that “even a contained Saddam” was “harmful to stability and to positive change in the region,” and therefore the United States had to engage in “regime change” in order to “fight terror, avert regional conflict, promote peace, and protect the security of our friends and allies.”
Meanwhile, other future Obama advisors, such as Larry Korb, raised concerns about the human and material costs of invading and occupying a heavily populated country in the Middle East and the risks of chaos and a lengthy counter-insurgency war.
And other top advisors to Senator Clinton--such as her husband's former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright - confidently predicted that American military power could easily suppress any opposition to a U.S. takeover of Iraq. Such confidence in the ability of the United States to impose its will through force is reflected to this day in the strong support for President Bush's troop surge among such Clinton advisors (and original invasion advocates) as Jack Keane, Kenneth Pollack, and Michael O'Hanlon. Perhaps that was one reason that, during the recent State of the Union address, when Bush proclaimed that the Iraqi surge was working, Clinton stood and cheered while Obama remained seated and silent.
These differences in the key circles of foreign policy specialists surrounding these two candidates are consistent with their diametrically opposed views in the lead-up to the war.
National Security
Not every one of Clinton's foreign policy advisors is a hawk. Her team also includes some centrist opponents of the war, including retired General Wesley Clark and former Ambassador Joseph Wilson.
On balance, it appears likely that a Hillary Clinton administration, like Bush's, would be more likely to embrace exaggerated and alarmist reports regarding potential national security threats, to ignore international law and the advice of allies, and to launch offensive wars. By contrast, a Barack Obama administration would be more prone to examine the actual evidence of potential threats before reacting, to work more closely with America's allies to maintain peace and security, to respect the country's international legal obligations, and to use military force only as a last resort.
Progressive Democrats do have reason to be disappointed with Obama's foreign policy agenda. At the same time, as The Nation magazine noted, members of Obama's foreign policy team are “more likely to stress 'soft power' issues like human rights, global development and the dangers of failed states.” As a result, “Obama may be more open to challenging old Washington assumptions and crafting new approaches.”
And new approaches are definitely needed.
Stephen Zunes, a Foreign Policy In Focus analyst, is a professor of politics and international studies at the University of San Francisco.
Copyright © 2004-2007 Progressive Democrats of America • All text available for public use with appropriate attribution.
Two items.
1. The Zionist issue. Zunes has long been outed as an apologist for Zionism and just as (or even more) important, he follows the Chomsky line that the Zionist lobby is unimportant when it comes to determining US Mideast Policy. (In a speech in January, Chomsky repeated the bogus revisionist line that Israel [and the Lobby] didn't really want us to invade Iraq. He claimed they went along with Bush's plans but really wanted an attack on Iran.) So naturally Obama's cave in to the Zionists is not going to trouble Zunes.
And here I follow some of my friends in the movement who argue that Obama simply has no choice on this issue if he wants to be taken seriously. I know this is heresy, but that's the way reality is in this year of our Lord.
(I haven't gotten around to documenting the slime campaign going around in some communal circles that Obama is a closet Muslim. [JJ Goldberg of the Forward: shame on you!! What's the point of having a "liberal" editor if he's going to go the same depths as the most vicious of the right wing bunch?] But I've noticed that there's been pushback in some places. If Obama gets the nomination what are the odds of a return of the same canard in more mainstream outlets?)
Item Two: Every single Democratic nominee after LBJ with the exception of Clinton has run the sort of presidential campaign that indicated that he wasn't eager to take up, shall we say, the challenges of the presidency. Will Obama be any different? It's impossible to tell in advance, but if he gets the nomination, we'll know soon enough by the way he runs the campaign. If he didn't have race going against him, he'd just as likely slip by the weakness of McCain as a candidate and the Bush legacy, just as Jimmy Carter narrowly got by Ford. One of the few good things about the Clintons is that they want to win. Let's hope Obama does as well. Some of the people close to him would know.
Item 2.5
Zunes argues that Obama's advisors including or especially Brzezinski-- are less likely to go along with Zionist/neocon efforts to extend the war to Iran. We can hope.
Ronald
**
Seth wrote:
What made most impression upon me as I said was Clinton's cheerleading for the war 2002--7. That is not discussed here. It is why I concluded she is DP neo-con, or pretty close. Evidently she's still doing it. "Such confidence in the ability of the United States to impose its will through force is reflected to this day in the strong support for President Bush's troop surge among such Clinton advisors .... Perhaps that was one reason that, during the recent State of the Union address, when Bush proclaimed that the Iraqi surge was working, Clinton stood and cheered while Obama remained seated and silent. "
It's pretty clear that if Clinton got candidacy--as I said--there would be no debate with McCain on war--the war would be buried.SF
Behind Obama and Clinton
By: Stephen Zunes, Editor: John Feffer
February 11, 2008
Published February 4, on Foreign Policy in Focus (www.fpif.org)
Voters on the progressive wing of the Democratic Party are rightly disappointed by the similarity of the foreign policy positions of the two remaining Democratic Party presidential candidates, Senator Hillary Clinton and Senator Barack Obama. However, there are still some real discernable differences to be taken into account. Indeed, given the power the United States has in the world, even minimal differences in policies can have a major difference in the lives of millions of people.
As a result, the kind of people the next president appoints to top positions in national defense, intelligence, and foreign affairs is critical. Such officials usually emerge from among a presidential candidate's team of foreign policy advisors. So, analyzing who these two finalists for the Democratic presidential nomination have brought in to advise them on international affairs can be an important barometer for determining what kind for foreign policies they would pursue as president. For instance, in the case of the Bush administration, officials like Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, and Richard Perle played a major role in the fateful decision to invade Iraq by convincing the president that Saddam Hussein was an imminent threat and that American forces would be treated as liberators.
The leading Republican candidates have surrounded themselves with people likely to encourage the next president to follow down a similarly disastrous path. But what about Senators Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton? Who have they picked to help them deal with Iraq war and the other immensely difficult foreign policy decisions that they'll be likely to face as president?
Contrasting Teams
Senator Clinton's foreign policy advisors tend to be veterans of President Bill Clinton's administration, most notably former secretary of state Madeleine Albright and former National Security Adviser Sandy Berger. Her most influential advisor--and her likely choice for Secretary of State--is Richard Holbrooke. Holbrooke served in a number of key roles in her husband's administration, including U.S. ambassador to the UN and member of the cabinet, special emissary to the Balkans, assistant secretary of state for European and Canadian affairs, and U.S. ambassador to Germany. He also served as President Jimmy Carter's assistant secretary of state for East Asia in propping up Marcos in the Philippines, supporting Suharto's repression in East Timor, and backing the generals behind the Kwangju massacre in South Korea.
Senator Barack Obama's foreign policy advisers, who on average tend to be younger than those of the former first lady, include mainstream strategic analysts who have worked with previous Democratic administrations, such as former national security advisors Zbigniew Brzezinski and Anthony Lake, former assistant secretary of state Susan Rice, and former navy secretary Richard Danzig. They have also included some of the more enlightened and creative members of the Democratic Party establishment, such as Joseph Cirincione and Lawrence Korb of the Center for American Progress, and former counterterrorism czar Richard Clarke. His team also includes the noted human rights scholar and international law advocate Samantha Power--author of a recent New Yorker article on U.S. manipulation of the UN in post-invasion Iraq--and other liberal academics. Some of his advisors, however, have particularly poor records on human rights and international law, such as retired General Merrill McPeak, a backer of Indonesia's occupation of East Timor, and Dennis Ross, a supporter of Israel's occupation of the West Bank.
Contrasting Issues
While some of Obama's key advisors, like Larry Korb, have expressed concern at the enormous waste from excess military spending, Clinton's advisors have been strong supporters of increased resources for the military.
While Obama advisors Susan Rice and Samantha Power have stressed the importance of U.S. multilateral engagement, Albright allies herself with the jingoism of the Bush administration, taking the attitude that “If we have to use force, it is because we are America! We are the indispensable nation. We stand tall, and we see further into the future.”
While Susan Rice has emphasized how globalization has led to uneven development that has contributed to destabilization and extremism and has stressed the importance of bottom-up anti-poverty programs, Berger and Albright have been outspoken supporters of globalization on the current top-down neo-liberal lines.
Obama advisors like Joseph Cirincione have emphasized a policy toward Iraq based on containment and engagement and have downplayed the supposed threat from Iran. Clinton advisor Holbrooke, meanwhile, insists that "the Iranians are an enormous threat to the United States,” the country is “the most pressing problem nation,” and Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is like Hitler.
Iraq as Key Indicator
Perhaps the most important difference between the two foreign policy teams concerns Iraq. Given the similarities in the proposed Iraq policies of Senator Hillary Clinton and Senator Barack Obama, Obama's supporters have emphasized that their candidate had the better judgment in opposing the invasion beforehand. Indeed, in the critical months prior to the launch of the war in 2003, Obama openly challenged the Bush administration's exaggerated claims of an Iraqi threat and presciently warned that a war would lead to an increase in Islamic extremism, terrorism, and regional instability, as well as a decline in America's standing in the world.
Senator Clinton, meanwhile, was repeating as fact the administration's false claims of an imminent Iraqi threat. She voted to authorize President Bush to invade that oil-rich country at the time and circumstances of his own choosing and confidently predicted success. Despite this record and Clinton's refusal to apologize for her war authorization vote, however, her supporters argue that it is no longer relevant and voters need to focus on the present and future.
Indeed, whatever choices the next president makes with regard to Iraq are going to be problematic, and there are no clear answers at this point. Yet one's position regarding the invasion of Iraq at that time says a lot about how a future president would address such questions as the use of force, international law, relations with allies, and the use of intelligence information.
As a result, it may be significant that Senator Clinton's foreign policy advisors, many of whom are veterans of her husband's administration, were virtually all strong supporters of President George W. Bush's call for a U.S. invasion of Iraq. By contrast, almost every one of Senator Obama's foreign policy team was opposed to a U.S. invasion.
Pre-War Positions
During the lead-up to the war, Obama's advisors were suspicious of the Bush administration's claims that Iraq somehow threatened U.S. national security to the extent that it required a U.S. invasion and occupation of that country. For example, Zbigniew Brzezinski, national security advisor in the Carter administration, argued that public support for war “should not be generated by fear-mongering or demagogy.”
By contrast, Clinton's top advisor and her likely pick for secretary of state, Richard Holbrooke, insisted that Iraq remained “a clear and present danger at all times.”
Brzezinski warned that the international community would view the invasion of a country that was no threat to the United States as an illegitimate an act of aggression. Noting that it would also threaten America's leadership, Brzezinski said that “without a respected and legitimate law-enforcer, global security could be in serious jeopardy.” Holbrooke, rejecting the broad international legal consensus against offensive wars, insisted that it was perfectly legitimate for the United States to invade Iraq and that the European governments and anti-war demonstrators who objected “undoubtedly encouraged” Saddam Hussein.
Another key Obama advisor, Joseph Cirincione of the Carnegie Endowment, argued that the goal of containing the potential threat from Iraq had been achieved, noting that “Saddam Hussein is effectively incarcerated and under watch by a force that could respond immediately and devastatingly to any aggression. Inside Iraq, the inspection teams preclude any significant advance in WMD capabilities. The status quo is safe for the American people.”
By contrast, Clinton advisor Sandy Berger, who served as her husband's national security advisor, insisted that “even a contained Saddam” was “harmful to stability and to positive change in the region,” and therefore the United States had to engage in “regime change” in order to “fight terror, avert regional conflict, promote peace, and protect the security of our friends and allies.”
Meanwhile, other future Obama advisors, such as Larry Korb, raised concerns about the human and material costs of invading and occupying a heavily populated country in the Middle East and the risks of chaos and a lengthy counter-insurgency war.
And other top advisors to Senator Clinton--such as her husband's former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright - confidently predicted that American military power could easily suppress any opposition to a U.S. takeover of Iraq. Such confidence in the ability of the United States to impose its will through force is reflected to this day in the strong support for President Bush's troop surge among such Clinton advisors (and original invasion advocates) as Jack Keane, Kenneth Pollack, and Michael O'Hanlon. Perhaps that was one reason that, during the recent State of the Union address, when Bush proclaimed that the Iraqi surge was working, Clinton stood and cheered while Obama remained seated and silent.
These differences in the key circles of foreign policy specialists surrounding these two candidates are consistent with their diametrically opposed views in the lead-up to the war.
National Security
Not every one of Clinton's foreign policy advisors is a hawk. Her team also includes some centrist opponents of the war, including retired General Wesley Clark and former Ambassador Joseph Wilson.
On balance, it appears likely that a Hillary Clinton administration, like Bush's, would be more likely to embrace exaggerated and alarmist reports regarding potential national security threats, to ignore international law and the advice of allies, and to launch offensive wars. By contrast, a Barack Obama administration would be more prone to examine the actual evidence of potential threats before reacting, to work more closely with America's allies to maintain peace and security, to respect the country's international legal obligations, and to use military force only as a last resort.
Progressive Democrats do have reason to be disappointed with Obama's foreign policy agenda. At the same time, as The Nation magazine noted, members of Obama's foreign policy team are “more likely to stress 'soft power' issues like human rights, global development and the dangers of failed states.” As a result, “Obama may be more open to challenging old Washington assumptions and crafting new approaches.”
And new approaches are definitely needed.
Stephen Zunes, a Foreign Policy In Focus analyst, is a professor of politics and international studies at the University of San Francisco.
Copyright © 2004-2007 Progressive Democrats of America • All text available for public use with appropriate attribution.
Bush-Cheney Rapidly Privatizing Medicare
We’ve known from the beginning that the Bush Prescription Drug plan
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medicare_Prescription_Drug,_Improvement,_and_Modernization_Act was deeply flawed in so many ways, in particular because it’s an attack on Medicare, a solid program that is vital to scores of millions of retirees. But there have been so many attacks on the people of this country (and we’re getting off easy compared to so many elsewhere) that for some of us – even a retiree like me – it’s been hard to focus on the particulars and to realize how successful has been the Bush-Cheney assault.
But every so often comes a reminder or something pops to the surface. And this one came for me in the form of a United Federation of Teachers petition on the subject which I took the trouble to read and was duly shocked to see how much they’ve been able to get away with, in this case by already going a long way to privatizing (i.e., destroying) the program.
Note that we can’t blame this one on the Zionists, perhaps the majority of whom are liberals. It’s a good example of how successful Bush-Cheney have been in using the various pressure groups for their own purposes of destruction. --RB
From the
United Federation of Teachers Petition on Medicare
Government health programs such as Medicare have faced substantial cuts while private for profit plans such as Medicare Part C (Medicare Advantage) are estimated to gain $54 billion in subsidies over five years.
The Medicare Modernization Act of 2003 was designed to have an automatic triggering mechanism which will initiate a process calculated to provide a large reduction in Medicare Part B as early as 2009.
Medicare Advantage is a disadvantage to Medicare beneficiaries. The overpayment to private for profit plans increases Part B premiums for all Medicare beneficiaries. 81 % of Medicare beneficiaries are paying to subsidize 19% of those in private for profit plans.
Insurance industries' profits have greatly increased because the subsidies they receive are not completely passed along to their beneficiaries. Private for profit plans $ are subject to few public reporting requirements.
The President has shown his hostility to government health programs as exemplified by his veto to the S-CHIP program (Children's Health Program) and by his insistence that the Federal government can not afford to continue supporting Medicare.
We are demanding that the playing field be made level by equalizing payments between the traditional plan, Part B (Medicare) and the private for profit plans within Medicare Part C.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medicare_Prescription_Drug,_Improvement,_and_Modernization_Act was deeply flawed in so many ways, in particular because it’s an attack on Medicare, a solid program that is vital to scores of millions of retirees. But there have been so many attacks on the people of this country (and we’re getting off easy compared to so many elsewhere) that for some of us – even a retiree like me – it’s been hard to focus on the particulars and to realize how successful has been the Bush-Cheney assault.
But every so often comes a reminder or something pops to the surface. And this one came for me in the form of a United Federation of Teachers petition on the subject which I took the trouble to read and was duly shocked to see how much they’ve been able to get away with, in this case by already going a long way to privatizing (i.e., destroying) the program.
Note that we can’t blame this one on the Zionists, perhaps the majority of whom are liberals. It’s a good example of how successful Bush-Cheney have been in using the various pressure groups for their own purposes of destruction. --RB
From the
United Federation of Teachers Petition on Medicare
Government health programs such as Medicare have faced substantial cuts while private for profit plans such as Medicare Part C (Medicare Advantage) are estimated to gain $54 billion in subsidies over five years.
The Medicare Modernization Act of 2003 was designed to have an automatic triggering mechanism which will initiate a process calculated to provide a large reduction in Medicare Part B as early as 2009.
Medicare Advantage is a disadvantage to Medicare beneficiaries. The overpayment to private for profit plans increases Part B premiums for all Medicare beneficiaries. 81 % of Medicare beneficiaries are paying to subsidize 19% of those in private for profit plans.
Insurance industries' profits have greatly increased because the subsidies they receive are not completely passed along to their beneficiaries. Private for profit plans $ are subject to few public reporting requirements.
The President has shown his hostility to government health programs as exemplified by his veto to the S-CHIP program (Children's Health Program) and by his insistence that the Federal government can not afford to continue supporting Medicare.
We are demanding that the playing field be made level by equalizing payments between the traditional plan, Part B (Medicare) and the private for profit plans within Medicare Part C.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
