Shame on All of Us For Electing These Clowns -by Philip Giraldi

[Capt. Justice]

Shame on All of Us -by Philip Giraldi,
.
August 02, 2012 .
http://original.antiwar.com/giraldi/2012/08/01/shame-on-all-of-us/
.
.
The shameful spectacle of American politicians trying to outdo each
other in demonstrating their love for Israel played out again last week.

The sparring began before the Olympic Games in London. Israel asked for
a moment of silence at the opening ceremony to commemorate the 11
Israeli athletes who were murdered in Munich 40 years ago. President
Obama obligingly endorsed the proposal and Romney followed, even though
it was none of their business, but the British organizers turned it
down. They also refused to provide special protection for Israeli
athletes, arguing that the security was adequate for everyone involved
in the games, which it was.

Preparing to leave for London, Mitt Romney then upped the ante at the
Veterans of Foreign War convention in Reno Nevada on July 24, stating to
tepid applause that "President Obama is fond of lecturing Israel's
leaders. He was even caught by a microphone deriding them. He has
undermined their position, which was tough enough as it was. And even at
the United Nations, to the enthusiastic applause of Israel's enemies, he
spoke as if our closest ally in the Middle East was the problem. The
people of Israel deserve better than what they have received from the
leader of the free world. And the chorus of accusations, threats, and
insults at the United Nations should never again include the voice of
the president of the United States." Mitt also castigated Russia before
going on to his real target, "There is no greater danger in the world
today than the prospect of the ayatollahs in Tehran possessing nuclear
weapons capability."

Note that Romney was adopting the neocon and Israeli demand that Iran
should not even have the capability to create a nuclear weapon even
though it already is able to do so, as are a number of other countries.
That means that going to war is already on the table. Mitt then
continued "The same ayatollahs who each year mark a holiday by leading
chants of "Death to America" are not going to be talked out of their
pursuit of nuclear weapons. " A clear line must be drawn: There must be
a full suspension of any enrichment, period."

Arriving in London, Mitt's disastrous television interview regarding his
feeling "disconcerted" over the security preparations for the games
may have been partially motivated by the British failure to accede to
Israeli demands for enhanced security. If so or even if he had some
other objective, the comment was sufficiently boneheaded to do nothing
but heighten the perception that Romney is clueless when it comes to
foreign policy. He also forgot the name of the head of the Labor Party,
referring to him as "Mr. Leader" and referred to looking out the
"backsid" of the prime minister's residence. A backside in British
usage is someone's buttocks, perhaps a fitting metaphor for Romney's
overall performance.

With Romney safely diverted by trying to explain himself in London,
President Barack Obama then dropped the bunker buster with a public
signing ceremony for the United States-Israel Enhanced Security
Cooperation Act while simultaneously leaking a story telling how
National Security Adviser Tom Donilon had briefed Benjamin Netanyahu in
detail on plans to attack Iran. In the signing photo op, Obama could be
seen surrounded by Richard Stone, Sen. Barbara Boxer, Rep. Harold
Berman, and Howard Friedman. Friedman is a former president of the
American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), while Stone is
chairman of the Conference of Presidents of Major Jewish Organizations.

The United States-Israel Enhanced Security Cooperation Act, which
originated in Berman's office, was reportedly drafted in part by AIPAC.
The bill signed by Obama basically provides Israel with a blank check
drawn on the U.S. taxpayer to maintain its "qualitative military edge"
over all of its neighbors combined. It requires the White House to
prepare an annual report on how that superiority is being maintained. In
criticizing the bill, Rep. Ron Paul observed, "This bill states that it
is the policy of the United States to- reaffirm the enduring commitment
of the United States to the security of the State of Israel as a Jewish
state." However, according to our Constitution, the policy of the
United States government should be to protect the security of the United
States, not to guarantee the religious, ethnic, or cultural composition
of a foreign country." Paul voted "no" and was joined by only one
other congressman, John Dingell of Michigan.

The bill commits the American people to veto resolutions critical of
Israel, to provide such military support "as is necessary," to pay for
the building of an anti-missile system, to provide advanced "defense"
equipment such as refueling tankers (which are offensive), to give
Israel special munitions (i.e., bunker busters, which are also
offensive), to forward deploy more U.S. military equipment to Israel for
the Israelis to use, to offer the Israeli air force more training and
facilities in the U.S., to increase security and advanced technology
program cooperation, and to extend loan guarantees and expand
intelligence sharing, including highly sensitive satellite imagery. The
objective is to provide Israel with the resources and political support
to attack Iran, if it chooses to do so, while tying the U.S. and Israel
so closely together that whatever Benjamin Netanyahu does, the U.S. will
have "an unshakable commitment to Israeli security," as our president so
aptly put it at the ceremony.

The Act also calls for "an expanded role for Israel within the North
Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), including an enhanced presence at
NATO headquarters and exercises." Israel as part of NATO, clearly the
intent of Congress, would mean that the U.S. and Europeans would be
obligated to come to the aid of a nation that has initiated a series of
regional wars and that is currently expanding its borders while engaged
in hostilities with three of its neighbors.

Romney, who traveled to Israel on the day after the signing, knew that
Obama had scored big, so he had some catching up to do. His spokesman
back in the States complained, "Unfortunately, this bill does nothing to
address yesterday's evasiveness from the White House on whether
President Obama recognizes Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, which
raised doubt about the president's commitment to our closest ally in the
region." Upon arrival in Tel Aviv, Romney's key aide on the Middle East,
Dan Senor, a former AIPAC staffer, stated that his boss would commit his
administration to back Israel if it were to take military action against
Iran, again stressing that Iran should not even have the capability to
develop a weapon. This position is in sharp contrast to the Obama
administration's attempts to keep Israel from staging a unilateral
attack that might threaten U.S. military and naval units in the region.
Romney is basically saying that Israel's interests in the region trump
the interests of the United States and he would provide a green light
for an attack on the Iranians. Senor also shortened the timeline for
military action by adopting the new Israeli red line, noting that
something must be done before Iran is able to harden its nuclear sites
against possible air and naval assault.

After arriving in Israel, Romney made the obligatory photo-op visit to
Jerusalem's Western Wall, looking both sorrowful and resolute, before
delivering a speech making the same points about perfidious Iran and
adding a "basic truth" that the U.S. and Israel will always stand
together lest our common enemies be "emboldened." Romney repeated
Senor's endorsement of an Israeli unilateral attack on Iran, saying that
he as American president would support it. And then, with an
over-the-top flourish, he called Iran's "radical theocracy" the
"leading state sponsor of terrorism and the most destabilizing nation in
the world. We have a solid duty and a moral imperative to deny Iran's
leaders the means to follow through on their malevolent intentions." It
was not clear if even the Israelis actually believed any of the wildly
exaggerated rhetoric.

So the upshot is that we will likely have a war in the Middle East only
because Mitt Romney wants to become president and is willing to sell out
every U.S. vital interest to succeed in that goal. Obama has already
walked down that road, leaving little hope for the rest of us to cling
to. Ironically, while all this bowing, scraping, and pandering was
taking place, another news item appeared that was quickly dropped down
the memory hole by the mainstream media. The Israeli newspaper Haaretz
reported an Associated Press story that the CIA regards Israel as one of
the biggest espionage threats directed against the United States, that
"U.S. national security officials consider Israel to be, at times, a
frustrating ally and a genuine counterintelligence threat"
responsible for the "death of an important spy in Syria for the CIA,"
leading to the conclusion that "U.S. national secrets are safer from
other Middle Eastern governments than from Israel.- Go figure. Mitt?
Barack? Any comments?
.
Read more by Philip Giraldi

Four More Years of Warrantless Surveillance - July 25th, 2012

Obama vs. Romney: Two Shades of Nay - July 18th, 2012

Drones Overseas Lead to Drones at Home - July 11th, 2012

America Adopts the Israel Paradigm - July 4th, 2012

Abe Foxman in Search of Enemies - June 27th, 2012