New Bush chief of staff Josh Bolten - ANOTHER JEW of course
laura bush - VEHICULAR HOMICIDE
Another treasonous Israel-firster telling the president what to do.
http://www.law.stanford.edu/publications/lawyer/issues/69/bolten.html
(snip)
Josh Bolten tries to find time to practice his religion despite his
busy schedule. He belongs to a local temple, tries to attend Sabbath
dinner at his sister's house when he can on Friday nights, and doesn't
eat pork. The Bushes have been sensitive to this fact and always put a
big mushroom on their grill during barbecues so that Bolten will have
something he can eat. At Bolten's first cabinet meeting last year, the
President asked him to give the opening prayer and Bolten did—in
Hebrew. "A lot of folks ask about being a Jew in the Bush White
House," Bolten volunteered. "The fact is that the Bush family is open
and welcoming and the President and Mrs. Bush are people of deep faith
who respect faith . . . and not just their faith."
(snip)
Near end of lengthy article.
dontcowerf...@yahoo.com
omare...@aol.com
laura bush - VEHICULAR HOMICIDE wrote:
> Another treasonous Israel-firster telling the president what to do.
As opposed to the terrorist-firsters that make up the hysterical left.
>
> http://www.law.stanford.edu/publications/lawyer/issues/69/bolten.html
>
> (snip)
>
> Josh Bolten tries to find time to practice his religion despite his
> busy schedule. He belongs to a local temple, tries to attend Sabbath
> dinner at his sister's house when he can on Friday nights, and doesn't
> eat pork. The Bushes have been sensitive to this fact and always put a
> big mushroom on their grill during barbecues so that Bolten will have
> something he can eat. At Bolten's first cabinet meeting last year, the
> President asked him to give the opening prayer and Bolten did-in
Hugh Gibbons
laura bush - VEHICULAR HOMICIDE <xeto...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Another treasonous Israel-firster telling the president what to do.
Doesn't matter. What matters is this guy was Bush's BUDGET DIRECTOR.
We know he can't do that job, so now they're moving him up above his
minimum level of incompetence. Or maybe they figured he'd do less
harm in the chief-of-staff position.
Whatever.
Hugh
Server 13
> laura bush - VEHICULAR HOMICIDE wrote:
>
>>Another treasonous Israel-firster telling the president what to do.
>
>
> As opposed to the terrorist-firsters that make up the hysterical left.
translation: droooool
Frank Pittel
: Another treasonous Israel-firster telling the president what to do.
: http://www.law.stanford.edu/publications/lawyer/issues/69/bolten.html
: (snip)
: Josh Bolten tries to find time to practice his religion despite his
: busy schedule. He belongs to a local temple, tries to attend Sabbath
: dinner at his sister's house when he can on Friday nights, and doesn't
: eat pork. The Bushes have been sensitive to this fact and always put a
: big mushroom on their grill during barbecues so that Bolten will have
: something he can eat. At Bolten's first cabinet meeting last year, the
: President asked him to give the opening prayer and Bolten did?in
: Hebrew. "A lot of folks ask about being a Jew in the Bush White
: House," Bolten volunteered. "The fact is that the Bush family is open
: and welcoming and the President and Mrs. Bush are people of deep faith
: who respect faith . . . and not just their faith."
Another looney tune brain dead loser lib dem comes out of the closet exposing
himeself as an anti-semite.
--
-------------------
Keep working millions on welfare depend on you
Frank Pittel
: laura bush - VEHICULAR HOMICIDE wrote:
: > Another treasonous Israel-firster telling the president what to do.
: As opposed to the terrorist-firsters that make up the hysterical left.
It makes sense when you think about it. The looney tune brain dead loser
libs are proving to be anti-semites. It's just natural for them to side with
the islamic terrorists.
: >
: > http://www.law.stanford.edu/publications/lawyer/issues/69/bolten.html
: >
: > (snip)
: >
: > Josh Bolten tries to find time to practice his religion despite his
: > busy schedule. He belongs to a local temple, tries to attend Sabbath
: > dinner at his sister's house when he can on Friday nights, and doesn't
: > eat pork. The Bushes have been sensitive to this fact and always put a
: > big mushroom on their grill during barbecues so that Bolten will have
: > something he can eat. At Bolten's first cabinet meeting last year, the
: > President asked him to give the opening prayer and Bolten did-in
: > Hebrew. "A lot of folks ask about being a Jew in the Bush White
: > House," Bolten volunteered. "The fact is that the Bush family is open
: > and welcoming and the President and Mrs. Bush are people of deep faith
: > who respect faith . . . and not just their faith."
: >
: > (snip)
: >
: > Near end of lengthy article.
Laura Bush murdered her boy friend
Frank Pittel wrote:
>
> Another looney tune brain dead loser lib dem comes out of the closet exposing
> himeself as an anti-semite.
>
I'm no israel firster like you, you traitor.
Alohacyberian
news:POudnc2i_o-...@giganews.com...
> In alt.politics.usa.republican laura bush - VEHICULAR HOMICIDE
> <xeto...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> : Another treasonous Israel-firster telling the president what to do.
>
> exposing
> himeself as an anti-semite.
>
But isn't hating Jews and hating Israel just part of politically correct
"multiculturalism"? :-) KM
--
(-:alohacyberian:-) At my website there are 3600 live cameras or
visit NASA, the Vatican, the Smithsonian, the Louvre, CIA, FBI or
CNN, NBA, the White House, Academy Awards & 150 foreign languages
Visit Hawaii, Israel and more: http://keith.martin.home.att.net/
TedKennedyMurderedHisP...@spamgourmet.com
You're just a retard.
dontcowerf...@yahoo.com
http://www.amconmag.com/03_24_03/cover.html
http://nomorewarforisrael.blogspot.com
March 24, 2003 issue
Whose War?
A neoconservative clique seeks to ensnare our country in a series of
wars that are not in America's interest.
by Patrick J. Buchanan
The War Party may have gotten its war. But it has also gotten something
it did not bargain for. Its membership lists and associations have been
exposed and its motives challenged. In a rare moment in U.S.
journalism, Tim Russert put this question directly to Richard Perle:
"Can you assure American viewers ... that we're in this situation
against Saddam Hussein and his removal for American security interests?
And what would be the link in terms of Israel?"
Suddenly, the Israeli connection is on the table, and the War Party is
not amused. Finding themselves in an unanticipated firefight, our
neoconservative friends are doing what comes naturally, seeking student
deferments from political combat by claiming the status of a persecuted
minority group. People who claim to be writing the foreign policy of
the world superpower, one would think, would be a little more manly in
the schoolyard of politics. Not so.
Former Wall Street Journal editor Max Boot kicked off the campaign.
When these "Buchananites toss around 'neoconservative'-and cite
names like Wolfowitz and Cohen-it sometimes sounds as if what they
really mean is 'Jewish conservative.'" Yet Boot readily concedes
that a passionate attachment to Israel is a "key tenet of
neoconservatism." He also claims that the National Security Strategy
of President Bush "sounds as if it could have come straight out from
the pages of Commentary magazine, the neocon bible." (For the
uninitiated, Commentary, the bible in which Boot seeks divine guidance,
is the monthly of the American Jewish Committee.)
David Brooks of the Weekly Standard wails that attacks based on the
Israel tie have put him through personal hell: "Now I get a steady
stream of anti-Semitic screeds in my e-mail, my voicemail and in my
mailbox. ... Anti-Semitism is alive and thriving. It's just that its
epicenter is no longer on the Buchananite Right, but on the
peace-movement left."
Washington Post columnist Robert Kagan endures his own purgatory
abroad: "In London ... one finds Britain's finest minds
propounding, in sophisticated language and melodious Oxbridge accents,
the conspiracy theories of Pat Buchanan concerning the
'neoconservative' (read: Jewish) hijacking of American foreign
policy."
Lawrence Kaplan of the New Republic charges that our little magazine
"has been transformed into a forum for those who contend that
President Bush has become a client of ... Ariel Sharon and the
'neoconservative war party.'"
Referencing Charles Lindbergh, he accuses Paul Schroeder, Chris
Matthews, Robert Novak, Georgie Anne Geyer, Jason Vest of the Nation,
and Gary Hart of implying that "members of the Bush team have been
doing Israel's bidding and, by extension, exhibiting 'dual
loyalties.'" Kaplan thunders:
The real problem with such claims is not just that they are untrue. The
problem is that they are toxic. Invoking the specter of dual loyalty to
mute criticism and debate amounts to more than the everyday pollution
of public discourse. It is the nullification of public discourse, for
how can one refute accusations grounded in ethnicity? The charges are,
ipso facto, impossible to disprove. And so they are meant to be.
What is going on here? Slate's Mickey Kaus nails it in the headline
of his retort: "Lawrence Kaplan Plays the Anti-Semitic Card."
What Kaplan, Brooks, Boot, and Kagan are doing is what the Rev. Jesse
Jackson does when caught with some mammoth contribution from a Fortune
500 company he has lately accused of discriminating. He plays the race
card. So, too, the neoconservatives are trying to fend off critics by
assassinating their character and impugning their motives.
Indeed, it is the charge of "anti-Semitism" itself that is toxic.
For this venerable slander is designed to nullify public discourse by
smearing and intimidating foes and censoring and blacklisting them and
any who would publish them. Neocons say we attack them because they are
Jewish. We do not. We attack them because their warmongering threatens
our country, even as it finds a reliable echo in Ariel Sharon.
And this time the boys have cried "wolf" once too often. It is not
working. As Kaus notes, Kaplan's own New Republic carries Harvard
professor Stanley Hoffman. In writing of the four power centers in this
capital that are clamoring for war, Hoffman himself describes the
fourth thus:
And, finally, there is a loose collection of friends of Israel, who
believe in the identity of interests between the Jewish state and the
United States. ... These analysts look on foreign policy through the
lens of one dominant concern: Is it good or bad for Israel? Since that
nation's founding in 1948, these thinkers have never been in very
good odor at the State Department, but now they are well ensconced in
the Pentagon, around such strategists as Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle
and Douglas Feith.
"If Stanley Hoffman can say this," asks Kaus, "why can't Chris
Matthews?" Kaus also notes that Kaplan somehow failed to mention the
most devastating piece tying the neoconservatives to Sharon and his
Likud Party.
In a Feb. 9 front-page article in the Washington Post, Robert Kaiser
quotes a senior U.S. official as saying, "The Likudniks are really in
charge now." Kaiser names Perle, Wolfowitz, and Feith as members of a
pro-Israel network inside the administration and adds David Wurmser of
the Defense Department and Elliott Abrams of the National Security
Council. (Abrams is the son-in-law of Norman Podhoretz, editor emeritus
of Commentary, whose magazine has for decades branded critics of Israel
as anti-Semites.)
Noting that Sharon repeatedly claims a "special closeness" to the
Bushites, Kaiser writes, "For the first time a U.S. administration
and a Likud government are pursuing nearly identical policies." And a
valid question is: how did this come to be, and while it is surely in
Sharon's interest, is it in America's interest?
This is a time for truth. For America is about to make a momentous
decision: whether to launch a series of wars in the Middle East that
could ignite the Clash of Civilizations against which Harvard professor
Samuel Huntington has warned, a war we believe would be a tragedy and a
disaster for this Republic. To avert this war, to answer the neocon
smears, we ask that our readers review their agenda as stated in their
words. Sunlight is the best disinfectant. As Al Smith used to say,
"Nothing un-American can live in the sunlight."
We charge that a cabal of polemicists and public officials seek to
ensnare our country in a series of wars that are not in America's
interests. We charge them with colluding with Israel to ignite those
wars and destroy the Oslo Accords. We charge them with deliberately
damaging U.S. relations with every state in the Arab world that defies
Israel or supports the Palestinian people's right to a homeland of
their own. We charge that they have alienated friends and allies all
over the Islamic and Western world through their arrogance, hubris, and
bellicosity.
Not in our lifetimes has America been so isolated from old friends. Far
worse, President Bush is being lured into a trap baited for him by
these neocons that could cost him his office and cause America to
forfeit years of peace won for us by the sacrifices of two generations
in the Cold War.
They charge us with anti-Semitism-i.e., a hatred of Jews for their
faith, heritage, or ancestry. False. The truth is, those hurling these
charges harbor a "passionate attachment" to a nation not our own
that causes them to subordinate the interests of their own country and
to act on an assumption that, somehow, what's good for Israel is good
for America.
The Neoconservatives
Who are the neoconservatives? The first generation were ex-liberals,
socialists, and Trotskyites, boat-people from the McGovern revolution
who rafted over to the GOP at the end of conservatism's long march to
power with Ronald Reagan in 1980.
A neoconservative, wrote Kevin Phillips back then, is more likely to be
a magazine editor than a bricklayer. Today, he or she is more likely to
be a resident scholar at a public policy institute such as the American
Enterprise Institute (AEI) or one of its clones like the Center for
Security Policy or the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs
(JINSA). As one wag writes, a neocon is more familiar with the inside
of a think tank than an Abrams tank.
Almost none came out of the business world or military, and few if any
came out of the Goldwater campaign. The heroes they invoke are Woodrow
Wilson, FDR, Harry Truman, Martin Luther King, and Democratic Senators
Henry "Scoop" Jackson (Wash.) and Pat Moynihan (N.Y.).
All are interventionists who regard Stakhanovite support of Israel as a
defining characteristic of their breed. Among their luminaries are
Jeane Kirkpatrick, Bill Bennett, Michael Novak, and James Q. Wilson.
Their publications include the Weekly Standard, Commentary, the New
Republic, National Review, and the editorial page of the Wall Street
Journal. Though few in number, they wield disproportionate power
through control of the conservative foundations and magazines, through
their syndicated columns, and by attaching themselves to men of power.
Beating the War Drums
When the Cold War ended, these neoconservatives began casting about for
a new crusade to give meaning to their lives. On Sept. 11, their time
came. They seized on that horrific atrocity to steer America's rage
into all-out war to destroy their despised enemies, the Arab and
Islamic "rogue states" that have resisted U.S. hegemony and loathe
Israel.
The War Party's plan, however, had been in preparation far in advance
of 9/11. And when President Bush, after defeating the Taliban, was
looking for a new front in the war on terror, they put their precooked
meal in front of him. Bush dug into it.
Before introducing the script-writers of America's future wars,
consider the rapid and synchronized reaction of the neocons to what
happened after that fateful day.
On Sept. 12, Americans were still in shock when Bill Bennett told CNN
that we were in "a struggle between good and evil," that the
Congress must declare war on "militant Islam," and that
"overwhelming force" must be used. Bennett cited Lebanon, Libya,
Syria, Iraq, Iran, and China as targets for attack. Not, however,
Afghanistan, the sanctuary of Osama's terrorists. How did Bennett
know which nations must be smashed before he had any idea who attacked
us?
The Wall Street Journal immediately offered up a specific target list,
calling for U.S. air strikes on "terrorist camps in Syria, Sudan,
Libya, and Algeria, and perhaps even in parts of Egypt." Yet, not one
of Bennett's six countries, nor one of these five, had anything to do
with 9/11.
On Sept. 15, according to Bob Woodward's Bush at War, "Paul
Wolfowitz put forth military arguments to justify a U.S. attack on Iraq
rather than Afghanistan." Why Iraq? Because, Wolfowitz argued in the
War Cabinet, while "attacking Afghanistan would be uncertain ... Iraq
was a brittle oppressive regime that might break easily. It was
doable."
On Sept. 20, forty neoconservatives sent an open letter to the White
House instructing President Bush on how the war on terror must be
conducted. Signed by Bennett, Podhoretz, Kirkpatrick, Perle, Kristol,
and Washington Post columnist Charles Krauthammer, the letter was an
ultimatum. To retain the signers' support, the president was told, he
must target Hezbollah for destruction, retaliate against Syria and Iran
if they refuse to sever ties to Hezbollah, and overthrow Saddam. Any
failure to attack Iraq, the signers warned Bush, "will constitute an
early and perhaps decisive surrender in the war on international
terrorism."
Here was a cabal of intellectuals telling the Commander-in-Chief, nine
days after an attack on America, that if he did not follow their war
plans, he would be charged with surrendering to terror. Yet, Hezbollah
had nothing to do with 9/11. What had Hezbollah done? Hezbollah had
humiliated Israel by driving its army out of Lebanon.
President Bush had been warned. He was to exploit the attack of 9/11 to
launch a series of wars on Arab regimes, none of which had attacked us.
All, however, were enemies of Israel. "Bibi" Netanyahu, the former
Prime Minister of Israel, like some latter-day Citizen Genet, was
ubiquitous on American television, calling for us to crush the
"Empire of Terror." The "Empire," it turns out, consisted of
Hamas, Hezbollah, Iran, Iraq, and "the Palestinian enclave."
Nasty as some of these regimes and groups might be, what had they done
to the United States?
The War Party seemed desperate to get a Middle East war going before
America had second thoughts. Tom Donnelly of the Project for the New
American Century (PNAC) called for an immediate invasion of Iraq.
"Nor need the attack await the deployment of half a million troops.
... [T]he larger challenge will be occupying Iraq after the fighting is
over," he wrote.
Donnelly was echoed by Jonah Goldberg of National Review: "The United
States needs to go to war with Iraq because it needs to go to war with
someone in the region and Iraq makes the most sense."
Goldberg endorsed "the Ledeen Doctrine" of ex-Pentagon official
Michael Ledeen, which Goldberg described thus: "Every ten years or
so, the United States needs to pick up some small crappy little country
and throw it against the wall, just to show we mean business." (When
the French ambassador in London, at a dinner party, asked why we should
risk World War III over some "shitty little country"-meaning
Israel-Goldberg's magazine was not amused.)
Ledeen, however, is less frivolous. In The War Against the Terror
Masters, he identifies the exact regimes America must destroy:
First and foremost, we must bring down the terror regimes, beginning
with the Big Three: Iran, Iraq, and Syria. And then we have to come to
grips with Saudi Arabia. ... Once the tyrants in Iran, Iraq, Syria, and
Saudi Arabia have been brought down, we will remain engaged. ...We have
to ensure the fulfillment of the democratic revolution. ... Stability
is an unworthy American mission, and a misleading concept to boot. We
do not want stability in Iran, Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, and even Saudi
Arabia; we want things to change. The real issue is not whether, but
how to destabilize.
Rejecting stability as "an unworthy American mission," Ledeen goes
on to define America's authentic "historic mission":
Creative destruction is our middle name, both within our society and
abroad. We tear down the old order every day, from business to science,
literature, art, architecture, and cinema to politics and the law. Our
enemies have always hated this whirlwind of energy and creativity which
menaces their traditions (whatever they may be) and shames them for
their inability to keep pace. ... [W]e must destroy them to advance our
historic mission.
Passages like this owe more to Leon Trotsky than to Robert Taft and
betray a Jacobin streak in neoconservatism that cannot be reconciled
with any concept of true conservatism.
To the Weekly Standard, Ledeen's enemies list was too restrictive. We
must not only declare war on terror networks and states that harbor
terrorists, said the Standard, we should launch wars on "any group or
government inclined to support or sustain others like them in the
future."
Robert Kagan and William Kristol were giddy with excitement at the
prospect of Armageddon. The coming war "is going to spread and engulf
a number of countries. ... It is going to resemble the clash of
civilizations that everyone has hoped to avoid. ... [I]t is possible
that the demise of some 'moderate' Arab regimes may be just round
the corner."
Norman Podhoretz in Commentary even outdid Kristol's Standard,
rhapsodizing that we should embrace a war of civilizations, as it is
George W. Bush's mission "to fight World War IV-the war against
militant Islam." By his count, the regimes that richly deserve to be
overthrown are not confined to the three singled-out members of the
axis of evil (Iraq, Iran, North Korea). At a minimum, the axis should
extend to Syria and Lebanon and Libya, as well as '"friends" of
America like the Saudi royal family and Egypt's Hosni Mubarak, along
with the Palestinian Authority. Bush must reject the "timorous
counsels" of the "incorrigibly cautious Colin Powell," wrote
Podhoretz, and "find the stomach to impose a new political culture on
the defeated" Islamic world. As the war against al-Qaeda required
that we destroy the Taliban, Podhoretz wrote,
We may willy-nilly find ourselves forced ... to topple five or six or
seven more tyrannies in the Islamic world (including that other sponsor
of terrorism, Yasir Arafat's Palestinian Authority). I can even
[imagine] the turmoil of this war leading to some new species of an
imperial mission for America, whose purpose would be to oversee the
emergence of successor governments in the region more amenable to
reform and modernization than the despotisms now in place. ... I can
also envisage the establishment of some kind of American protectorate
over the oil fields of Saudi Arabia, as we more and more come to wonder
why 7,000 princes should go on being permitted to exert so much
leverage over us and everyone else.
Podhoretz credits Eliot Cohen with the phrase "World War IV." Bush
was shortly thereafter seen carrying about a gift copy of Cohen's
book that celebrates civilian mastery of the military in times of war,
as exhibited by such leaders as Winston Churchill and David Ben Gurion.
A list of the Middle East regimes that Podhoretz, Bennett, Ledeen,
Netanyahu, and the Wall Street Journal regard as targets for
destruction thus includes Algeria, Libya, Egypt, Sudan, Lebanon, Syria,
Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Hezbollah, Hamas, the Palestinian Authority,
and "militant Islam."
Cui Bono? For whose benefit these endless wars in a region that holds
nothing vital to America save oil, which the Arabs must sell us to
survive? Who would benefit from a war of civilizations between the West
and Islam?
Answer: one nation, one leader, one party. Israel, Sharon, Likud.
Indeed, Sharon has been everywhere the echo of his acolytes in America.
In February 2003, Sharon told a delegation of Congressmen that, after
Saddam's regime is destroyed, it is of "vital importance" that
the United States disarm Iran, Syria, and Libya.
"We have a great interest in shaping the Middle East the day after"
the war on Iraq, Defense Minister Shaul Mofaz told the Conference of
Major American Jewish Organizations. After U.S. troops enter Baghdad,
the United States must generate "political, economic, diplomatic
pressure" on Tehran, Mofaz admonished the American Jews.
Are the neoconservatives concerned about a war on Iraq bringing down
friendly Arab governments? Not at all. They would welcome it.
"Mubarak is no great shakes," says Richard Perle of the President
of Egypt. "Surely we can do better than Mubarak." Asked about the
possibility that a war on Iraq-which he predicted would be a
"cakewalk"-might upend governments in Egypt and Saudi Arabia,
former UN ambassador Ken Adelman told Joshua Micah Marshall of
Washington Monthly, "All the better if you ask me."
On July 10, 2002, Perle invited a former aide to Lyndon LaRouche named
Laurent Murawiec to address the Defense Policy Board. In a briefing
that startled Henry Kissinger, Murawiec named Saudi Arabia as "the
kernel of evil, the prime mover, the most dangerous opponent" of the
United States.
Washington should give Riyadh an ultimatum, he said. Either you Saudis
"prosecute or isolate those involved in the terror chain, including
the Saudi intelligence services," and end all propaganda against
Israel, or we invade your country, seize your oil fields, and occupy
Mecca.
In closing his PowerPoint presentation, Murawiec offered a "Grand
Strategy for the Middle East." "Iraq is the tactical pivot, Saudi
Arabia the strategic pivot, Egypt the prize." Leaked reports of
Murawiec's briefing did not indicate if anyone raised the question of
how the Islamic world might respond to U.S. troops tramping around the
grounds of the Great Mosque.
What these neoconservatives seek is to conscript American blood to make
the world safe for Israel. They want the peace of the sword imposed on
Islam and American soldiers to die if necessary to impose it.
Washington Times editor at large Arnaud de Borchgrave calls this the
"Bush-Sharon Doctrine." "Washington's 'Likudniks,'" he
writes, "have been in charge of U.S. policy in the Middle East since
Bush was sworn into office."
The neocons seek American empire, and Sharonites seek hegemony over the
Middle East. The two agendas coincide precisely. And though neocons
insist that it was Sept. 11 that made the case for war on Iraq and
militant Islam, the origins of their war plans go back far before.
"Securing the Realm"
The principal draftsman is Richard Perle, an aide to Sen. Scoop
Jackson, who, in 1970, was overheard on a federal wiretap discussing
classified information from the National Security Council with the
Israeli Embassy. In Jews and American Politics, published in 1974,
Stephen D. Isaacs wrote, "Richard Perle and Morris Amitay command a
tiny army of Semitophiles on Capitol Hill and direct Jewish power in
behalf of Jewish interests." In 1983, the New York Times reported
that Perle had taken substantial payments from an Israeli weapons
manufacturer.
In 1996, with Douglas Feith and David Wurmser, Perle wrote "A Clean
Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm," for Prime Minister
Netanyahu. In it, Perle, Feith, and Wurmser urged Bibi to ditch the
Oslo Accords of the assassinated Yitzak Rabin and adopt a new
aggressive strategy:
Israel can shape its strategic environment, in cooperation with Turkey
and Jordan, by weakening, containing, and even rolling back Syria. This
effort can focus on removing Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq-an
important Israeli strategic objective in its own right-as a means of
foiling Syria's regional ambitions. Jordan has challenged Syria's
regional ambitions recently by suggesting the restoration of the
Hashemites in Iraq.
In the Perle-Feith-Wurmser strategy, Israel's enemy remains Syria,
but the road to Damascus runs through Baghdad. Their plan, which urged
Israel to re-establish "the principle of preemption," has now been
imposed by Perle, Feith, Wurmser & Co. on the United States.
In his own 1997 paper, "A Strategy for Israel," Feith pressed
Israel to re-occupy "the areas under Palestinian Authority
control," though "the price in blood would be high."
Wurmser, as a resident scholar at AEI, drafted joint war plans for
Israel and the United States "to fatally strike the centers of
radicalism in the Middle East. Israel and the United States should ...
broaden the conflict to strike fatally, not merely disarm, the centers
of radicalism in the region-the regimes of Damascus, Baghdad,
Tripoli, Tehran, and Gaza. That would establish the recognition that
fighting either the United States or Israel is suicidal."
He urged both nations to be on the lookout for a crisis, for as he
wrote, "Crises can be opportunities." Wurmser published his
U.S.-Israeli war plan on Jan. 1, 2001, nine months before 9/11.
About the Perle-Feith-Wurmser cabal, author Michael Lind writes:
The radical Zionist right to which Perle and Feith belong is small in
number but it has become a significant force in Republican
policy-making circles. It is a recent phenomenon, dating back to the
late 1970s and 1980s, when many formerly Democratic Jewish
intellectuals joined the broad Reagan coalition. While many of these
hawks speak in public about global crusades for democracy, the chief
concern of many such "neo-conservatives" is the power and
reputation of Israel.
Right down the smokestack.
Perle today chairs the Defense Policy Board, Feith is an Undersecretary
of Defense, and Wurmser is special assistant to the Undersecretary of
State for Arms Control, John Bolton, who dutifully echoes the
Perle-Sharon line. According to the Israeli daily newspaper Ha'aretz,
in late February,
U.S. Undersecretary of State John Bolton said in meetings with Israeli
officials ... that he has no doubt America will attack Iraq and that it
will be necessary to deal with threats from Syria, Iran and North Korea
afterwards.
On Jan. 26, 1998, President Clinton received a letter imploring him to
use his State of the Union address to make removal of Saddam
Hussein's regime the "aim of American foreign policy" and to use
military action because "diplomacy is failing." Were Clinton to do
that, the signers pledged, they would "offer our full support in this
difficult but necessary endeavor." Signing the pledge were Elliott
Abrams, Bill Bennett, John Bolton, Robert Kagan, William Kristol,
Richard Perle, and Paul Wolfowitz. Four years before 9/11, the neocons
had Baghdad on their minds.
The Wolfowitz Doctrine
In 1992, a startling document was leaked from the office of Paul
Wolfowitz at the Pentagon. Barton Gellman of the Washington Post called
it a "classified blueprint intended to help 'set the nation's
direction for the next century.'" The Wolfowitz Memo called for a
permanent U.S. military presence on six continents to deter all
"potential competitors from even aspiring to a larger regional or
global role." Containment, the victorious strategy of the Cold War,
was to give way to an ambitious new strategy designed to "establish
and protect a new order."
Though the Wolfowitz Memo was denounced and dismissed in 1992, it
became American policy in the 33-page National Security Strategy (NSS)
issued by President Bush on Sept. 21, 2002. Washington Post reporter
Tim Reich describes it as a "watershed in U.S. foreign policy" that
"reverses the fundamental principles that have guided successive
Presidents for more than 50 years: containment and deterrence."
Andrew Bacevich, a professor at Boston University, writes of the NSS
that he marvels at "its fusion of breathtaking utopianism with barely
disguised machtpolitik. It reads as if it were the product not of
sober, ostensibly conservative Republicans but of an unlikely
collaboration between Woodrow Wilson and the elder Field Marshal von
Moltke."
In confronting America's adversaries, the paper declares, "We will
not hesitate to act alone, if necessary, to exercise our right of
self-defense by acting preemptively." It warns any nation that seeks
to acquire power to rival the United States that it will be courting
war with the United States:
[T]he president has no intention of allowing any nation to catch up
with the huge lead the United States has opened since the fall of the
Soviet Union more than a decade ago. ... Our forces will be strong
enough to dissuade potential adversaries from pursuing a military
buildup in hopes of surpassing or equaling the power of the United
States.
America must reconcile herself to an era of "nation-building on a
grand scale, and with no exit strategy," Robert Kagan instructs. But
this Pax Americana the neocons envision bids fair to usher us into a
time of what Harry Elmer Barnes called "permanent war for permanent
peace."
The Munich Card
As President Bush was warned on Sept. 20, 2001, that he will be
indicted for "a decisive surrender" in the war on terror should he
fail to attack Iraq, he is also on notice that pressure on Israel is
forbidden. For as the neoconservatives have played the anti-Semitic
card, they will not hesitate to play the Munich card as well. A year
ago, when Bush called on Sharon to pull out of the West Bank, Sharon
fired back that he would not let anyone do to Israel what Neville
Chamberlain had done to the Czechs. Frank Gaffney of the Center for
Security Policy immediately backed up Ariel Sharon:
With each passing day, Washington appears to view its principal Middle
Eastern ally's conduct as inconvenient-in much the same way London
and Paris came to see Czechoslovakia's resistance to Hitler's
offers of peace in exchange for Czech lands.
When former U.S. NATO commander Gen. George Jouwlan said the United
States may have to impose a peace on Israel and the Palestinians, he,
too, faced the charge of appeasement. Wrote Gaffney,
They would, presumably, go beyond Britain and France's sell-out of an
ally at Munich in 1938. The "impose a peace" school is apparently
prepared to have us play the role of Hitler's Wehrmacht as well,
seizing and turning over to Yasser Arafat the contemporary Sudetenland:
the West Bank and Gaza Strip and perhaps part of Jerusalem as well.
Podhoretz agreed Sharon was right in the substance of what he said but
called it politically unwise to use the Munich analogy.
President Bush is on notice: Should he pressure Israel to trade land
for peace, the Oslo formula in which his father and Yitzak Rabin
believed, he will, as was his father, be denounced as an anti-Semite
and a Munich-style appeaser by both Israelis and their neoconservatives
allies inside his own Big Tent.
Yet, if Bush cannot deliver Sharon there can be no peace. And if there
is no peace in the Mideast there is no security for us, ever-for
there will be no end to terror. As most every diplomat and journalist
who travels to the region will relate, America's failure to be
even-handed, our failure to rein in Sharon, our failure to condemn
Israel's excesses, and our moral complicity in Israel's looting of
Palestinian lands and denial of their right to self-determination
sustains the anti-Americanism in the Islamic world in which terrorists
and terrorism breed.
Let us conclude. The Israeli people are America's friends and have a
right to peace and secure borders. We should help them secure these
rights. As a nation, we have made a moral commitment, endorsed by half
a dozen presidents, which Americans wish to honor, not to permit these
people who have suffered much to see their country overrun and
destroyed. And we must honor this commitment.
But U.S. and Israeli interests are not identical. They often collide,
and when they do, U.S. interests must prevail. Moreover, we do not view
the Sharon regime as "America's best friend."
Since the time of Ben Gurion, the behavior of the Israeli regime has
been Jekyll and Hyde. In the 1950s, its intelligence service, the
Mossad, had agents in Egypt blow up U.S. installations to make it
appear the work of Cairo, to destroy U.S. relations with the new Nasser
government. During the Six Day War, Israel ordered repeated attacks on
the undefended USS Liberty that killed 34 American sailors and wounded
171 and included the machine-gunning of life rafts. This massacre was
neither investigated nor punished by the U.S. government in an act of
national cravenness.
Though we have given Israel $20,000 for every Jewish citizen, Israel
refuses to stop building the settlements that are the cause of the
Palestinian intifada. Likud has dragged our good name through the mud
and blood of Ramallah, ignored Bush's requests to restrain itself,
and sold U.S. weapons technology to China, including the Patriot, the
Phoenix air-to-air missile, and the Lavi fighter, which is based on
F-16 technology. Only direct U.S. intervention blocked Israel's sale
of our AWACS system.
Israel suborned Jonathan Pollard to loot our secrets and refuses to
return the documents, which would establish whether or not they were
sold to Moscow. When Clinton tried to broker an agreement at Wye
Plantation between Israel and Arafat, Bibi Netanyahu attempted to
extort, as his price for signing, release of Pollard, so he could take
this treasonous snake back to Israel as a national hero.
Do the Brits, our closest allies, behave like this?
Though we have said repeatedly that we admire much of what this
president has done, he will not deserve re-election if he does not
jettison the neoconservatives' agenda of endless wars on the Islamic
world that serve only the interests of a country other than the one he
was elected to preserve and protect.
March 24, 2003 issue
TELLUSTHE...@yahoo.com
Frank Pittel
: Frank Pittel wrote:
: >
: > Another looney tune brain dead loser lib dem comes out of the closet exposing
: > himeself as an anti-semite.
: >
: I'm no israel firster
That's right you're an anti-semite.
Frank Pittel
: "Frank Pittel" <f...@warlock.deepthought.com> wrote in message
: > In alt.politics.usa.republican laura bush - VEHICULAR HOMICIDE
: > <xeto...@yahoo.com> wrote:
: > : Another treasonous Israel-firster telling the president what to do.
: >
: > Another looney tune brain dead loser lib dem comes out of the closet
: > exposing
: > himeself as an anti-semite.
: >
: But isn't hating Jews and hating Israel just part of politically correct
: "multiculturalism"? :-) KM
Is it hating Jews and Isreal that's required by political correctness or
are the politically correct simply required to hate. I do know that supporting
and embrassing the enemies of the US is required under political correctness.
Alohacyberian
> In alt.politics.usa.republican Alohacyberian <alohacy...@att.net>
> wrote:
> : "Frank Pittel" <f...@warlock.deepthought.com> wrote in message
> : news:POudnc2i_o-...@giganews.com...
> : > In alt.politics.usa.republican laura bush - VEHICULAR HOMICIDE
> : > <xeto...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> : > : Another treasonous Israel-firster telling the president what to do.
> : >
> : > Another looney tune brain dead loser lib dem comes out of the closet
> : > exposing
> : > himeself as an anti-semite.
>
> : But isn't hating Jews and hating Israel just part of politically correct
> : "multiculturalism"? :-) KM
>
> Is it hating Jews and Isreal that's required by political correctness or
> are the politically correct simply required to hate. I do know that
> supporting
> correctness.
>
Yes, to be politically correct, one must not only hate, one must encourage
discrimination against such horrible groups as northern Europeans and their
descendents, Israelis and preferably Christians.
And of course in the eyes of Leftwing Liberals any one who doesn't espouse
political correctness is guity of "McCarthyism". KM
"Liberals malign the flag, ban the Pledge [of Allegiance] and hold cocktail
parties for America's enemies, but no one is ever allowed to cast the
slightest aspersion on their patriotism."
~ Ann Coulter
"Liberals attack their country and then go into diarrhea panic if anyone
criticizes them."
~ Ann Coulter
"Liberals want to be able to attack America without anyone making an issue
of it. Patriotism is vitally important--but somehow impossible to measure.
Liberals relentlessly oppose the military, the Pledge of Allegiance, the
flag and national defense. But if anyone calls them on it they say he's a
kook and a nut. Citing the unpatriotic positions of liberals constitutes
"McCarthyism".
~ Ann Coulter
"While consistently rooting against America, liberals have used a fictional
event forged of their own hysteria -- "McCarthyism" -- to prevent Americans
from ever asking the simple question: Do liberals love their country?
~ Ann Coulter, _Treason - Liberal Treachery from the Cold War to the War on
Terrorism_
THE CREDIBILITY OF DEMOCRATS ON NATIONAL DEFENSE IS now at stake as it has
not been since McCarthy's day. Democrats are on the precipice of securing
their reputation as the Chamberlains of our time. In fact, today's
appeasers are worse than Neville Chamberlain: Chamberlain didn't have
himself as an example. In the latest round of liberal demoralization
techniques, they are once again rooting against America. You would think
the most destructive terrorist attack in the history of the world would call
for something new, but liberals have simply dusted off the old cliches from
the Cold War and trotted them out for the war on terrorism. The only
patriotic liberal in the world is Tony Blair and he's in England."
~ Ann Coulter
"The reason they [Liberals] sob... is to prevent Americans from ever
noticing that liberals consistently attack their own country."
~ Ann Coulter, _Treason - Liberal Treachery from the Cold War to the War on
Terrorism_
"McCarthyism" means pointing out positions taken by liberals that are
unpopular with the American people. As former president Bush said,
"Liberals do not like me talking about liberals." The reason they sob about
the dark night of fascism under McCarthy is to prevent Americans from ever
noticing that liberals consistently attack their own country."
~ Ann Coulter
"But somehow their [liberals'] loyalty to the United States is off-limits as
a subject of political debate. Why is the relative patriotism of the two
parties the only issue that is out of bounds for discussion? Why can't we
ask: Who is more patriotic - Democrats or Republicans? You could win that
case in court."
~ Ann Coulter, _Treason - Liberal Treachery from the Cold War to the War on
Terrorism_
"Liberals have a preternatural gift for striking a position on the side of
treason. You could be talking about Scrabble and they would instantly leap
to the anti-American position. Everyone says liberals love America, too.
No they don't. Whenever the nation is under attack, from within or without,
liberals side with the enemy. This is their essence. The Left's obsession
with the crimes of the West and their Rousseauian respect for Third World
savages all flow from this subversive goal. If anyone has the gaucherie to
point out the left's nearly unblemished record of rooting against America,
liberals turn around and scream, 'McCarthyism!'"
~ Ann Coulter
Fifty years ago, Senator Joe McCarthy said, "The loyal Democrats of this
nation no longer have a Party." Since then, the evidence has continued to
pour in. Liberals mock Americans who love their country, calling them
cowboyos, warmongers, religious zealots and jingoists. By contrast,
America's enemies are called "Uncle Joe" [Stalin], "Fidel" [Castro],
"agrarian reformers" [wholesale slaughter their own people] and
practitioners of a "religion of peace". Indeed, Communists and terrorists
alike are said to be advocates of "peace".
~ Ann Coulter
"Whether they are defending the Soviet Union, or bleating for Saddam
Hussein, liberals are always against America. They are either traitors or
idiots, and on the matter of America's self-preservation, the difference is
irrelevant. Fifty years of treason hasn't slowed them down."
~ Ann Coulter
Rich Travsky
No, that would be a rightard attribute.
http://www.adl.org/special_reports/duke_own_words/on_jews.asp
...
"We Aryans are those of European descent who are racially conscious and who have
committed our lives to our people's survival and evolutionary advancement. We
shall do our duty. We shall not surrender our freedom and our very existence to
Jewish or any other power. We shall preserve our heritage and our hard-won rights
and freedoms. We shall guide our people up the evolutionary stairway to the stars."
限 My Awakening, p. 469 (1998)
...
http://www.allbusiness.com/periodicals/article/284558-1.html
...
In early March 1989, after his legislative victory, Duke
addressed a Populist party convention in Chicago, telling
the audience of neo-Nazis, white supremacists, and skinheads
that he had run for office under the GOP label "because that's
where so many of our people are," adding, "I am a Republican,
but I am and always will be a Populist Republican!" Unbeknownst
to Duke, an opponent tape-recorded his remarks and later offered
the story to the Picayune.
...
Frank Pittel
: Frank Pittel wrote:
: >
: > In alt.politics.usa.republican Alohacyberian <alohacy...@att.net> wrote:
: > : "Frank Pittel" <f...@warlock.deepthought.com> wrote in message
: > : news:POudnc2i_o-...@giganews.com...
: > : > In alt.politics.usa.republican laura bush - VEHICULAR HOMICIDE
: > : > <xeto...@yahoo.com> wrote:
: > : > : Another treasonous Israel-firster telling the president what to do.
: > : >
: > : > Another looney tune brain dead loser lib dem comes out of the closet
: > : > exposing
: > : > himeself as an anti-semite.
: > : >
: >
: > : But isn't hating Jews and hating Israel just part of politically correct
: > : "multiculturalism"? :-) KM
: >
: > Is it hating Jews and Isreal that's required by political correctness or
: > are the politically correct simply required to hate. I do know that supporting
: > and embrassing the enemies of the US is required under political correctness.
: No, that would be a rightard attribute.
Contrary to your lies it's you looney tune brain dead loser lib dems that are coming
out and proclaiming your anti-semitism.
Rich Travsky
>
> In alt.politics.usa.republican Rich Travsky <" traRvEsky"@hotmmoveail.com> wrote:
> : Frank Pittel wrote:
> : >
> : > In alt.politics.usa.republican Alohacyberian <alohacy...@att.net> wrote:
> : > : "Frank Pittel" <f...@warlock.deepthought.com> wrote in message
> : > : news:POudnc2i_o-...@giganews.com...
> : > : > In alt.politics.usa.republican laura bush - VEHICULAR HOMICIDE
> : > : > <xeto...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> : > : > : Another treasonous Israel-firster telling the president what to do.
> : > : >
> : > : > Another looney tune brain dead loser lib dem comes out of the closet
> : > : > exposing
> : > : > himeself as an anti-semite.
> : > : >
> : >
> : > : But isn't hating Jews and hating Israel just part of politically correct
> : > : "multiculturalism"? :-) KM
> : >
> : > Is it hating Jews and Isreal that's required by political correctness or
> : > are the politically correct simply required to hate. I do know that supporting
> : > and embrassing the enemies of the US is required under political correctness.
>
> : No, that would be a rightard attribute.
>
> Contrary to your lies it's you looney tune brain dead loser lib dems that are coming
> out and proclaiming your anti-semitism.
Ah, wassamatter Piddle, afraid to leave this in?
dontcowerf...@yahoo.com
http://www.upi.com/InternationalIntelligence/view.php?StoryID=20060...
Intl. Intelligence
WASHINGTON, March 20 (UPI) -- Two of America's top scholars have
published a searing attack on the role and power of Washington's
pro-Israel lobby in a British journal, warning that its "decisive" role
in fomenting the Iraq war is now being repeated with the threat of
action against Iran. And they say that the Lobby is so strong that they
doubt their article would be accepted in any U.S.-based publication.
Professor John Mearsheimer of the University of Chicago, author of "The
Tragedy of Great Power Politics" and Professor Stephen Walt of
Harvard's Kenney School, and author of "Taming American Power: The
Global Response to U.S. Primacy," are leading figures American in
academic life.
They claim that the Israel lobby has distorted American policy and
operates against American interests, that it has organized the
funneling of more than $140 billion dollars to Israel and "has a
stranglehold" on the U.S. Congress, and its ability to raise large
campaign funds gives its vast influence over Republican and Democratic
administrations, while its role in Washington think tanks on the Middle
East dominates the policy debate.
And they say that the Lobby works ruthlessly to suppress questioning of
its role, to blacken its critics and to crush serious debate about the
wisdom of supporting Israel in U.S. public life.
"Silencing skeptics by organizing blacklists and boycotts -- or by
suggesting that critics are anti-Semites -- violates the principle of
open debate on which democracy depends," Walt and Mearsheimer write.
"The inability of Congress to conduct a genuine debate on these
important issues paralyses the entire process of democratic
deliberation. Israel's backers should be free to make their case and to
challenge those who disagree with them, but efforts to stifle debate by
intimidation must be roundly condemned," they add, in the 12,800-word
article published in the latest issue of The London Review of Books.
The article focuses strongly on the role of the "neo-conservatives"
within the Bush administration in driving the decision to launch the
war on Iraq.
"The main driving force behind the war was a small band of
neo-conservatives, many with ties to the Likud," Mearsheimer and Walt
argue." Given the neo-conservatives' devotion to Israel, their
obsession with Iraq, and their influence in the Bush administration, it
isn't surprising that many Americans suspected that the war was
designed to further Israeli interests."
"The neo-conservatives had been determined to topple Saddam even before
Bush became president. They caused a stir early in 1998 by publishing
two open letters to Clinton, calling for Saddam's removal from power.
The signatories, many of whom had close ties to pro-Israel groups like
JINSA (Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs) or WINEP
(Washington Institute for Near Eastern Policy), and who included Elliot
Abrams, John Bolton, Douglas Feith, William Kristol, Bernard Lewis,
Donald Rumsfeld, Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz, had little trouble
persuading the Clinton administration to adopt the general goal of
ousting Saddam. But they were unable to sell a war to achieve that
objective. They were no more able to generate enthusiasm for invading
Iraq in the early months of the Bush administration. They needed help
to achieve their aim. That help arrived with 9/11. Specifically, the
events of that day led Bush and Cheney to reverse course and become
strong proponents of a preventive war," Walt and Mearsheimer write.
The article, which is already stirring furious debate in U.S. academic
and intellectual circles, also explores the historical role of the
Lobby.
"For the past several decades, and especially since the Six-Day War in
1967, the centerpiece of US Middle Eastern policy has been its
relationship with Israel," the article says.
"The combination of unwavering support for Israel and the related
effort to spread 'democracy' throughout the region has inflamed Arab
and Islamic opinion and jeopardized not only U.S. security but that of
much of the rest of the world. This situation has no equal in American
political history. Why has the U.S. been willing to set aside its own
security and that of many of its allies in order to advance the
interests of another state?" Professors Walt and Mearsheimer add.
"The thrust of U.S. policy in the region derives almost entirely from
domestic politics, and especially the activities of the 'Israel Lobby'.
Other special-interest groups have managed to skew foreign policy, but
no lobby has managed to divert it as far from what the national
interest would suggest, while simultaneously convincing Americans that
U.S. interests and those of the other country - in this case, Israel --
are essentially identical," they add.
They argue that far from being a strategic asset to the United States,
Israel "is becoming a strategic burden" and "does not behave like a
loyal ally." They also suggest that Israel is also now "a liability in
the war on terror and the broader effort to deal with rogue states.
"Saying that Israel and the U.S. are united by a shared terrorist
threat has the causal relationship backwards: the US has a terrorism
problem in good part because it is so closely allied with Israel, not
the other way around," they add. "Support for Israel is not the only
source of anti-American terrorism, but it is an important one, and it
makes winning the war on terror more difficult. There is no question
that many al-Qaida leaders, including Osama bin Laden, are motivated by
Israel's presence in Jerusalem and the plight of the Palestinians.
Unconditional support for Israel makes it easier for extremists to
rally popular support and to attract recruits."
They question the argument that Israel deserves support as the only
democracy in the Middle East, claiming that "some aspects of Israeli
democracy are at odds with core American values. Unlike the US, where
people are supposed to enjoy equal rights irrespective of race,
religion or ethnicity, Israel was explicitly founded as a Jewish state
and citizenship is based on the principle of blood kinship. Given this,
it is not surprising that its 1.3 million Arabs are treated as
second-class citizens."
The most powerful force in the Lobby is AIPAC, the American-Israel
Public affairs Committee, which Walt and Mearsheimer call "a de facto
agent for a foreign government," and which they say has now forged an
important alliance with evangelical Christian groups.
The bulk of the article is a detailed analysis of the way they claim
the Lobby managed to change the Bush administration's policy from
"halting Israel's expansionist policies in the Occupied Territories and
advocating the creation of a Palestinian state" and divert it to the
war on Iraq instead. They write "Pressure from Israel and the Lobby was
not the only factor behind the decision to attack Iraq in March 2003,
but it was critical."
"Thanks to the lobby, the United States has become the de facto enabler
of Israeli expansion in the Occupied Territories, making it complicit
in the crimes perpetrated against the Palestinians," and conclude that
"Israel itself would probably be better off if the Lobby were less
powerful and U.S. policy more even-handed."
dontcowerf...@yahoo.com
course!):
http://www.itszone.co.uk/zone0/viewtopic.php?t=51227
JINSA Israel firsters: IRAQ DOWN, IRAN STILL TO GO:
dontcowerf...@yahoo.com
http://www.itszone.co.uk/zone0/viewtopic.php?p=251395#251395...
dontcowerf...@yahoo.com
dontcowerf...@yahoo.com
avoid addressing the fact of being discussed as conveyed by American
Jew Jack Bernstein in his 'Life of an American Jew in Racist/Marxist
Israel' which he wrote before the Israeli Mossad murdered him:
dontcowerf...@yahoo.com
http://www.forward.com/articles/7020
Pro-Israel lobby paper given to Chris Matthews of 'Hardball' at USC in
Los Angeles last week:
Here is the URL for the Daily Trojan article which mentions the
Mearsheimer/Walt study (
http://www.itszone.co.uk/zone0/viewtopic.php?t=49800 ) on the
pro-Israel lobby which was given to Mr. Matthews at USC (it is
mentioned in the last few sentences of the article):
Alohacyberian
news:1145430496.9...@v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...
>
> WASHINGTON, March 20 (UPI) -- Two of America's top scholars have
> published a searing attack on the role and power of Washington's
> pro-Israel lobby in a British journal, warning that its "decisive" role
> in fomenting the Iraq war is now being repeated with the threat of
> action against Iran. And they say that the Lobby is so strong that they
> doubt their article would be accepted in any U.S.-based publication.
>
> Professor John Mearsheimer of the University of Chicago, author of "The
> Tragedy of Great Power Politics" and Professor Stephen Walt of
> Harvard's Kenney School, and author of "Taming American Power: The
> Global Response to U.S. Primacy," are leading figures American in
> academic life.
>
And, of course, in academe today, the term "leading figures American in
academic life" is synonymous with "elite Leftwing Liberal" and/or Communist.
KM
Alohacyberian
> important issues paralyses the entire process of democratic
> deliberation. Israel's backers should be free to make their case and to
> challenge those who disagree with them, but efforts to stifle debate by
> intimidation must be roundly condemned," they add, in the 12,800-word
> article published in the latest issue of The London Review of Books.
>
Of course these fuzzy thinkers don't bother to tell anyone how and by what
means Israel stifles debate and they not so blithely ignore the fact that
radical Muslims stifle debate by slaughtering thousands of innocent people,
Muslims included, in a way that causes the Leftwing and their mouthpieces in
the elite mainstream to euphemistically call them "insurgents", when, in
fact, they are terrorists which are nothing more than common criminals.
That, of course is much more acceptable to Leftwing Liberals than is the
unnamed methods Israel purportedly uses to "stifle debate". Perhaps part of
the reason that Israel hasn't won the hearts of elitist Leftwing Liberals is
that Israel hasn't done anything like slaughter Arab athletes at the
Olympics, bomb the USS Cole, bomb the barracks in Lebanon and Saudi Arabia,
bomb American Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania or bomb the World Trade
Center. If only the Israelis would resort to actions like that, they may
then be seen in a favorable light among elitist Leftwing Liberals who decry
the Allied invasion of Iraq. KM
Alohacyberian
news:1145430672.0...@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> Bush won't rule out nuclear strike on Iran:
>
Thank God. KM
2377 Dead
<alohac...@att.net> wrote:
><dontcowerf...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:1145430496.9...@v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> WASHINGTON, March 20 (UPI) -- Two of America's top scholars have
>> published a searing attack on the role and power of Washington's
>> pro-Israel lobby in a British journal, warning that its "decisive" role
>> in fomenting the Iraq war is now being repeated with the threat of
>> action against Iran. And they say that the Lobby is so strong that they
>> doubt their article would be accepted in any U.S.-based publication.
>>
>> Professor John Mearsheimer of the University of Chicago, author of "The
>> Tragedy of Great Power Politics" and Professor Stephen Walt of
>> Harvard's Kenney School, and author of "Taming American Power: The
>> Global Response to U.S. Primacy," are leading figures American in
>> academic life.
>>
>
>And, of course, in academe today, the term "leading figures American in
>academic life" is synonymous with "elite Leftwing Liberal" and/or Communist.
>KM
Yup. This guy's a kook. They start raving about commies under the
bed, and you just KNOW you're never going to get anything rational out
of them.
--
"'I’m not meeting with that goddamned bitch,' Bush screamed at aides
who suggested he meet with Cindy Sheehan, the war-protesting mother
whose son died in Iraq. 'She can go to hell as far as I’m concerned!'"
--Putsch, a decompensating drunk
"Grover Norquist couldn't drown the government, so he drowned New Orleans instead."
Not dead, in jail, or a slave? Thank a liberal!
Pay your taxes so the rich don't have to.
For the finest in liberal/leftist commentary,
http://www.zeppscommentaries.com
For news feed (free, 10-20 articles a day)
http://groups.yahoo.com/subscribe/zepps_news
For essays (donations accepted, 2 articles/week)
http://groups.yahoo.com/subscribe/zepps_essays
a.a. #2211 -- Bryan Zepp Jamieson
shrikeback
"2377 Dead" <zepp22...@finestplanet.com> wrote in message
news:8kgc42tnnegf5aqup...@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 19 Apr 2006 08:03:35 GMT, "Alohacyberian"
> <alohac...@att.net> wrote:
>
>><dontcowerf...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>news:1145430496.9...@v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...
>>>
>>> WASHINGTON, March 20 (UPI) -- Two of America's top scholars have
>>> published a searing attack on the role and power of Washington's
>>> pro-Israel lobby in a British journal, warning that its "decisive" role
>>> in fomenting the Iraq war is now being repeated with the threat of
>>> action against Iran. And they say that the Lobby is so strong that they
>>> doubt their article would be accepted in any U.S.-based publication.
>>>
>>> Professor John Mearsheimer of the University of Chicago, author of "The
>>> Tragedy of Great Power Politics" and Professor Stephen Walt of
>>> Harvard's Kenney School, and author of "Taming American Power: The
>>> Global Response to U.S. Primacy," are leading figures American in
>>> academic life.
>>>
>>
>>And, of course, in academe today, the term "leading figures American in
>>academic life" is synonymous with "elite Leftwing Liberal" and/or
>>Communist.
>>KM
>
> Yup. This guy's a kook. They start raving about commies under the
> bed, and you just KNOW you're never going to get anything rational out
> of them.
Kind of like when you start raving about fascists under your bed,
conspiring to infiltrate and destabilize WTC-7 and other assorted
building?
Rich Travsky
>
> <dontcowerf...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1145430672.0...@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> > Bush won't rule out nuclear strike on Iran:
> >
>
> Thank God. KM
As rightards become that which they hate...
RT
dontcowerf...@yahoo.com
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nathan Guttman, THE JERUSALEM POST Apr. 25, 2006
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
After appointing Joshua Bolten to be the White House chief of staff, US
President George W. Bush nominated another Jewish staffer, Joel Kaplan,
to serve as Bolten's deputy, putting him in charge of the daily policy
planning.
The fact that White House policy is now in the hands of two Jews is not
seen as significant by activists in the American Jewish community.
"He is simply appointing the best people for the job," said Nathan
Diament, who heads the Washington office of the Orthodox Union. Another
Jewish activist added that he "wouldn't read too much into it."
Bolten, who first served as head of the Office of Management and
Budget, was the first Jewish member of Bush's cabinet. Ever since Bush
took office, there has been a custom of opening cabinet meetings with a
brief prayer and so, before his first cabinet meeting, Bolten's
assistant contacted Diament and asked for help in finding a Jewish
prayer for the security and well-being of the cabinet members. The
Orthodox Union provided him with the text in English and in Hebrew and
Bolten read it aloud at the next cabinet meeting.
Bolten and Kaplan will probably be the most prominent Jewish members of
the Bush administration, but not the only ones. Apart from Bolten,
there is another Jewish cabinet member, Homeland Security Secretary
Michael Chertoff, and there are other Jewish senior staff members,
including Deputy National Security Adviser Elliott Abrams and White
House staffer Jay Lefkowitz.
In the past year, several Jews who were holding senior posts in the
administration have left, among them deputy secretary of defense Paul
Wolfowitz, undersecretary of defense Doug Feith, Vice President Dick
Cheney's chief of staff Lewis "Scooter" Libby and political adviser Ken
Mehlman, who now heads the Republican National Committee.
Yet the policy of the administration has little to do with the
religious beliefs of the staffers. "The president sets the policy goals
and it is now the job of Josh [Bolten] and Joel [Kaplan] to help
achieve these goals," said Noam Neusner, who served as the liaison to
the Jewish community in Bush's White House from 2002-2005.
Other Jewish activists, both Republican and Democrat, agree that the
nomination of Bolten and Kaplan have no affect on policy.
For Republicans, there is still a feeling that Bush does not receive
the credit he deserves from the Jewish community. "We have Israel's
best friend and it still hasn't changed the way the Jewish community
sees him," said Fred Zeidman, a close friend of Bush and chairman of
the National Holocaust Memorial Museum in Washington. "I keep hoping
that one day our community will see the light and support President
Bush."
Neusner recalled that in the Bush White House there was always great
respect for religious practices of the staffers and predicted that this
policy would remain now that Bolten is running its daily operations.
One tradition likely to go on is the reading of the Purim megilla led
by Chabad Rabbi Levi Shemtov, which attracts many of the Jewish
staffers.
The relatively small number of Jews in Bush's cabinet became an issue
largely due to the comparison with his predecessor, Bill Clinton. The
former administration had such Jewish cabinet members as Robert Reich,
Robert Rubin, Sandy Berger, Lawrence Summers and Madeline Albright and
State Department officials Dennis Ross, Martin Indyk and Aaron Miller.
"I don't support this idea of bean counting," said Jay Footlik, who was
Clinton's liaison to the Jewish community. He sees the fact that the
former administration had many Jewish members as significant to the
policy the president had in regard to the Jewish community. According
to him, the reason Jews were so visible in Clinton's administration was
merely a result of the community being "drawn to public involvement and
political activity."
This article can also be read at
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1143498911316&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull
laura bush - VEHICULAR HOMICIDE wrote:
> Another treasonous Israel-firster telling the president what to do.
>
> http://www.law.stanford.edu/publications/lawyer/issues/69/bolten.html
>
> (snip)
dontcowerf...@yahoo.com
screen:
Whose War? (Israel's war):
http://www.amconmag.com/03_24_03/cover.html
White House posts go to Jews:
http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/zone0/viewtopic.php?t=51708
"Hawkish Israeli Lobby Wants War with Iran!":
http://baltimore.indymedia.org/newswire/display/12448/index.php
http://www.davidduke.com/?p=531
Scroll down to his Web radio broadcasts for yesterday (April 26th,
2006) and the day before yesterday in the archive at
http://www.davidduke.com as both broadcasts are about the above
article.. As usual our fifth columnist serving Israel first US
press/media is not covering this...
dontcowerf...@yahoo.com
beyond on her radio broadcast this past weekend:
Forwarded:
General Janis Karpinski (of Abu Ghraib) had an excellent program on the
Republic Broadcasting Network (via the live link at www.rbnlive.com and
the following archive URL - click on the link shown for the second hour
of the April 22nd, 2006 show as she discussed how we went to war for
Israel and how the MEK terrorist group is being used for the coming
attack on Iran):
Another excellent call about the Mearsheimer/Walt study on the
pro-Israel lobby came at 28.11 into the 2nd hour of the Karen
Kwiatkowski program (her interview with Dr. Leon Hadar) for April 22nd,
2006 at the following archive URL as Karen mentioned the
Mearsheimer/Walt study again at 33.36 into the 2nd hour of the program
(Condi Rice's leak of sensitive defense information to the pro-Israel
AIPAC lobby ex-officials was mentioned at 54.42 into the first hour of
Karen's broadcast):
dontcowerf...@yahoo.com
(04/21/2006)
Iran-Israel Linkage By Bush() Seen As Threat
Jewish leaders warn of backlash as president cites Jewish state as
rationale for possible strikes.
James D. Besser And Larry Cohler-Esses
President Bush is risking a backlash that could injure the Jewish
community - and his own cause - by repeatedly citing Israel as his
top rationale for possible U.S. military conflict with Iran, Jewish
leaders and Middle East analysts warned this week.
Bush's repeated, sometimes exclusive, focus on Israel could spark
public fury against the Jewish state and Jews if U.S. military action
is accompanied by skyrocketing gas prices, terrorism at home or fallen
G.I.'s who might be seen as dying for Israel, some said. Others
feared it could fracture the shaky international coalition Bush is
striving to assemble to oppose Iran's nuclear program by framing the
threat as primarily to Israel rather than international stability.
Ambassador Edward Walker, a former U.S. envoy to Israel who now heads
the Middle East Institute in Washington, termed Bush's Israel focus
"a terrible idea."
"Just think about if gas prices go up to $7 a gallon as a result, and
everybody is saying it's because of Israel," he said.
"I don't believe it is in Israel's best interests to have the
American people going into a major military action, which is what
we're talking about in Iran, with significant implications on the
home front in terms of terrorism and energy prices, and then having
people blame Israel," said Walker.
Malcolm Hoenlein, executive vice president of the Conference of
Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations, said "The linkage
to Israel is not a good idea, because then the Iranians say, you see,
it's the Zionists driving this.
"As much as we appreciate it, the question is whether it's
beneficial to tie this to Israel," said Hoenlein, whose organization
functions as the Jewish community's official umbrella group for
speaking out on foreign policy issues.
Hoenlein pointed out that Iran is tied to terrorist groups such as
Hezbollah, which operates in Lebanon and other countries. It also
exercises influence over militias accused of atrocities in Iraq()() and
aims to spread its influence throughout the Muslim world.
The danger of a nuclear-armed Iran "is a much greater one than just
Israel," said Hoenlein.
In recent days, there have been reports of extensive U.S. military
planning, possibly for a bombing campaign against a variety of Iranian
targets. The aim, say the reports, would be to halt or, at least set
back, what Iran insists is a peaceful program to produce nuclear
energy. The United States, Europe and other countries fear this merely
masks a covert Iranian drive to develop nuclear weapons.
Faced with increasing public clamor about a possible military conflict,
Bush has repeatedly taken note of the threat a nuclear Iran would pose
to Israel. Indeed, Iran's president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, has
repeatedly called for Israel's destruction, most recently this week.
On some occasions, President Bush has offered this as his sole
rationale for confronting Iran.
In a March 20 speech in Cleveland, for example, Bush replied to a
question about the influence of apocalyptic Christian theology on his
policies with a long, rambling answer in which he raised the threat he
saw from Iran and said, "Now that I'm on Iran ... the threat from
Iran is, of course, their stated objective to destroy our strong ally
Israel. It's a threat to world peace; it's a threat, in essence, to
a strong alliance. I made it clear, I'll make it clear again, that we
will use military might to protect our ally, Israel."
Other administration leaders have brought Israel into center stage on
Iran in a different way - suggesting strong U.S. action could be
necessary to keep Israel from acting on its own.
"One of the concerns people have is that Israel might [attack Iran]
without being asked," said Vice President Dick Cheney in a February
2005 radio interview, "that if, in fact, the Israelis became
convinced the Iranians had significant nuclear capability, given the
fact that Iran has a stated policy that their objective is the
destruction of Israel, the Israelis might well decide to act first and
let the rest of the world worry about cleaning up the diplomatic mess
afterwards."
Asked why Bush has made Israel a focus, Walker said, "because he is
not very attuned to the history of the situation and he has some really
strange advisers who do not understand the broader implications of
this, in terms of the vast majority of the American public."
Rep. Gary Ackerman (D-L.I./Queens), a frequent administration critic,
said Bush's focus increases the likelihood of a backlash against Jews
and Israel if a U.S.-led war on Iran turns sour.
"It's a horrible thing to do, it's dangerous," he said. "If
something goes wrong, it's a setup to say we did it for Israel and
not for America, and to blame the Jews."
Asked if he thought that was President Bush's intent, Ackerman said
"I don't believe in accidents and coincidences in this business.
They choose their words very carefully. This is not the first time the
president has said this, but now it looks like it's their whole
program."
Ironically, Middle East analysts say Israel's own public stand has,
by and large, played down the threat that Bush is playing up.
"For past few years, the position of the Israeli government has been
that Iran's nuclear program was not an Israeli issue," said Shai
Feldman, director of Brandeis University's Crown Center for Middle
East studies. Under the leadership of Prime Minister Ariel Sharon from
2000, said Feldman, Israel stressed the problem was "an international
issue, a challenge to international stability."
Israel may have felt comfortable stepping back because the European
countries and even Russia and China have cooperated with the United
States on the issue in ways they did not in the lead-up to the War in
Iraq, Feldman conceded. This may have allowed Israel to de-emphasize
itself, he said.
"In terms of maintaining this kind of international support, to say
Israel is a primary concern is extremely counterproductive," Feldman
said.
Furthermore, he explained, many-though not all-Israeli analysts do
not see a nuclear Iran as the kind of "existential threat" that
Bush depicts. For all its president's rhetoric, many Israeli analysts
view Iran's record as "on the whole, quite risk averse" and see a
rational actor that would remain very aware of Israel's second-strike
capability, he said.
"It's not that the day after Iran gets the nuclear bomb they drop
it on Tel-Aviv," said Feldman. It is rather, the many "general
geopolitical implications" of a nuclear Iran that concern Israel, he
said.
"One is that it would lead other countries [in the region] to follow
suit" with their own nuclear arms programs, he said. "Two is that
an Iran equipped with nuclear weapons would throw its weight around the
region to a much greater extent than is currently the case."
Shoshana Bryen, special projects director for the Jewish Institute for
National Security Affairs (JINSA), agreed that the administration's
strong focus on Israel could undermine its already shaky efforts to
build a broad international coalition to pressure and possibly fight
Iran.
"It's a perfectly reasonable response to the fact that Iran has
threatened only two countries - the United States and Israel," said
Bryen, whose group promotes strong ties between the U.S. and Israeli
military. "The problem is that doing that gives countries that would
like an excuse for not acting on Iran an out."
Ahmadinejad believes the more Washington focuses on Israel as a factor
in the Iran debate, the more trouble it will have recruiting allies,
she said.
David Harris, executive director of the American Jewish Committee, said
he has already seen signs of a backlash against Jewish groups because
of his group's support for a tough stand against Iran's nuclear
program.
Harris' group recently published an ad in The New York Times and the
Financial Times headlined "A Nuclear Iran Threatens Us All,"
showing a map with concentric rings delineating the current and
projected ranges of Iranian missiles now deployed and under
development.
"Our point is and remains that Iran is a global problem," he said.
"Israel is one target, but not the only one."
But letters to the editor blasted the group and said the ad was proof
of the destructive impact of the Jewish lobby, Harris said.
"So there is always the possibility of a backlash," said Harris.
Harris said his group "welcomes and appreciates the
administration's expressed support for Israel. ... But we maintain
this is a problem that goes far beyond Israel."
Some Jewish leaders seem conflicted - pleased that the president is
actively concerned about Israel's security but uncertain about his
motives.
"The fact that the president is saying, time and time again, that
Israel is under our [defense] umbrella should be welcomed and
encouraged," said Abraham Foxman, national director of the
Anti-Defamation League. But Foxman said the president's exact motives
in linking Israel so closely to U.S. Iran aims are unclear.
"Is this a security umbrella on behalf of Israel? Is it meant as a
message to Israel? Or to Iran? At this point nobody really knows its
significance."
Jewish leaders say that while many have pushed for a forceful U.S.
stand against Iran, no one is actively promoting the military option.
Even some hawkish groups caution that attacking Iran could have
unintended and devastating consequences.
JINSA's Bryen, for example, that a military strike with civilian
casualties will probably "strengthen the regime."
There are no simple options, she continued, "which may be why the
president keeps raising the specter of Israel. Everybody is hoping for
a magic bullet, whether it be an Israeli or a U.S. magic bullet." n
James D. Besser is Washington correspondent;
Larry Cohler-Esses is editor at large.
See the Jewish Israel first (JINSA/PNAC) Neocon traitors to America at
the top of http://www.nowarforisrael.com and see
http://nogw.com/warforisrael.html and
http://nomorewarforisrael.blogspot.com as well...