Pat Lang & Lawrence Wilkerson Share Nightmare Encounters with Feith, Wolfowitz, and Tenet

-

wilkerson and his students.jpg
(Lawrence Wilkerson and his regular Thursday students. These are not the ones in the audience referred to below.)
Jeff Stein of Congressional Quarterly has a great recap of what former Pentagon spy-master Pat Lang and former State Department Chief of Staff Lawrence Wilkerson had to say at a University of District of Columbia forum on May 7th.
Here’s some Feith fun from Pat Lang:

Patrick Lang told a hilarious story the other night, for example, about a job interview he had with Douglas Feith, a key architect of the invasion of Iraq.
It was at the beginning of the first Bush term. Lang had been in charge of the Middle East, South Asia and terrorism for the Defense Intelligence Agency in the 1990s. Later he ran the Pentagon’s worldwide spying operations.
In early 2001, his name was put forward as somebody who would be good at running the Pentagon’s office of special operations and low-intensity warfare, i.e., counterinsurgency. Lang had also been a Green Beret, with three tours in South Vietnam.
One of the people he had to impress was Feith, the Defense Department’s number three official and a leading player in the clique of neoconservatives who had taken over the government’s national security apparatus.
Lang went to see him, he recalled during a May 7 panel discussion at the University of the District of Columbia.
“He was sitting there munching a sandwich while he was talking to me,” Lang recalled, “which I thought was remarkable in itself, but he also had these briefing papers — they always had briefing papers, you know — about me.
“He’s looking at this stuff, and he says, ‘I’ve heard of you. I heard of you.’
“He says, ‘Is it really true that you really know the Arabs this well, and that you speak Arabic this well? Is that really true? Is that really true?’
“And I said, ‘Yeah, that’s really true.’
“That’s too bad,” Feith said.
The audience howled.
“That was the end of the interview,” Lang said. “I’m not quite sure what he meant, but you can work it out.”
Feith, of course, like the administration’s other Israel-connected hawks, didn’t want “Arabists” like Lang muddying the road to Baghdad, from where — according to the Bush administration theory — overthrowing Saddam Hussein would ignite mass demands for Western-style, pro-U.S. democracies across the entire Middle East.

And some Lang on Wolfowitz:

“I remember talking to [Paul] Wolfowitz, in his office, in the Pentagon, and telling him — this was after the propaganda build up had started, before the war. I said, ‘You know, these guys are not going to welcome you.’
“He said, ‘Why?’ I said, ‘For one thing, these guys detest foreigners, and the few who really like you are the least representative of the various breeds of people there. They’re going to fight you, then, if you occupy the place there’s going to be a massive insurgency.'”
“He said, ‘No, no, they’ll be glad to see us,'” Lang continued. “This will start the process of revolution around the Middle East that will transform everything.’
No, Lang told Wolfowitz, “that’s not gonna happen. It’s just an impossibility. They’re not like that. They don’t want to be us.”
Not everyone agrees with all of Lang’s views about the Arab world, but on this issue he was prescient, of course, as were almost all experts on the region outside of the neocon faithful.
How come we learned so much of this dispute only after the war?

And Lawrence Wilkerson on Tenet and “Curveball”:

Wilkerson provides a damning clue.
In February 2003, Powell’s top aide relates, he “spent five of the most intimate days of my life, and five nights, without sleeping, as did my team, staring into . . . the face” of George Tenet, Tenet’s deputy John McLaughlin, and other top CIA officials working on Iraq, at the agency’s headquarters at Langley.
It was the eve of Powell’s now infamous speech at the United Nations detailing Iraq’s alleged biological, chemical and nuclear programs.
“One of the things Secretary Powell and I told Mr. Tenet and Mr. McLaughlin at the outset of our frenetic five or six days, trying to get ready for the U.N., was ‘multiple sources.’ We will not take anything and put it in this presentation, unless there are multiple, independently corroborated sources for the items we’re putting in the testimony,” Wilkerson said.
“That was the going-in position.”
Subsequently, he learned that there was but “a single source for the mobile biological laboratories; that his code name was Curveball; and that there were several very key dissents as to this individual’s testimony, during or before the preparation of the secretary of State.”
Curveball, an Iraqi refugee, turned out to be a liar.
“None of that, ladies and gentlemen, none of that was revealed to the secretary of State, or to me, or to any member of my team, by either John McLaughlin or George Tenet,” Wilkerson said.
Tenet says in his memoir that he never heard of any serious questions about Curveball.
As readers of this column know , however, Tenet’s chief of European operations, Tyler Drumheller, insists he sent a flurry of warnings about Curveball to Tenet’s deputies.
Both can’t be right.
“Either George Tenet is lying through his teeth, or Tyler Drumheller is lying through his teeth,” Wilkerson says, “with regard to one of the most important pillars of Secretary Powell’s presentation at the United Nations: the mobile biological laboratories.”
We’re waiting now for a third CIA official to come forth with an answer.

Lots of people are dying because of the errors and idiocy perpetrated by Feith, Wolfowitz and yes, Tenet too.
— Steve Clemons

Comments

167 comments on “Pat Lang & Lawrence Wilkerson Share Nightmare Encounters with Feith, Wolfowitz, and Tenet

  1. Lena Wright says:

    Hi, my name is Lena and I am writing this to let people know that my grandma Patty wrote a book!
    “Where Did You Come From, Tiny Drop?
    I would like to invite you to share this story with you! My grandma’s book is great!
    Please read her book, it is a story that was NEVER told before! and you will like it too!
    Thank you,
    Lena 13 years old

    Reply

  2. pauline says:

    I am personally involved with this particuliar 9/11 tragedy. I blame giuliani and christie todd whitman for their bowing down to White House pressures in announcing the air quality in Manhattan was “fine” and “it’s ok to go ahead with your normal activities.” just days after 9/11.
    imo, these two are every bit as guilty of fostering lost and ruined lives. Both walked away scot-free from their grand, unscientific, unmedically documented lies of deceit. Where’s the justice with these two?
    New Study Links Blood Cancer To Ground Zero Toxins
    Mt. Sinai: ‘Third Wave’ Of 9/11 Illnesses Appear
    CBS) NEW YORK A new study has emerged that raises serious concerns about 9/11-related illnesses. For years, scientists reported that it was too soon to link cancers to the toxins that workers were exposed to at Ground Zero after 9/11. But new research is finding a link between Ground Zero toxins and certain types of cancers.
    They’ve already suffered from the World Trade Center cough and from chronic lung diseases. Now doctors say 9/11 responders could face debilitating blood cancers from breathing the toxic air.
    more at —
    http://wcbstv.com/topstories/local_story_151063023.html

    Reply

  3. Pissed Off American says:

    POA…”However, when prodded, he was unable to produce one single example of such reporting from the WP”.
    MP… “Actually, I produced two.”
    You are a liar. Anyone that followed the exchange realizes it as well. You produced one article that had to do with Lebanon, and did not even mention the Palestinians. The other article you produced was in regards to Peace Now’s assertion that Israel was illegally seizing Palestinian land, and the article was devoted more space to Israels denials than it did to the actual allegations.
    What I don’t understand, is how someone can be such a huge asshole that they cannot understand that offering an argument that can only be defended by lying is an argument that is not worth defending. Such an understanding requires such a small amount of integrity that one would think it would be a no brainer.
    Conversation over. There is no point in arguing with a damned liar.

    Reply

  4. pauline says:

    “Georgie Anne Geyer writes today in the Dallas Morning News about President Bush’s strange behavior during a recent meeting with “[f]riends of his from Texas.”
    But by all reports, President Bush is more convinced than ever of his righteousness.
    Friends of his from Texas were shocked recently to find him nearly wild-eyed, thumping himself on the chest three times while he repeated “I am the president!” He also made it clear he was setting Iraq up so his successor could not get out of “our country’s destiny.”
    This is the second time in recent weeks that accounts have surfaced of Bush lashing out or “ranting” in private meetings when responding to criticism of his Iraq policy. Chris Nelson of the Nelson Report offered a similar account earlier this month:
    [S]ome big money players up from Texas recently paid a visit to their friend in the White House. The story goes that they got out exactly one question, and the rest of the meeting consisted of The President in an extended whine, a rant, actually, about no one understands him, the critics are all messed up, if only people would see what he’s doing things would be OK,etc., etc. This is called a “bunker mentality” and it’s not attractive when a friend does it. When the friend is the President of the United States, it can be downright dangerous. Apparently the Texas friends were suitably appalled, hence the story now in circulation.”
    http://thinkprogress.org/2007/05/31/bush-wild-eyed/

    Reply

  5. pauline says:

    Friendly Fire
    Raising questions about 9/11 gets an Army sergeant demoted for “disloyalty.”
    By STEPHEN C. WEBSTER
    5/30/07
    Buswell told his dad it was an honor to care for wounded soldiers.
    Darren Cunningham and Buswell met and became friends in Iraq, and Buswell later helped Cunningham’s family deal with the MP’s death.
    These days, Donald Buswell’s job is not as exciting or dangerous as it once was. For the past few months, his working hours have been spent taking care of some 40-plus wounded soldiers at San Antonio’s Fort Sam Houston medical center. The work is sometimes menial, even janitorial, but he doesn’t mind. After all, Buswell has been where these men are — three years ago, he too was recovering from wounds received in a battle zone in Iraq.
    “I truly consider this an honor,” Buswell told his dad not long ago.
    Still, it’s not exactly where Buswell expected to be after 20 years of well-respected service in the Army.
    Since joining the Army in 1987, he had risen to the rank of sergeant first class, serving in both Gulf Wars, Bosnia, Rwanda, and Korea. He ended up with shrapnel scars and a Purple Heart and, back in the U.S. after his last tour in Iraq, a job as intelligence analyst at Fort Sam Houston.
    He couldn’t have foreseen that one e-mail could derail his career and put him on his way out of the Army. One e-mail, speculating about events that millions of people have questioned for the last six years, was all it took.
    Sgt. Buswell wants to know: What really happened on 9/11? And he said so in his e-mail. In the few paragraphs of that August 2006 message, a reply not to someone outside the service, but to other soldiers, Buswell wrote that he thought the official report of what happened that day at the Pentagon, and in the Pennsylvania crash of United Airlines Flight 93, was full of errors and unanswered questions.
    “Who really benefited from what happened that day?” he asked rhetorically. Not “Arabs,” but “the Military Industrial Complex,” Buswell concluded. “We must demand a new, independent investigation.”
    much more at —
    http://www.fwweekly.com/content.asp?article=6022

    Reply

  6. MP says:

    Pauline writes: “Madsen is using inside DC sources who may have, from time to time, ulterior motives for revealing “news” to him, but if some military strike was planned in late 2004, and then it didn’t happen, does that mean it wasn’t planned? imo,your nitpicking once again lacks common sense.”
    Unfortunately, his sources are almost always unnamed. The word “initiated” means “implemented” in my view. It is misleading in the extreme. But maybe it is a nitpick. How about that article, also attributed to unnamed sources, that Israel was behind the Bali bombing?
    Here’s how Madsen works, in my view: He throws a lot of shit out there and maybe some of it will stick. Not the way an investigative journalist–or anyone interested in the truth–should work. But hey, that’s just me.
    I’m over and out folks. You can plot amongst yourselves.

    Reply

  7. MP says:

    POA writes: “So,in a conversation about the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, weeks ago, MP makes the statement that the Washington Post “regularly” runs articles “on the plight of the Palestinians”.
    ME: They do. I believe I included much more in my original assertion, including cluster bombs, etc.
    However, when prodded, he was unable to produce one single example of such reporting from the WP.
    ME: Actually, I produced two. But it doesn’t matter how many I produce because even when I do, you fail to admit. It’s Bollyn all over again. Even when confronted with your own post putting Bollyn forward as a legitimate journalist and not the anti-Semite he is…you say, “Well, that’s just a link,” leaving out the fact that it was YOUR link…found by you…ready by you…picked by you…and posted by you intending for many others to read and believe. You can’t cop to it even when I give you chapter and verse.
    Now, when once again prodded, he comes up with an article that deals with the Palestinian refugees that have fled Iraq.
    ME: So? Isn’t that a sympathetic portrait of their plight?
    Considering that the gist of MY argument, originally, was that the media favors the Israeli position over the Palestinian’s, an article concerning the Palestinian Refugees plight in Syria has NOTHING TO DO with the intent of MP’s original deception.
    ME: That may have been your point. My point–and I guess I’m still allowed to have my own point–was that the MSM do give readers a view into the plight of the Palestinians. Maybe not enough; I don’t carry a brief for them; but they do; and I’ve read many articles to that effect. If you don’t want to believe me, I don’t really care at this point what you think.

    Reply

  8. MP says:

    POA writes: “You can be such an unmitigated asshole, MP. Wanna tell us when the last time the tobacco lobby “persuaded” our representatives into giving Bush free gratis to wage war on Iran without Congressional approval?”
    They don’t. They have other aims. Aims that have killed millions more Americans than anything AIPAC has done is likely to do. But they pursue them through the same process of lobbying…just as AIPAC does. That’s been my point from the beginning.

    Reply

  9. anon says:

    That’s a bullshit quote POA and you are a fool for not realizing it. btw, great sources you ignoramous.
    Take a look at where the POA the shit for brains get’s his info:
    http://www.stormfront.org/forum/showthread.php?p=4241091
    http://christianparty.net/sharon.htm
    But, don’t worry POA, Pauline’s got your back
    BTW, what do you do for a living? Gnash your teeth and hit the refresh button on this blog every 5 minutes?

    Reply

  10. this thread says:

    kill me. put me out of my misery.
    PLEASE!

    Reply

  11. Pissed Off American says:

    “i suggest that you disable these comments. this “debate” is pathetic and anything but enlightening.”
    Posted by anon
    Hi Winnie.

    Reply

  12. Pissed Off American says:

    “source that last quote POA.”
    Posted by anon
    I did. You can’t read? Do your own internet searches, troll.

    Reply

  13. pauline says:

    Speaking of rendition flights —
    “ACLU suit alleges firm is profiting from torture”
    The Boeing subsidiary is accused of helping facilitate mistreatment of terrorism suspects.
    By Henry Weinstein, Times Staff Writer
    May 31, 2007
    The American Civil Liberties Union filed a suit Wednesday that accused a Boeing Co. subsidiary of helping the Central Intelligence Agency facilitate “the forced disappearance, torture and inhumane treatment” of three men the government suspected of terrorist involvement.
    “This is the first time we are accusing a blue-chip American company of profiting from torture,” ACLU lawyer Ben Wizner said at a news conference in New York City.
    Since at least 2001, Jeppesen Dataplan Inc. of San Jose “has provided direct and substantial services to the United States for its so-called ‘extraordinary rendition’ program,” the suit, filed in San Jose federal court, alleges.
    more at —
    http://rawstory.com/showarticle.php?src=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.latimes.com%2Fnews%2Flocal%2Fla-me-rendition31may31%2C0%2C1913285.story%3Fcoll%3Dla-home-center

    Reply

  14. pauline says:

    MP wrote:
    quoting Wayne Madsen,”According to White House and Washington Beltway insiders, the Bush administration. . .has initiated plans to launch a military strike on Iran’s top Islamic leadership. . .”
    Madsen was the first one to post airplane tail numbers to reveal the many CIA rendition flights world wide. After many no callbacks and denials, now the secret government CIA half admits to this practice.
    Madsen is using inside DC sources who may have, from time to time, ulterior motives for revealing “news” to him, but if some military strike was planned in late 2004, and then it didn’t happen, does that mean it wasn’t planned? imo,your nitpicking once again lacks common sense.
    Madsen is an investigative journalist, nationally distributed columnist, and author, so he’s not a one man, late night blogger. As his site shows, “In the tradition of Drew Pearson’s and Jack Anderson’s famous “Washington Merry-Go-Round” syndicated column and I.F. Stone, this online publication tackles the “politically incorrect” and “politically embarrassing” stories and holds government officials accountable for their actions. This web site extends a warm open invitation to whistleblowers and leakers. Business as usual for the crooks and liars in Washington, DC, is over.”
    If people starting believing all of your posted hot air, how many readers would you have — you, anon, a cousin in Jersey, other firsters?

    Reply

  15. anon says:

    Steve,
    i suggest that you disable these comments. this “debate” is pathetic and anything but enlightening.

    Reply

  16. anon says:

    source that last quote POA.

    Reply

  17. Pissed Off American says:

    “I want to tell you something very clear, don’t worry about American pressure on Israel, we, the Jewish people control America, and the Americans know it.”
    Ariel Sharon to Shimon Peres, October 3rd, 2001, as reported on Kol Yisrael radio.

    Reply

  18. Pissed Off American says:

    “More accurate reporting and prognostication from Wayne Madsen…”
    “Note the date…”
    “Where do these guys post their corrections?”
    Posted by MP
    Maybe the same place Israel and AIPAC do, eh, MP?

    Reply

  19. Pissed Off American says:

    So,in a conversation about the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, weeks ago, MP makes the statement that the Washington Post “regularly” runs articles “on the plight of the Palestinians”. However, when prodded, he was unable to produce one single example of such reporting from the WP. Now, when once again prodded, he comes up with an article that deals with the Palestinian refugees that have fled Iraq. Considering that the gist of MY argument, originally, was that the media favors the Israeli position over the Palestinian’s, an article concerning the Palestinian Refugees plight in Syria has NOTHING TO DO with the intent of MP’s original deception. The FACT is that MP made a claim about the media’s handling of the Israeli/Palestinian conflict that was deceptive and dishonest, and he has stuttered and bullshitted about it ever since.
    Here is some food for thought. And it isn’t the shit MP would feed you.
    http://www.ifamericansonlyknew.org/media/

    Reply

  20. Pissed Off American says:

    “Okay. Let’s take a look at this. Let’s look at the word “persuaded.” Let’s look at the word “drop.” AIPAC did the persuading; the Congress did the dropping. That’s my point. There’s nothing hidden about the fact that AIPAC –and all lobbies–persuade Congress to do certain things that Congress might not otherwise do. That is what lobbies do.”
    Posted by MP
    You can be such an unmitigated asshole, MP. Wanna tell us when the last time the tobacco lobby “persuaded” our representatives into giving Bush free gratis to wage war on Iran without Congressional approval?

    Reply

  21. MP says:

    More accurate reporting and prognostication from Wayne Madsen…
    Note the date…
    Where do these guys post their corrections?
    October 20, 2004
    A Bush pre-election strike on Iran ‘imminent’
    White House insider report “October Surprise” imminent
    By Wayne Madsen
    According to White House and Washington Beltway insiders, the Bush administration, worried that it could lose the presidential election to Senator John F. Kerry, has initiated plans to launch a military strike on Iran’s top Islamic leadership, its nuclear reactor at Bushehr on the Persian Gulf, and key nuclear targets throughout the country, including the main underground research site at Natanz in central Iran and another in Isfahan. Targets of the planned U.S. attack reportedly include mosques in Tehran, Qom, and Isfahan known by the U.S. to headquarter Iran’s top mullahs.

    Reply

  22. pauline says:

    from Wayne Madsen —
    Memorandum on the planned US Airbase at Kleiaat,
    Franklin Lamb
    Bibnin Akkar, Lebanon, site of proposed US Airbase
    Nahr al-Bared Palestinian refugee Camp
    On July 14, 1982, (Bastille Day) the late Bashir Gemayel sat with Ariel Sharon, Raphael Eytan, and Danny Yalon at the French flag draped Le Chef Restaurant in Ashifeyih, east Beirut for one of their working lunches.
    As was by now their habit, the Israelis were inclined to pressure their recently anointed selection for Lebanon’s next president. They were there to present a request for one more favor from the handsome ‘golden boy’ of the Phalange movement, as their army tightened its noose around west Beirut.
    There was a good chance they would succeed . After all, Basher was beholding to the Zionists, for their many ‘considerations’, including the arms for drugs arrangements, the weapons skimmed from what the US reflectively shipped to Israel on demand, the intelligence sharing and assassinations of Palestinians who Bashir could not abide. The trio lunching with him that day, under the celebratory French flags in this francophone neighborhood could easily destroy Bashir Gemayel and he knew it.
    Yet, despite their intimidating talk, the self described ‘cream of the IDF’, exhibiting what Bashir had often explained to his nerdy younger brother Amin, who, unexpectedly was to become his successor as President of Lebanon, and to some of his aids, was a case of ‘congenital arrogance’ erred that day.
    They seriously underestimated the Palestinian hating, Muslim despising, would be Phoenician Prince, Le sheik Bashir. In misjudging the charismatic Maronite, the Israeli trio had failed to appreciate that, on any day of the week, the average Lebanese is rather more sophisticated, clever, descent, and patriotic than many Israeli or American politicians give them credit for.
    Sharon pulled out a piece of paper from his chest pocket, as one Phalange security person who guarded the restaurant door recalls, and shoved it across the table to Basher. Written on it was Israel’s ‘one last request’ which contained one word: Kleiaat.
    The Israelis studied Bashir’s face for a sign of his reaction as he picked up the small piece of paper. Bashir, appearing to suppress a yawn, had heard this ‘one last request’ hustle many times and had long felt contempt for what he called “these pressure lunches.” Yet, former alter boy that he was, the martyred, and still much loved Lebanese patriot, pressed his lips together and listened politely as is the Lebanese custom, as Sharon expounded on the details.
    Bashir, fuming inside and about to erupt in anger as he had sometimes done previously when he felt squeezed by Sharon, instead smiled at the anxious trio. He leaned forward and whispered with a voice they still say in his Bekfayya neighborhood, would make women swoon: ‘you will not be disappointed, my dear friends”.
    Sharon was delirious with Bashir’s response and slapped him on the back, a gesture of friendship that the former parish crucifer found deeply offensive.
    Returning to his Achharifeh Headquarters, bounding up the stairs to his office to meet with aids, where less than two months later, he would die from an assassins’ bomb which would level the building and killed and wounded more than 200, Bashir bellowed as he entered his office, “An Israeli air base in Lebanon? Those crazy sons of bitches won’t get one grain of sand from Kleiaat.”
    Nearly 25 years to the day later, some well informed sources within the Palestinian community as well as, Sunni, Shia, and Christian political analysts, agree on one point. In a coma as he may be, but Ariel Sharon may still get that one last favor he coveted.
    As residents of Bibnin Akkar, less tha two miles from the site of the proposed US base and the Lebanese daily newspaper Aldiyar speculate, construction of a US airbase on the grounds of the largely abandoned airbase at Klieaat in northern Lebanon may begin late this year. To make the project more palpable, it is being promoted as a ‘US/NATO’ base that will serve as the headquarters of a NATO rapid deployment force, helicopter squadrons, and Special Forces units.
    The base will provide training for the Lebanese army and security forces fighting Salafi, Islamist fundamentalists and other needs.
    The Pentagon and NATO HQ in Belgium have given the project which, will sit along the Lebanese-Syrian border, using this vast area “as a base for fast intervention troops”, a name. It is to be called “The Lebanese Army and Security training centre”.
    Kleiaat, a nearly now abandoned small airport, was used by Middle East Airlines for a period for commuter flights between Beirut and Tripoli. Residents of the area report than during the Civil War (1975-1990) a commuter Helicopter service was also operated due to road closures.
    The proposed base was measured by this observer to be roughly two and one-half miles down the beach from Nahr al-Bared Palestinian Camp. Both share pristine Mediterranean beachfront. Kleiaat is an expanse of gently undulating sandy dunes covered with long prairie grass and brush.
    Despite opposition from Lebanon’s anemic environmental movement, that argues that the pristine area should be left to its many varieties of birds and wildlife, the local community is watching closely.
    Not much activity is going on as of May 29, 2007. About 20 Quonset huts, some recently driven stakes, no evidence of heavy equipment or building material. The three man army outpost fellows appeared bored and did not even ask for ID as I toured the whole area on the back of a fine new BMW 2200cc motorcycle courtesy of one of the local militia sniper guys who until two days ago was firing into Nahr al-Bared until the Lebanese army stopped him after the PLO leadership complained.
    Lebanese entrepreneurs at Bibnin Akkar, a Sunni community loyal to the Hariris, and who will be the chief financial winners from the project, see opportunities with thousands of new construction and related jobs coming. One kind fellow who hooked me up last night to intermittent internet via a jerry rigged dial up arrangement on one of his shop’s two computers envisages running a fine new internet caf� with at least 50 wireless computers. Hotels, restaurants and businesses of various sorts are planning expansions to meet the demand of the expected workforce.
    Who will not benefit from the building boom will be the 40,000+ Palestinians from Nahr al-Bared which is literally next door to the anticipated project These refugees, who were driven from their homes a in Palestine in 1948 and 1967, from Telezatter by the Phalanges in 1975, and others who came as a result of Israeli attacks on Lebanon in 1978, 1982, 1993, 1996, and 2006, will gain no work from Kleiaat. The reason is that the 70 top trades and professions in Lebanon are denied to the Palestinians under Lebanese law.
    Even if the 20,000 Palestinians displaced by the current conflict with Fatah al-Islam are allowed to return, which I expect will be the case, and even if Palestinian fears that the Camps will be demolished are unrealized, as I believe, they will remain destitute, according to UNWRA who considers 10,000 of them ‘special hardship cases”.
    As reported by the NATO headquarters in Brussels, as well as by residents in Bibnin Akkar on May 28, 2007, an American-German-Turkish military delegation toured and surveyed Akkar region. US Embassy ‘staff’ have reportedly visited Kleiaat airport earlier this year to look over the site. David Welch also had a quick look at the site during his recent visit.
    A Lebanese journalist who opposes the base commented on May 28, 2007, “The Bush administration has been warning Lebanon about the presence of Al Qaeda teams in northern Lebanon. And the base is needed to deal with this threat. Low and behold, a new “terrorist group” called Fatah al-Islam appears near Kleiaat at al-Bared camp”.
    The Pentagon argues that the military base will contribute to the development and the economic recovery in the region, advising the Lebanese government to focus on the financial aspect and positive reflection on the population (95% Sunni) of the region.
    Contenders for the billion dollar project, according to the Pentagon procurement office could be Bechtel and Halliburton and other Contractors currently doing projects in Iraq.
    The martyred Prime Minister Rafik Hariri, saw potential for the Kleiaat airport as well. But he opposed a US airbase. Instead, Hariri, of whom the green grocer who sells fruits and vegetables to the Lebanese army patrolling the Tripoli-Syria four lane road in front of Nahr al-Bared, commented, “Rafik Hariri, may he rest in peace, loved Lebanon. But he never saw a piece of real estate he didn’t want to develop!” Hariri envisaged a billion dollar Free Commercial Zone and a port, despite Syrian opposition, and had investors lined up before he was murdered. Damascus was opposed to the Hariri dream because the new Port and Free Zone would drain the revenues from the nearby Syrian Port at Lathikiya.
    According to Washington observers watching developments, the base has been pushed by elements in the office of the US Secretary of Defense and the Joint Chiefs of Staff at the urging of Israeli operative Elliot Abrams. AIPAC can be expected to do the necessary work in Congress and with House Foreign Affairs, Appropriations, Intelligence, and Armed Service committees hermetically sealed by stalwarts of the Israel Lobby, it can be expected that it will be added as a rider to an unsuspecting House bill coming along.
    “We need to get this base built as quickly as possible as a forward thrust point against Al Qaeda and other (read Hezbollah) terrorists”, according to AIPAC staffer Rachael Cohen. Asked if Israel will offer training and advisors to the Lebanese army, Ms. Cohen replied, “we will see what we will see, Lebanon, smezzanon, its not about them, its about stopping the terrorists stupid!”
    “The question for Lebanon is whether the Lebanese people will allow the base to be built. Few in North Lebanon doubt that Israel will have access to the base ” according to Oathman Bader, a community leader who lives in Bahr al-Bared but has fled to Badawi.
    Fatah al-Islam and their allies have pledged martyrdom operations to stop the project, according to the Fatah Intifada, the group that expelled Fatah al-Islam from their camp on November 27, 2006.
    According to a columnist at Beirut’s Al-Akbar newspaper,” a US project like that would split Lebanon apart. No way will Lebanon allow it. Probably every group in Lebanon would oppose it , from the Salafi, Islamists fundamentalist to moderate Sunnis to Hezbollah. Can you imagine the Syrian reaction?”
    Commenting on this project, one Arab-American from Boston, doing volunteer work at the Palestinian Red Crescent Hospital, Safad, noted:
    “Hopefully the US pro Middle East peace, pro-Palestinian, and pro-Lebanon organizations with better phone and internet connections that exist locally, will join the opposition in Lebanon to this base and fight it in Congress. Welch and the US Embassy in Beirut should be questioned about it”.

    Reply

  23. pauline says:

    “On May 30, 2005, Vice President Cheney declared that the insurgency in Iraq was in its “last throes” and predicted “the level of activity that we see today from a military standpoint, I think, will clearly decline.”
    Virtually every administration national security official publicly defended his statement. Then-Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld claimed that “last throes” could be “violent,” and told critics of Cheney’s phrase to “look it up in the dictionary.” Cheney insisted 10 months after his statement that it was “basically accurate” and “reflected reality.” One year later, he again stood by his words.
    All the while, violence in Iraq has continued unabated. Since Cheney’s statement two years ago, 1,799 U.S. soldiers have been killed in Iraq, roughly half of all U.S. fatalities. At least 12,378 U.S. soldiers have been wounded.”
    http://thinkprogress.org/

    Reply

  24. pauline says:

    “On Dec. 7, 2001, nearly three months after the terrorist attack that had made him a national hero and a little over three weeks before he would leave office, New York Mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani took the first official step toward making himself rich.
    The letter he dispatched to the city Conflicts of Interest Board that day asked permission to begin forming a consulting firm with three members of his outgoing administration. The company, Giuliani said, would provide “management consulting service to governments and business” and would seek out partners for a “wide-range of possible business, management and financial services” projects.”
    “Famously loyal, Giuliani chose as his partners longtime associates, including a former police commissioner later convicted of corruption, a former FBI executive who admitted taking artifacts from Ground Zero and a former Roman Catholic priest accused of covering up sexual abuse in the church.”
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/12/AR2007051201270.html?hpid=topnews

    Reply

  25. pauline says:

    “On Tuesday, members of a 911 truth activist group confronted former Mayor Rudy Giuliani at a New York fundraiser about the fall of the World Trade Center.
    “How come people in the buildings weren’t notified?” asked one member of the group. “And how can you sleep at night?”
    Giuliani’s politely-phrased response, caught by WNBC newscameras filming the event, was “I didn’t know that the towers were going to collapse.”
    That response contradicts remarks the former New York City mayor made about being warned about the collapse during a phone interview with onetime ABC anchor Peter Jennings on September 11, 2001, as shown in a transcript WNBC obtained from the Giuliani 2008 campaign.
    Giuliani told Jennings, “I–I went down to the scene and we set up headquarters at 75 Barkley Street, which was right there with the police commissioner, the fire commissioner, the head of emergency management, and we were operating out of there when we were told that the World Trade Center was going to collapse. And it did collapse before we could actually get out of the building, so we were trapped in the building for 10, 15 minutes, and finally found an exit and got out, walked north, and took a lot of people with us.”
    http://rawstory.com/news/2007/Video_tribute_to_Giuliani_911_lies_0530.html

    Reply

  26. MP says:

    Carroll writes: “…come back to earth.”
    Thanks for the reminder. I appreciate it.

    Reply

  27. anon says:

    Give it a rest Pauline. This thread has gone on way past the point of useful debate, thanks in large part to your ignorant posts.
    whatdya say Pauline, care to shut the fuck up and dump your trash elsewhere?
    do you think anyone takes your 9-11 bullshit seriously?

    Reply

  28. Carroll says:

    Posted by MP at May 30, 2007 12:14 PM
    >>>>>>>>
    MP…you are losing it, you veer off course because of your need to defend yourself against Pauline’s asserations and are letting it leak over into everything else….come back to earth.
    No, it didn’t come from a book. It is pretty much standard belief among Americans that we should operate in the way I described for the purposes I described.
    And in fact it is mostly the way America regarded it’s interest and acted thruout history until recent decades since WWII and politics sent us astray.
    I don’t know your family background, except that you are jewish, or your business or job or what influences they have had on you or what you were taught or learned about this country but it seems you inhabit a different world than the majority of Americans in how you think about what America is and what our interest are. If you are retired you need to take some time and do a “listening tour” around America, outside of your own circle. The majority opinion out here would probably be a revelation to you in many ways.

    Reply

  29. pauline says:

    MP:
    Certainly none of your pre-approved sources required to ask the question you have completely failed to address.
    Who’s IP address sent early warning messages to Odigo two hours before 9/11?

    Reply

  30. MP says:

    Pauline, here’s something you might try…
    Try finding RELIABLE sources for your assertions.
    You might want to start by exploring the concept of RELIABILITY so you’ll be able to recognize a reliable source when you stumble on one. Just having a link doesn’t cut it.
    Questions or assertions based on UNRELIABLE sources aren’t worth “answering” or “disproving.” They’re drivel.

    Reply

  31. pauline says:

    MP:
    Who’s IP address sent early warning messages to Odigo two hours before 9/11?
    A. __ I don’t know and I don’t care
    B. __ I’d rather not say
    C. __ I don’t know but I’ll make up a story
    If C, you could start your own dis-information fib and say it was “sympathetic Arabs” feeling guilty.

    Reply

  32. pauline says:

    Joe Liarman in Baghdad video
    What a coincidence. Two years after Cheney said the insurgency was in its last throes, Joe Lieberman made essentially the same prediction.
    CNN reports that Lieberman is on an unannounced “surprise” visit to Baghdad. Paula Hancocks followed Lieberman around. She talked to Lieberman and reported, “He said he was happy with the progress. He was devastated by the fact that May was turning in to the deadliest month since November 2004. But he said he did believe that this surge eventually would pay off and it would start to break the insurgency.”
    Meanwhile, in the real world, the evidence is to the contrary.
    http://www.americablog.com/2007/05/lieberman-in-iraq-says-so-called-surge.html

    Reply

  33. MP says:

    Pauline writes: “My, oh, my, it’s not venal hatred, MP, it’s my questioning mind. I question so much of 9/11 based on what I’ve seen and read, and on people I personally know that were there that awful day.”
    ROFLMAO!!!

    Reply

  34. pauline says:

    In a Wall Street Journal op-ed, prominent neoconservative Norman Podhoretz writes that he ‘hopes’ and ‘prays’ that President Bush will bomb Iran.
    “Although many persist in denying it, I continue to believe that what Sept 11, 2001, did was to plunge us headlong into nothing less than another world war,” writes the editor-at-large of Commentary, who also sits on the Council on Foreign Relations. “I call this new war World War IV, because I also believe that what is generally known as the Cold War was actually World War III, and that this one bears a closer resemblance to that great conflict than it does to World War II.”
    Podhoretz believes that “the plain and brutal truth is that if Iran is to be prevented from developing a nuclear arsenal, there is no alternative to the actual use of military force–any more than there was an alternative to force if Hitler was to be stopped in 1938.”
    “Since a ground invasion of Iran must be ruled out for many different reasons, the job would have to be done, if it is to be done at all, by a campaign of air strikes,” the op-ed continues. “Furthermore, because Iran’s nuclear facilities are dispersed, and because some of them are underground, many sorties and bunker-busting munitions would be required. And because such a campaign is beyond the capabilities of Israel, and the will, let alone the courage, of any of our other allies, it could be carried out only by the United States. Even then, we would probably be unable to get at all the underground facilities, which means that, if Iran were still intent on going nuclear, it would not have to start over again from scratch. But a bombing campaign would without question set back its nuclear program for years to come, and might even lead to the overthrow of the mullahs.”
    Podhoretz thinks that Bush “intends, within the next 21 months, to order air strikes against the Iranian nuclear facilities from the three U.S. aircraft carriers already sitting nearby….If this is what Mr. Bush intends to do, it goes, or should go, without saying that his overriding purpose is to ensure the security of this country in accordance with the vow he took upon becoming president, and in line with his pledge not to stand by while one of the world’s most dangerous regimes threatens us with one of the world’s most dangerous weapons.”
    “It now remains to be seen whether this president, battered more mercilessly and with less justification than any other in living memory, and weakened politically by the enemies of his policy in the Middle East in general and Iraq in particular, will find it possible to take the only action that can stop Iran from following through on its evil intentions both toward us and toward Israel,” Podhorez writes in conclusion. “As an American and as a Jew, I pray with all my heart that he will.”
    http://rawstory.com/news/2007/Neoconservative_hopes_prays_Bush_will_bomb_0530.html

    Reply

  35. pauline says:

    MP:
    My, oh, my, it’s not venal hatred, MP, it’s my questioning mind. I question so much of 9/11 based on what I’ve seen and read, and on people I personally know that were there that awful day.
    Do you personally know anyone, MP? Do you?
    Was your life altered, MP, like mine was on 9/11? Apparently not, as you think 19 Arabs with box cutters and knives pulled off the entire tragedy, don’t you?!
    You think a 47 story steel building can implode on itself in less than 10 seconds, well, because of. . .small fires reported on one floor. You believe that, right?
    Why, gee, it just must have been a gift from above when Mohamed Atta’s ids were miraculously recovered at the base of ground zero. You believe in those kind of miracles, right?
    Don’t know the answers to my basic question about who’s IP address sent early warning messages to Odigo in a news story reported in Haaretz Israel News shortly after 9/11?
    What do you know?

    Reply

  36. MP says:

    Pauline quotes: “…a warning was transmitted into the World Trade Center Complex from an Israeli software company that provided instant messaging services, mostly to Israeli Ashkenazi Jews around the world…”
    How could I have overlooked this gem? “Ashkenazi Jews around the world”…were warned! By instant messaging, no less! A cyber worldwide conspiracy of Jews, not just Zionists, but JEWS, and not just Jews, but Ashkenazi Jews…the ones from Eastern Europe.
    Wow. It blows my mind that people still believe this stuff. That anyone who reads TWN and has any respect for Steve et al would dream of posting this stuff. Or that anyone thinks it’s worth discussing except in a class on abnormal psychology. Anti-Semitism really is one of the great wonders of the world.

    Reply

  37. MP says:

    Carroll writes: “We need to pass certain resources to and from other countries. To get those resources and foster commerce and mutual worldwide security…
    ME: If it’s mutual, whom are we protecting ourselves against?
    …we have to have relationships of cooperation
    ME: And when there’s conflict, say over scarce resources?
    with other countries and with international institutions to ensure orderly, non violent ways to survive and prosper as a nation.
    I think this vision is fine and nicely theoretical. It seems to come out of a textbook and have almost nothing to do with thousands of years of history.

    Reply

  38. MP says:

    Carroll writes: “It’s all shit of course. Actual “American” interest are pretty simple…..when you leave out all the “other” interest. But since every little turd in the universe will pop up with some reason why what they want is “in America’s interest” I suggest we start with what is not in America’s interest. That is the real question.”
    Carroll, I appreciate your stab at answering the question. Whether you go for the negative or positive formulation, it boils down to the same thing. I myself don’t have a clear answer to the question, so you’re a bit ahead of me on this. But I will say this: All those little “turds” are other Americans whose interests, commercial and otherwise, compete with other interests, both American and non…and that’s where the friction occurs. Not everyone plays nice, in fact, at one time or another everyone fails to play nice and, unfortunately, there is no “god” or court of last resort whose brokering everyone accepts and abides by. The UN is about as close as we get, and they don’t get much respect.

    Reply

  39. MP says:

    POA qotes: “It has happened again, and in the open. The American Israeli Political Action Committee (AIPAC) which heads a network of pro-Israeli lobbies, persuaded Congress to drop a provision which would have required President Bush to ask for Congressional approval prior to attacking Iran.”
    Okay. Let’s take a look at this. Let’s look at the word “persuaded.” Let’s look at the word “drop.” AIPAC did the persuading; the Congress did the dropping. That’s my point. There’s nothing hidden about the fact that AIPAC –and all lobbies–persuade Congress to do certain things that Congress might not otherwise do. That is what lobbies do.

    Reply

  40. MP says:

    POA writes: “Yeah, you don’t see tobbacco lobbies attacking American ships, do ya?”
    No; they don’t need to. They kill millions of Americans (and foreigners) AND make BILLIONS at it AND drive up health care costs into the stratosphere. AND their product is addictive even COOL. Talk about a trifecta. More like a triple trifecta. Now they’re making money trying to convince folks to quit so folks will stop suing them.
    They are much more effective and insidious in their means than anything AIPAC could think up.

    Reply

  41. MP says:

    POA writes: “Well, lets see just ONE of the articles you claim that the Washington Post “regularly” offers dealing with “the plight of the Palestinians”.
    Here you go:
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/01/AR2007040101148.html

    Reply

  42. MP says:

    Pauline quotes: “”The most important news story that went widely unreported by the censoring, Zionist controlled U.S. news media in 2001 involved a clear Israeli connection to 9/11. The story, as reported in Haaretz Israel News involved Jewish employees working in the World Trade Center receiving warnings of the 9/11 attacks 2 hours prior to the first plane flying into World Trade Center Building 1. An Israeli software company, Odigo, which has offices in New York and Israel, transmitted the warnings through its instant messaging service.[2] The FBI was provided this information and so were the major media outlets in the United States. To date, the FBI has not released any investigation results, and the Israel-at-all-cost sympathizers who own and therefore control what Americans learn from their evening news have obviously and purposely refused to aggressively investigate this story even though it should have been headline news!”
    Thank you, Pauline, it’s so rare these days to find such a perfectly crafted example of anti-Semitism. Just about every anti-Semitic canard is contained in this small little turd you’ve deposited on these comments.
    Actually, I could have stopped with the first sentence; it is perfection, indeed! Here it is: “””The most important news story that went widely unreported by the censoring, Zionist controlled U.S. news media in 2001 involved a clear Israeli connection to 9/11.”
    Here’s another VERY OLDIE, but goodie: “Absent Israel’s infiltration into power positions and positions of influence within the Federal Reserve Banking Cartel, U.S. Congress, and U.S. media, the U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East would in fact be more even handed if not unfavorable towards the Zionist state.”
    And let’s not forget this one: “Unfortunately, the Zionist influence and control within the U.S. media, banks, and government has the American people in a stranglehold, with most too preoccupied with self to question the Israel-at-any-cost status quo.”
    Pauline, there is NOTHING to discuss in this post except the sheer stupidity–if not the venal hatred–that led you to post it.

    Reply

  43. pauline says:

    Was there ever any announcement of who actually sent the early warnings on 9/11?
    This Muckracker story from April 28, 2006, is offered for discussion purposes only.
    “The most important news story that went widely unreported by the censoring, Zionist controlled U.S. news media in 2001 involved a clear Israeli connection to 9/11. The story, as reported in Haaretz Israel News involved Jewish employees working in the World Trade Center receiving warnings of the 9/11 attacks 2 hours prior to the first plane flying into World Trade Center Building 1. An Israeli software company, Odigo, which has offices in New York and Israel, transmitted the warnings through its instant messaging service.[2] The FBI was provided this information and so were the major media outlets in the United States. To date, the FBI has not released any investigation results, and the Israel-at-all-cost sympathizers who own and therefore control what Americans learn from their evening news have obviously and purposely refused to aggressively investigate this story even though it should have been headline news! After all, if every person working in the Twin Towers on September 11, 2001 had received a two-hour notice to get out of the buildings — zero people working in the buildings would have died because the buildings would have been evacuated.
    There’s more to this story. The employees working in the Twin Towers that received the instant message warning from Odigo did in fact get out of the buildings before the attacks without sounding the alarm to warn others in the buildings. There is no report or record of these forewarned employees passing this critical information onto to anybody until after the buildings collapsed and thousands of people died. It was only then that the FBI was contacted.
    So what should the reader make of the Odigo story? There’s no need to read into it. It does not mean more than what is clear — a warning was transmitted into the World Trade Center Complex from an Israeli software company that provided instant messaging services, mostly to Israeli Ashkenazi Jews around the world, that an attack on the Twin Towers was imminent. Those receiving the warnings got out of the buildings before they were struck. The collapses of the Twin Towers propelled the War on Terror, which resulted in U.S. troops invading Afghanistan and Iraq. Israel wants to be the dominant nation in the Middle East not just for its own security, but also for expansion. Israel could not and cannot accomplish this objective without unwavering economic support and military protection from the United States.
    Absent Israel’s infiltration into power positions and positions of influence within the Federal Reserve Banking Cartel, U.S. Congress, and U.S. media, the U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East would in fact be more even handed if not unfavorable towards the Zionist state. Without the Israel Lobby terrorizing Washington DC with its threat of destroying an elected official’s reputation if he or she even remotely suggest that Israel might be part of the problem when talking of peace in the Middle East, it is doubtful that the United States would tolerate the brutality, oppressiveness, and deception that is the state of Israel today.
    Most people, particularly American Christians, are under the misconception that the interests of Israel are in the best interest of the United States. Sentimental Christians, who believe that the state of Israel is a reflection of biblical Israel when it clearly is not, fortify this misconception. From a biblical perspective, today’s Israel is a great deception that is detrimental, a clear liability, for the United States. Arguably, if the U.S. stopped giving Israel $3 billion per year, if we demanded accountability regarding Israel’s nuclear weapons as we do of India and Pakistan, if we refused to act as Israel’s de facto bodyguard, then and only then will the possibility of peace in the Middle East materialize. Unfortunately, the Zionist influence and control within the U.S. media, banks, and government has the American people in a stranglehold, with most too preoccupied with self to question the Israel-at-any-cost status quo.”
    http://www.muckrakerreport.com/id246.html

    Reply

  44. Pissed Off American says:

    (Sshhhh, don’t tell anyone, but this is where he is supposed to tell us these spies were just low level AIPAC “staffers”.)

    Reply

  45. Pissed Off American says:

    Yeah, you don’t see tobbacco lobbies attacking American ships, do ya?
    You gotta wonder who MP thinks the AIPAC spies were passing the intelligence onto. Perhaps I’ve got it wrong, it wasn’t Mickey Mouse, OR Elvis Presley.
    Hmmmm, it musta been the National Enquirer.

    Reply

  46. pauline says:

    “It was 40 years ago this June 8 that the USS Liberty — a large, armorless, refitted freighter that was gathering intelligence in the Mediterranean at the outset of the Six Day War — was attacked by Israeli fighter jets and torpedoes. Thirty-four U.S. sailors were killed, and 172 were wounded.”
    “Far from apologizing, the Israelis have to this day denied that they attacked the Liberty on purpose, and, incredibly, they stoutly maintain that the whole thing was an “accident.” This in spite of the fact that the Liberty was proudly flying a U.S. flag and was easily identifiable as an American vessel. The Israel Lobby has even gone so far as to publish a book, The Liberty Incident, by Jay Cristol, that makes the case for the “accidental” scenario, but the survivors’ families, and a number of credible commentators, aren’t buying it. One of those commentators is the former captain of the Liberty, Ward Boston, who has signed an affidavit stating unequivocally:
    “The evidence was clear. Both Admiral [Isaac C.] Kidd and I believed with certainty that this attack was a deliberate effort to sink an American ship and murder its entire crew. It was our shared belief, based on the documentary evidence and testimony we received firsthand, that the Israeli attack was planned and deliberate.”
    “I was never satisfied with the Israeli explanation. Through diplomatic channels we refused to accept their explanations. I didn’t believe them then, and I don’t believe them to this day. The attack was outrageous.”
    “Even more outrageous was the cover-up by the Pentagon and the White House of Lyndon “Hey Hey LBJ, How Many Kids Did You Kill Today?” Johnson.”
    “Rather than embarrass his “allies,” the president of the United States caved in to the Lobby and buried the truth about the death of American servicemen under a mountain of obfuscation and official silence. As Tim Fischer, a former deputy prime minister of Australia and a former army officer, put it in The Age:
    “If Israel did deliberately attack the most powerful nation on Earth, it knows it can do so and get away with murder. Worse still, U.S. military personnel now know that if the truth is politically inconvenient, they and their legacy are expendable.”
    When it comes to the calculations of the Lobby, we are all expendable — that is the bitter lesson we are learning as a futile war in the Middle East not only rages on but threatens to expand beyond the borders of Iraq. Our “ally” Israel is an albatross hung ’round our necks, and it is slowly strangling America’s chances of defeating Islamic extremism in the battle for the hearts and minds of Muslims worldwide. Will no one rid us of this troublesome “ally”?
    I’m afraid they won’t. The power of the Lobby, as explicated by scholars John J. Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt, is as formidable as ever, if not more so. They ensure that there is no real debate over our Middle Eastern policy, either in Congress or in the councils of government policymakers. Their spies are allowed to get away with all sorts of activities that any other foreign power would soon feel Washington’s wrath over. Their demands are considered the starting point for all policy decisions, and they are rewarded for their lack of loyalty to their main benefactor by being showered with all manner of gifts: “foreign aid,” loan guarantees, and technology transfers that have enabled them to build up a military capacity, including nuclear weapons, that knows no rival in the region.
    The sinking of the Liberty and the subsequent whitewash of the Israelis is proof, if any more were needed, that Israel enjoys a position of preeminence within the councils of state that belies its small size and relative weakness as a settler colony totally dependent on outside infusions of support.”
    “Critics may aver that this is all ancient history, that there is no reason to bring up the sinking of the Liberty, and even if it wasn’t an accident, it’s time to let bygones be bygones. The Lobby constantly asserts that anyone who even mentions this “incident” is nothing but an anti-Semite, because, after all, why talk about it now? The reason is that it underscores the utter falsity of the argument that Israeli and American interests are uniquely and perpetually in perfect alignment. The Israelis attacked the Liberty, according to several books and a BBC documentary on the subject, in order to prevent the U.S. government from learning of Israeli plans to occupy the Golan Heights, a sliver of land that rightfully belongs to Syria, and which is still causing a great many problems for U.S. interests in the region. The stunning fact of the American government’s complicity in hiding the truth about an attack on its own soldiers is all we need to know about what’s wrong with American foreign policy, and what is the exact source of the problem.”
    http://www.antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=11042

    Reply

  47. Carroll says:

    Posted by MP at May 29, 2007 05:12 PM
    >>>>>>>>>>>
    WHAT ARE AMERICAN INTEREST?
    I don’t know why people even have to ask this question, as it is asked in relation to our foreign affairs.
    It’s actually pretty simple.
    We need to pass certain resources to and from other countries. To get those resources and foster commerce and mutual worldwide security we have to have relationships of cooperation with other countries and with international institutions to ensure orderly, non violent ways to survive and prosper as a nation.
    But oh, how everyone wants to complicate it all…Israelis want to claim supporting Israel is in our interest, crackpots want to claim converting the universe to christianity is in our interest. Bored think tank flackies and delusionals want to claim democractizing the world is in our interest. Cuban exiles want to claim overthrowing Cuba is in our interest. The war industry wants to claim missiles on Mars and selling arms worldwide is in our interest. Exxon wants to claim overthrowing unfriendly or socialist dictators in oily SA countries is in our interest. Friendly potentates want to claim it is in America’s interest to have a military base in their country to protect their US/thrones. War criminals want to claim withdrawing from the ICC and the UN is in our interest.
    Ad nausum…
    It’s all shit of course. Actual “American” interest are pretty simple…..when you leave out all the “other” interest.
    But since every little turd in the universe will pop up with some reason why what they want is “in America’s interest” I suggest we start with what is not in America’s interest. That is the real question.

    Reply

  48. Carroll says:

    Posted by pauline at May 29, 2007 03:09 PM
    >>>>>>>>>>>
    Walter Jones is my congressman. He has always been a quiet, likeable and honest fellow, but no spitfire. His daddy was a democract congressman for years and years before him, but somehow Walter went conserative, probably because he is a religious fellow, not a fundie, but a good version of the christian type. I called his office a dozen times before the Iraq invasion, begging him not to sign off on Bush’s request.
    But I was proud at least that he was the first and only one, at the time, to call Perle a liar to his face in a congressional hearing.
    I have voted for him simply because he is honest and ethical and a gentleman in the old sense of the term, even though I don’t agree with all his positions.
    But now his dander is up…and he is not likely to back down. He is on our local TV station most Sundays and he has had a lot to say about bush and Iraq and Iran.

    Reply

  49. Pissed Off American says:

    “My point has been and is…who’s calling the shots…who has the power. You seem to think it’s “Israel” or “the Lobby.” I don’t.
    Posted by MP
    Weekend Edition
    May 26 / 27, 2007
    Congress Folds Again
    AIPAC Intervenes on Iran
    By BADRUDDIN KHAN
    It has happened again, and in the open. The American Israeli Political Action Committee (AIPAC) which heads a network of pro-Israeli lobbies, persuaded Congress to drop a provision which would have required President Bush to ask for Congressional approval prior to attacking Iran.
    As reported in the May 16, 2007 issue of The Hill:
    “The American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), an influential group that advocates strong U.S. ties with Israel, lobbied heavily to remove the Iran provision in the supplemental, arguing that the measure would weaken President Bush’s attempts to dissuade Iran from developing nuclear weapons.”
    This intervention by AIPAC to permit President Bush to act without Congressional debate was widely reported, as was AIPAC’s earlier intervention with a supplemental budget bill.
    continues at….
    http://www.counterpunch.org/khan05262007.html

    Reply

  50. Pissed Off American says:

    By the way, MP. You never answered my question. Who do you think the AIPAC spies were passing intelligence to? You claim there is no collusion between AIPAC, the Mossad, and the Knesset. So I wanna know if you think the spies were passing intelligence to Mickey Mouse, or Elvis Presley?

    Reply

  51. Pissed Off American says:

    POA writes: “I’ve seen you lie here on numerous occassio. You don’t think I should point those lies out?
    ME: But you never prove your assertion. It’s just your say-so. How credible is that?
    posted by MP
    Well, lets see just ONE of the articles you claim that the Washington Post “regularly” offers dealing with “the plight of the Palestinians”.
    Then, we can always fall back on your assertion about the reception recieved by Cheney at the AIPAC conference, can’t we, MP?
    Or maybe you can show me one single post where I call another poster here a “traitor”.
    Sorry, MP. But your prefarications are common. But not as common as your strawman diversions.

    Reply

  52. MP says:

    Sandy, here’s a post by Josh Marshall at TPM. It captures a bit of what I’m asking:
    “I guess I’m an interloper on the Republicans’ presidential primary debate, but I can’t help noticing that they’ve again alighted on the question of whether we should examine the role that our own foreign policy played in setting the stage for the 9/11 attacks. Indeed, whether our foreign policy played any role whatsoever in setting the stage for the attacks.
    This is a silly debate in which two entirely distinct questions are intentionally conflated. First, did our pre-9/11 foreign policy play a role in creating 9/11? Of course, it did. Does anyone imagine that 9/11 would have taken place if the US were not the dominant military power in the Middle East? Into that catch-all one can add in the Persian Gulf War, US bases in Saudi Arabia and other Gulf States, US support for Israel, US support for Egypt. Ron Paul is saying that had we pursued a Taftian isolationist foreign policy that 9/11 might well not have happened. And again, that seems undeniable.
    This only gets us to the question of whether these were wise policies in the first place and whether they were worth their apparent costs. There’s a big difference between assigning blame and recognizing some cause and effect relationships from our actions in the world. To do otherwise is simply to put more kinds of discussion off limits and fasten us more tightly to our own failed policies. And this is particularly relevant to how we unwind the trap we’ve created in Iraq, with our own presence in the country and to an extent the situation we’ve created quite apart from our presence, becoming a factory of terror for export around the world.”
    To me, Taftian isolationism is an IMPOSSIBILITY for the US. We are inherently connected. So the question is…how do we engage with the rest of the world? What are our genuine interests?

    Reply

  53. MP says:

    Sandy writes: “Thank you for reading and commenting, MP. Now then, would you care to comment on this as well (in line with the widely-held belief that it never really WAS regime change in Iraq that Israel cared most about…but regime change in IRAN)?:”
    Sure, I’ll read it and tell you what, if anything, I think. But you should know that I only know what I read: I’m not an expert; nor do I have any corroborative sources. So what you’ll get is just my opinion. I’m actually not filled with a lot of the certainty you find with other posters here.
    But just on the material above the line here…
    I’d like to go back and re-read what M&W had to say. To me, the BIG question is: What are our interests? People talk here as if this is obvious; everyone knows what it is; and certain scallawags are consciously working “against our interests in the region.” They may be, but I don’t think you can tell unless you answer this question first.
    Also, any number of posts and articles have pointed out Israel’s desire to have an accommodation with Syria. Daniel Levy wrote about this on TWN some threads back. Recently, I’ve read that Israel resisted (the US) expanding the Lebanon War to Syria…and has gone out of its way to allay Syrian fears about an Israeli attack.
    Now, in this part of the world–maybe in all parts, I don’t know–there seem to be circles within circles, and nothing is entirely as it seems. And things change quickly. Also, there are different currents within each country; they aren’t monoliths. With Peretz out, who knows?
    I do believe that Israel is worried about Iran. Dan Kervick has suggested that Israel is worried that Iran could take Israel’s place in the US’s affections if they were to have a rapproachement with the US. I think it has more to do with Iran’s saber rattling toward Israel. Regardless of what the Israeli leadership is plotting, the people of Israel are easily scared. Many of them have come from societies that are hostile to Jews. Whichever side of the debate you’re on, it’s easy to see how much of the Israeli population might take seriously MA’s comment about wiping out Israel, his dismissal of the Holocaust, etc. After all, it happened to them once before. This isn’t about “using” the Holocaust; it’s about responding to one’s history. They’re wary and easily spooked. And the politicians respond to this (naturally) and no doubt exploit this. Some of the most rightwing Israelis come from Muslim countries, I’m told–also from the USSR.
    But again, I’m not an Israel expert. I know what I read, and I form my own opinions. I’ll read the rest, and if I have more to add, I will.

    Reply

  54. Sandy says:

    Thank you for reading and commenting, MP. Now then, would you care to comment on this as well (in line with the widely-held belief that it never really WAS regime change in Iraq that Israel cared most about…but regime change in IRAN)?:
    July 14, 2006
    ISRAEL CROSSES THE LINE
    And you read it here first…
    by Justin Raimondo
    “The Israeli offensive against IRAN – until now, purely polemical – morphed into military action the moment the IDF crossed the border into Lebanon and took on Hezbollah. As our regular readers know, this turn of events was predicted in this space two months ago:
    War with Iran will probably not begin with a frontal assault by the U.S. and/or Israel on Iran’s alleged nuclear weapons facilities, or even a skirmish along the Iraq-Iran border.
    Look to Lebanon and Syria for the first battlegrounds of this developing regional war.
    The Israelis know perfectly well that Iran’s nuclear ambitions, if they ever materialize, are not an immediate threat: their real concern is their volatile northern border, where their deadly enemies – Hezbollah – are an effective obstacle to Israeli influence. The Israelis are also looking to exploit growing opportunities to make trouble in Syria, where the restive Kurds are their reliable allies, and the brittleness of the Ba’athist dictatorship is an invitation to regime change.”
    The suggestion, by Professors John J. Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt, in their now famous “The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy,” that the Iraq war was fought for Israel’s sake, and against our own interests in the region, was received in many quarters with outright horror, and not only from the Amen Corner. Noam Chomsky and Stephen Zunes both objected to this thesis of an Israel-centric foreign policy: Israel, they insist, is the “junior partner” of the American hegemon, and is only acting at the behest and under the de facto control of its masters in Washington….” (more…more…more)
    http://antiwar.printthis.clickability.com/pt/cpt?action=cpt&title=Israel+Crosses+the+Line-+by+Justin+Raimondo&expire=&urlID=18850006&fb=Y&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.antiwar.com

    Reply

  55. MP says:

    You mean Walter “Freedom Fries” Jones? That dawg.

    Reply

  56. pauline says:

    from Wayne Madsen —
    May 29, 2007 — North Carolina Republican Rep. Walter Jones has a new job proposal for outgoing World Bank President Paul Wolfowitz. Jones says Wolfowitz should be sent to Iraq to be mayor of Baghdad since Wolfowitz and “the neo-cons” are responsible for the Iraq quagmire.
    If the White House agrees to Jones’ idea, Wolfowitz will have to be issued with adult undergarments. Wolfowitz was staying at Baghdad’s Al Rashid Hotel on October 26, 2003 when insurgents launched a rocket at the hotel. A U.S. Army Colonel was killed in the 6:10 am attack and 15 other people were injured, including 11 Americans and one Briton.
    A British journalist contacted this editor after the attack and said he witnessed Wolfowitz, shaken and in tears, running through the hotel lobby in his underpants with a blanket thrown over his head. The journalist also clearly saw that the seat of Wolfowitz’s underpants was soiled with a very visible stain.
    Just more proof that “neo-con” and bravery is a non-sequiter.

    Reply

  57. pauline says:

    A Republican lawmaker has an unorthodox suggestion for Paul Wolfowitz’s future employment now that the neoconservative war architect has been ousted as World Bank president — send him to Iraq.
    Rep. Walter Jones, R-N.C., suggested the Middle East assignment for Wolfowitz during a hearing of the House Armed Services Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee last week, as reported by ABC News’s blog, The Blotter.
    “I would like to suggest … that maybe we give Paul Wolfowitz a new job and send him over there as mayor of Iraq, since the neocons got us in over there,” Jones said. “And maybe Mr. (Richard) Perle could be co-mayor or co-chairman.”
    Wolfowitz served as deputy secretary of defense from 2000 to 2005, and he was among the key players in the administration who sold the idea of an Iraq invasion based on the wrong-headed assumption that US troops would be greeted as liberators and the war would finance itself from Iraqi oil revenues. Perle, another of the war’s main proponents, served on the Defense Policy Board Advisory Committee during President Bush’s first term. In an interview with Vanity Fair published last year, Perle said he regretted his support of the war.
    As RAW STORY reported last week, recently de-classified pre-war intelligence estimates predicted the turmoil Iraq found itself in after Saddam Hussein’s ouster, despite the pre-invasion public assurances from Wolfowitz and other war supporters.
    Jones was initially a staunch supporter of the American invasion, but he has since recanted, and become one of few anti-war Republican voices in Congress. He called on the House cafeteria to rename French fries to “freedom fries” to protest France’s lack of support for the US invasion, before he switched his position on the war.
    “I will tell you that the American people are fed up, and I’m frustrated and fed up” with the lack of progress in the war, Jones said at last week’s hearing.
    http://rawstory.com/news/2007/Republican_lawmaker_Send_Wolfowitz_to_Iraq_0529.html

    Reply

  58. MP says:

    I meant we, Americans, blaming foreign influence. Look up the American Firster movement. Charles LIndbergh made lots of hay out of how the Jews (and the British, I believe) were driving the US to war in the 30s and 40s. The Alien and Sedition Acts were supposed to protect the US from foreign citizens. The Know Nothing movement in the mid 1800s fed on fears that immigrants (largely Irish Catholics) were overwhelming the “native” culture and were controlled by the Pope.
    Obviously, America is also extremely welcoming to immigrants compared to many other places. But there is also this definite strain in our culture. I think this fear comes from our historical desire to separate ourselves from the old habits and hates of the old countries and our geographic isolation with two oceans and just two, generally friendly, or non-threatening neighbors.

    Reply

  59. Carroll says:

    This is a theme in our history.
    Posted by MP at May 29, 2007 10:54 AM
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>.
    Do you mean a theme in US history to blame foreign influences or a theme in Jewish history or being accused of being a foreign influence in the country they live in? I don’t get which one you are referring to.
    If it’s the first, I can’t recall any past incident in my lifetime of American’s blaming some foreign influence within or without itself of leading to a war or anything of that type.
    But I think Britions probably blame the US foreign influence for leading them into Iraq.
    I don’t really count the Northwoods Operation scheme as foreign Cuban influence, although the exile agitation probably caught the twisted “imagination” of the idiots in the pentagon who thought it up.
    And I don’t think the Japaneese were interred during WWII because we though they had any foreign influence in getting Japan to attack the US. That was the result of a paniced goverment and society about their being potential spies.
    There might be an example somewhere but I can’t think of one right now.

    Reply

  60. MP says:

    Carroll writes: “And MP I think you are veering into becoming too overt saying “most americans” are like fundies…unless you want people to rejoin by saying most jews are like AIPAC and Lukid…which as far as I can see no one has said on here.”
    First, I said “many,” not “most.”
    Beyond that, my point was that it was more comfortable for many Americans to blame the “Israeli” influence because it can be written off or hated as “foreign influence.” This is a theme in our history. Whereas the fundamentalist influence is clearly homegrown American, so looking at that is more like looking in a mirror. My point was NOT that most Americans are fundamentalists.

    Reply

  61. MP says:

    POA writes: “I’ve seen you lie here on numerous occassio. You don’t think I should point those lies out?
    ME: But you never prove your assertion. It’s just your say-so. How credible is that?
    And as far as the voter thing goes, it is YOU that has shown an obvious ignorance, even though you sought to bullshit us about your wife’s alleged activism in regards to voter fraud. You don’t even know who ES&S is, yet your family is actively involved in the issue? BULLSHIT.
    ME: Here’s a good example. You self-evidently know nothing about my or my wife’s activism on voter protection, and yet you say I’m lying. Even a child could see through your bluff.
    And here you are, for all these months running your mouth off about the amount of influence AIPAC and Israel may or may not have on American foreign policy, yet you haven’t even bothered to study or inform yourself about the key ideologies and past activism of key players in the formulation of our foreign policies.
    ME: Again, you are wrong. I said I hadn’t read a particular document. Now I have. So? Frankly, it didn’t change my views on the people involved, the neo con movement, Iraq, or who’s calling the shots. I’ve read so much about these folks, it was like seeing the movie after reading about 100 reviews of it–not much was left to surprise me–except the part about wanting to cut down aid to Israel.
    I repeat my assertion that all this time you have been spewing a bunch of horseshit
    ME: It is an assertion, but you offer no proof.
    that is founded in your own self admitted ignorance on the subject. Just like you have done on the voter fraud issue.
    ME: I am ignorant about certain things and am willing to admit it. So? If you think you aren’t, then you are truly ignorant.
    Here you are endeavoring to minimize the influence Israel has had on these policy maker’s decisions about foreign policy, when it is now revealed you haven’t even bothered to educate yourself about the depth of that influence.
    ME: My point has been and is…who’s calling the shots…who has the power. You seem to think it’s “Israel” or “the Lobby.” I don’t. That isn’t to say they don’t have a lot of influence. Their JOB is to have influence.

    Reply

  62. MP says:

    Carroll writes: “They are powerfull politically with a lot of congress people but I think their numbers are overstated.
    ME: But what about their power?
    I live in the “religous” South and have never even met a fundie, among the Baptist or anyone else…most people I know are Presbyterian or Episcopalian or Catholic or Methodist….and they all regard the fundies as fanatics and weirdos.
    ME: I’ve never met an AIPACer either.
    It’s not a question of “who’s worse,” it’s a question of who really runs the show. Minority groups only run the show when the real powers that be let them or acquiesce.

    Reply

  63. MP says:

    Sandy writes: “MP — I wish you would comment on the PNAC’s work, and in particular “A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm”….from the Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies (July 2006).”
    Okay, I’ve read it. Here’s what I’d say:
    • Much of it I disagree with. In particular, no mention is made of the Palestinian right to a state which, in fact, would seem to be pre-empted by the peace for peace doctrine. It is also preempted by the hot pursuit doctrine. And of course, no mention is made of the Palestinian plight and injustices rendered, alleviation of which needs to be part of any plan.
    • They throw aside comprehensive peace in favor of a realpolitik approach of balance of powers. I’m a comprehensive peace proponent, so I clearly disagree with this. OTOH, I do believe Israel needs to engage in “some” realpolitik because I don’t believe the Palestinian leadership (or many Muslim/Arab leaders) simply want to give peace a chance. Maybe they do; but I don’t believe it. OTOH, I do believe/hope that peace is possible if all the tumblers fall into line correctly at the right moment. Promising negotiations have happened before; I expect/hope they will again. Northern Ireland gives me hope.
    • They recommend basically dismantling the last vestiges of socialism in Israel and supplanting them with free market practices. In general, this is not my perspective, but I’m not an economist and can’t speak to the technical issues.
    • They clearly want to bring Israel and the US closer. If I had read this in 2000, I would have said, “How much closer do they have to be?” In general, I see nothing wrong with close relations with Israel which–as Dobermann pointed out–isn’t equivalent to Likud any more than “Republican” is equivalent to the US government. As has been pointed out, and I agree with this, US and Israeli interests aren’t identical, though I see nothing wrong with saying that they coincide at different points. The key question is…where?
    • Interestingly, and you’d never know this from these comments, they also suggest a fairly dramatic reducction in US aid to Israel, though not “yet” of the military kind. In fact, they suggest that Netanyahu “announce that Israel is now mature enough to cut itself free immediately from at least US economic aid and loan guarantees at aleast…”
    • The points about taking out Iraq, I obviously disagree with.
    • They make a lot of points about Syria, and I’m not in a position to judge whether they are right or wrong. From what I know, however, Syria did occupy Lebanon for about 20 years.
    Those are the things that strike. I’m also reading a commentary on Clean Break called Clean Break or Dirty War by the Institute for Research. Written in 2006, it tries to assess how much of the Clean Break proposal has been implemented and with what results. I haven’t gotten through it yet.

    Reply

  64. pauline says:

    from Wayne Madsen —
    May 28-29, 2007 — Neo-con cabal born in treason in the late 1970s. Lying, massive fraud, illegal weapons smuggling, forged documents . . . all sound like a description of the lead-up to the war in Iraq. However, this same situation existed in the late 1970s. Some of the same players who got this nation into the bloody quagmire of Iraq also criminally conspired to bring down the administration of President Jimmy Carter. President Carter’s indignation about the neo-cons — their blind support for Israel, their whittling away of our Constitution, our neo-con foreign policy — is rooted in the treason they committed against the United States during his administration. There is no statute of limitations on treason and the neo-cons should face double barrel treason charges from incidents a generation apart.
    The neo-con attacks on President Carter were planned in the office of the late Democratic Senator from Washington, Henry “Scoop” Jackson. Jackson was the Joe Lieberman of his day — more concerned about representing the interests of a defense contractor, Boeing (Lieberman represents the interests of General Dynamics), and the expansionists and military-intelligence complex of Israel (as does Lieberman), than in doing what was best for America. Jackson’s treason against the United States is honored today in Britain, where the Henry Jackson Society pushes the neo-con agenda in the British Parliament and media. Jackson, his chief assistant, Richard Perle, and foreign and defense policy aides Frank Gaffney, William Kristol, Douglas Feith, and Elliott Abrams, as well as unofficial Jackson adviser Paul Wolfowitz, did everything possible to derail U.S.-Soviet detente and arms limitation treaties, including the Strategic Arms Limitation Treaty (SALT II).
    Jackson and Perle helped initiate sanctions against the USSR, at the expense of American farmers, with the help of Ohio Democratic Rep. Charles Vanik (the Jackson-Vanik sanctions act). Jackson’s Coalition for a Democratic Majority (CDM) was the “Democratic Leadership Council” of its time. CDM worked tirelessly to damage President Carter and among its ranks were, in addition to Jackson, Texas Democratic Senator Lloyd Bentsen, Oklahoma Senator David Boren, Georgia Senator Sam Nunn, Louisiana Senator J. Bennett Johnston, Ben Wattenberg, Irving Kristol, Max Kampelman, Richard Pipes, John Roche, Samuel Huntington, and James Woolsey. In 1976, the CDM helped form the Committee on the Present Danger, reactivated in 2004 by Lieberman, Arizona Republican Senator Jon Kyl, Laurie Mylroie, Norman Podhoretz, Frank Gaffney, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), Boeing, the American Enterprise Institute, and the Heritage Foundation.
    The treason committed by these neo-cons against the Carter administration centered on machinations in Rome (Rome was also at the center of the later conspiracy to drive the United States into war in Iraq). Arch neo-con and foreign policy adviser to Karl Rove, Michael Ledeen, served as the Rome correspondent for The New Republic from 1975 to 1977 and a journalist for the right-wing Milan newspaper Il Giornale. In Rome, Ledeen cultivated close ties with neo-fascist groups.
    Jackson’s and his staffs’ first documented case of treason against the United States concerned the leak to Jackson and Perle in 1978 of a Top Secret CIA report on the SALT talks by CIA nuclear weapons analyst Daniel S. Sullivan. Sullivan, believing the Soviets deceived the U.S. in the SALT talks, took it upon himself to pass Top Secret information to Jackson and his band of neo-cons. However, rather than being prosecuted, Sullivan was permitted to resign due to “insubordination” and not for illegally passing classified information to unauthorized persons. Sullivan later joined the staff of Senator Bentsen and received another Top Secret clearance as a member of Bentsen’s staff.
    However, the leak of the Top Secret SALT CIA document to Jackson may not have been the only leak to have taken place. In February 2005, the Everett (WA) Herald reported that five federal agents from the Departments of Defense and Energy removed several documents from the archived papers of Jackson housed at the University of Washington’s Suzzallo-Allen Library. The seized documents were re-classified by the government. The retention by Jackson and his staff of top secret documents is reminiscent of the Larry Franklin-AIPAC case, in which Franklin, opposed to U.S. policy on Iran, passed a number of classified CIA documents to AIPAC and the Israeli embassy’s Mossad station in Washington.
    Rather than being treated as the traitor he was, Jackson is today lauded by Democrats of various political stripes. His ideological descendants are at the core of the Republican pre-emptive strike foreign policy construct.
    In 1976, two years after Secretary of State Henry Kissinger threatened then-Italian Foreign Minister Aldo Moro about forming a coalition with the Communists, Jackson, on a trip to Italy, issued a similar warning to Moro. In Phillip Willan’s Puppetmasters, Moro’s widow recounted Kissinger’s warning, which was undoubtedly echoed by Jackson: “You must abandon your policy of bringing all the political forces in your country into direct collaboration . . . or you will pay dearly for it.” Moro was kidnapped for 55 days by the so-called Red Brigades, who were later found to be in the service of Italian fascists, Italian intelligence, the P-2 Masonic Lodge, a parallel SID [Italian Defense Intelligence Service], and the CIA. Some of these same elements would be behind the infamous Niger yellowcake forgeries used by the neo-cons to prove the case for war against Iraq.
    The same neo-con network would transform Mehmet Ali Agca, the would-be assassin of Pope John Paul II, from a right-wing member of the Turkish Gray Wolves to a Communist in the employ of the KGB and Bulgarian intelligence. The Judith Miller-like journalist in those days who spun the story about Agca’s Soviet Bloc connections was Claire Sterling, whose disinformation was quickly picked up by The Reader’s Digest, New York Times, NBC News, and other mainstream media outlets. Sterling’s fellow disinformation journalist was Ledeen.
    Agca told a fantasy story about his orders to kill the Pope coming from a Bulgarian “control officer” and that he had also been involved in a plot to kill Polish Solidarity leader Lech Walesa, Tunisian President Habib Bourguiba, and Malta’s Prime Minister Dom Mintoff. In fact, there was a plot to overthrow and possibly kill Mintoff, Allende-style, but it was being crafted by U.S. Navy intelligence in conjunction with the neo-fascist and renegade Italian intelligence elements in Rome. The U.S. Navy wanted to overthrow Mintoff to gain access to its former NATO base on the island nation off the Libyan coast. Bourguiba was not popular with the neo-cons because he allowed Yasir Arafat’s Palestine Liberation Organization to maintain its headquarters-in-exile in Tunis.
    The Turkish Gray Wolves and the pan-Turkic National Action Party (NAP) made common cause with the neo-cons and their Israeli friends. The Wolves and the NAP considered the peoples of Soviet Central Asia to be “captive Turks.” The Turkish right-wing nationalists foresaw a nuclear-armed Turkey extending from Thrace to the central Asian steppes. The anti-Soviet concordat between the Turkish right (and the Turkish intelligence agency MIT) and the neo-cons in America, Israel, and Italy would later serve as a basis for the political alliance between AIPAC and the American Turkish Council.
    Ledeen operated a right-wing cell in Rome that included Francesco Pazienza, an Italian businessman linked to P-2, Italian SISMI military intelligence chief General Giuseppe Santovito, and the mafia; P-2 “Venerable Master” Licio Gelli; and Banco Ambrosiano chief Roberto Calvi (later murdered Masonic ritual-style in London on Blackfriar’s Bridge). Ledeen provided a conduit between this group and Ronald Reagan’s Secretary of State Alexander Haig.
    In an attempt to embarrass President Carter during the 1980 presidential race, Santovito, Pazienza, and Ledeen conspired to entrap Bill Carter, the president’s brother, into a business relationship with Libyan leader Muammar Qaddafi. La Repubblica reported on the Italian investigation into the conspiracy:
    “The scandalous material was gathered mostly by Pazienza and by his American friend Michael Ledeen . . . Pazienza availed himself of SISMI both for the use of some secret agents and for the expenses of organizing the scandalous plan. It seems that the organizers got a huge payoff for “Billygate.” Moreover, Santovito and Pazienza got great advantage in return from American officials, in fact, may have been helped in other obscure affairs. The “Billygate” operation did not come from SISMI’s institutionally mandated task, and for that reason Judge Sica brought charges of pursuing private interests through official activities.” [Translated in Diana Johnstone, “The Ledeen Connection,” In These Times, Sept. 8-14, 1982].
    Rather than being charged and prosecuted for treason against the United States, Ledeen was rewarded with a consulting job for the State Department and Pentagon in the Reagan administration, a position from which he was free to continue his anti-American activities with fellow traitors from the Henry Jackson staff.
    While the traitors in the Washington office of Jackson and Ledeen in Rome were conspiring against President Carter, George H. W. Bush, Carter National Security Council staffer Robert Gates, and William Casey criminally conspired with the Ayatollah Khomeini’s government to keep 52 hostages held in Tehran captive in return for a shipment of weapons. A meeting between Casey, Gates, and Bush and Iranian agents was held in Paris on October 19, 1980, in what became known as the “October Surprise.” The deal was worked out using the auspices of the Sun Shipyard in Chester, PA, which had a close link to the CIA since the shipyard’s building of the Soviet submarine raising ship, SS Glomar Explorer, under cover provided by Howard Hughes’ Summa Corporation, in 1973. As WMR has previously reported, the CIA arranged a pre-election weapons shipment, unknown to President Carter, to Iran on the SS Poet from Chester, PA to Iran. The Poet was later disposed of along with its American crew by U.S. intelligence or those in its service. And what magazine later debunked the “October Surprise” story of a Bush-Casey treasonous deal with Iran? None other than Ledeen’s old employer, The New Republic.

    Reply

  65. springbored says:

    anybody who had pictures of the mobile labs who knew biology knew these things were complete mirages.
    where the hell are the counterintelligence people? Wolfe’s libyan babushka? Feith’s record? Their mutual friends? The Pentagon visitors?
    There’s a record that makes good reading there. Curveball? hell, try spitball, forkball and fastball…Who is hiding it?

    Reply

  66. Carroll says:

    http://www.warandpiece.com/
    Huummm…two very interesting things from Laura Rosen
    US and Iran had their first Abm to Abm meeting.
    And
    The group formed to “do something” about Iran has been disbanded….by “popular opinion” (if you believe that)..I don’t know if that is good or bad.
    Any hoo, someone(s) is pushing Iran & the US together to try and find a way out of Iraq with Iran’s help or some agreement it looks like.

    Reply

  67. PissedOffAmerican says:

    “So unless you want this to descend into some fight between “who is worse” the jews or the americans you need to back up.”
    He has been there for quite some time. It is but just one of his strawman tactics.

    Reply

  68. PissedOffAmerican says:

    Care to show me where I call other posters “traitors”, MP? And why shouldn’t I call a liar a liar? I’ve seen you lie here on numerous occassio. You don’t think I should point those lies out?
    And as far as the voter thing goes, it is YOU that has shown an obvious ignorance, even though you sought to bullshit us about your wife’s alleged activism in regards to voter fraud. You don’t even know who ES&S is, yet your family is actively involved in the issue? BULLSHIT.
    And here you are, for all these months running your mouth off about the amount of influence AIPAC and Israel may or may not have on American foreign policy, yet you haven’t even bothered to study or inform yourself about the key ideologies and past activism of key players in the formulation of our foreign policies.
    I repeat my assertion that all this time you have been spewing a bunch of horseshit that is founded in your own self admitted ignorance on the subject. Just like you have done on the voter fraud issue. Here you are endeavoring to minimize the influence Israel has had on these policy maker’s decisions about foreign policy, when it is now revealed you haven’t even bothered to educate yourself about the depth of that influence.
    You simply aren’t credible, MP. Too many times you have been shown to be uninformed, lying, or casting straw.

    Reply

  69. MP says:

    POA writes: “The fact that MP claims to have not bothered to read “A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm” explains quite a bit about his needing to hit the straw barn for 98% of his posting. That so much of his horseshit is so obviously founded in ignorance of the facts it should come as no suprise to me that he has educated himself so superficially.”
    That’s funny. I feel exactly the same way about you when you talk about 9/11. Or when you or Carroll talk about anti-Semitism. Or Israel. Or voter protection here in the US. Or physics. Or structural engineering. Or lintels, something you should know about. Or, closer to home (for me), aspects of my (and others’) personal life of which you necessarily have no knowledge.
    And yet, none of your self-evident ignorance stops you, not only from posting repeatedly on these matters, but from calling other posters liars, trolls, traitors, and various other epithets.
    But actually, I don’t hold any of this against you. You’re young. You still have time to inform yourself.

    Reply

  70. Carroll says:

    It has been brought up–but it doesn’t fit the script quite as well, so it gets less play. Birnbaum was right about this: Looking at the fundamentalists is much more like looking in the mirror for many Americans. Looking at AIPAC and Israel is much easier and more satisfying because it’s about blaming foreign influences.
    Posted by MP at May 28, 2007 01:33 PM
    >>>>>>>>
    The “Fundies” and Christian Zionist have been mentioned a lot, particulary by the MSM press and I do see lots of discussion about them on various blogs.
    They are powerfull politically with a lot of congress people but I think their numbers are overstated.
    I live in the “religous” South and have never even met a fundie, among the Baptist or anyone else…most people I know are Presbyterian or
    Episcopalian or Catholic or Methodist….and they all regard the fundies as fanatics and weirdos.
    Like most of the other crackpot groups they are a minority, just fanatical and louder than the mostly sane rest of the country.
    And MP I think you are veering into becoming too overt saying “most americans” are like fundies…unless you want people to rejoin by saying most jews are like AIPAC and Lukid…which as far as I can see no one has said on here.
    So unless you want this to descend into some fight between “who is worse” the jews or the americans you need to back up.
    But then I have always said that the Lukid jews and the evangelicals nutcases would eventually start fighting with each other….so maybe that is what it will come down to and the rest of us can just watch them both self destruct.

    Reply

  71. PissedOffAmerican says:

    It is impossible to have a coherant or informed opinion of Israel’s effect on our foreign policy considering the key player’s such as Fieth, Perle, Wolfowitz, Cheney, etc, without actually reading the PNAC documents they signed onto. The fact that MP claims to have not bothered to read “A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm” explains quite a bit about his needing to hit the straw barn for 98% of his posting. That so much of his horseshit is so obviously founded in ignorance of the facts it should come as no suprise to me that he has educated himself so superficially. Yet, I am suprised. How can one comment intelligently about this Administration’s motivations, alliances, and goals without informing themselves about the activities, tenets, and members of the PNAC.

    Reply

  72. MP says:

    Sandy writes: “MP — I wish you would comment on the PNAC’s work, and in particular “A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm”….from the Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies (July 2006).”
    Over time, it’s gotten mentioned a lot. I haven’t read the document, but will try. There is so much to read; I just haven’t.
    In general, the neocon perspective has been a disaster for America and the world, as far as I can see. My view on most of these movements is that they tend to contain some good, but go wrong when they are taken to extremes or aren’t counter balanced with other perspectives. For example, I’m not a libertarian, but its strong view on liberty is an important additive to the overall mix. However, unlike Goldwater, I believe that extremism in defense of liberty CAN be a sin. Mostly because extremism is the sin. But all this is shorthand for a longer discussion.

    Reply

  73. MP says:

    Thanks, Sandy, I appreciate your support.
    This forum has been important to me personally. It’s forced me to confront uncomfortable truths about myself, my peeps, and my country (the US). It’s been very stimulating and a way to refine what I think about important issues. It’s increased my commitment to making the world a better place…and challenged me to become more committed.

    Reply

  74. Sandy says:

    WRT “The Protestant Fundamentalists and their desire to bring on the Battle of Armegeddon”….I would say they are harder to take seriously. OTOH, General Jerry Boykin, one of the like-minded evangelicals Zhu is talking about…was in a position to do some harm. As is George W. Bush, as we’ve seen.
    And, the depend on Israel, remember, a necessary part of the prophesy. To my mind a very cynical relationship and interaction to say the least.
    I can’t think of any “think tank” they have that churns out “strategy” papers and “scholars”– like the American Enterprise Institute and The Project for a New American Century (PNAC) and others.
    MP — I wish you would comment on the PNAC’s work, and in particular “A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm”….from the Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies (July 2006).
    I’ve mentioned them before…..but no one ever comments. Thanks.

    Reply

  75. Sandy says:

    Thank you for your voice, MP.

    Reply

  76. MP says:

    Zhu writes: “I’m surprised that no one has brought up the Protestant Fundamentalists and their desire to bring on the Battle of Armegeddon.”
    It has been brought up–but it doesn’t fit the script quite as well, so it gets less play. Birnbaum was right about this: Looking at the fundamentalists is much more like looking in the mirror for many Americans. Looking at AIPAC and Israel is much easier and more satisfying because it’s about blaming foreign influences.

    Reply

  77. Carroll says:

    re comments like this from carroll:
    No matter what other motives others besides AIPAC and Israel may have for attacking Iran..the conservation about cutting Israel out of America is going to only become more so. While I am all for getting Israel and AIPAC meddling out of our goverment and congress I don’t want a war with Iran to get that job done.
    AIPAC and Israel??? What evidence do you have that AIPAC = Israel? I have never read of any Israeli position supporting AIPAC nor have I come across any Israeli sites that promote AIPAC. AIPAC CLAIMS to be all about supporting Israel but many if not most intelligent Jews do not think the idiots and their fellow travelers do help.
    Posted by sam dobermann at May 27, 2007 09:29 PM
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>
    It matters not if AIPAC represents the whole of Israel or not, they represent the right wing goverment of Israel because they share the same ideology. AIPAC doesn’t have Sharon and Netanyahu speaking by video conferencing to AIPAC annual meetings for no reason.
    But that is beside the point anyway…a misdirection which has nothing to do with American’s objections to AIPAC…..the point is AIPAC’s interference in US policy.

    Reply

  78. MP says:

    Thanks, Publius, for your response. Here’s what I would say:
    “Well, looks as if my comments excited MP a bit. Sorry, MP, but as others have suggested, you’re engaging in the strawman business and are also playing the good old anti-Semitism card. It doesn’t wash. It’s not what I said.
    ME: I specifically said I wasn’t calling you anti-Semitic. And I’m still not. But I do reserve the right to “call you” on certain things you say–just as you have the same right with me.
    Further, to expand a little bit on my comments, perhaps you’re not familiar with the history of Jews in the Western world. The fact is one of my major concerns about the overt favoritism for Israel demonstrated by several high level governmental officials is that their actions can do nothing but revive the old European hatreds. Backlash, in other words. We don’t want that in our country. Period.
    ME: I can support what you say here.
    Further, given the history and reality, it’s not nearly as likely that all Christians will be tarred by the actions of fundamentalist wackos.
    ME: Which suggests what? That there is a dormant layer of anti-Semitism ready to blossom. Christians get to do X; no harm no foul. Jews do it and all other Jews get tarred.
    Bad enough that our hands weren’t entirely clean during the Holocaust; the old European attitudes afflict our society, too. IMO, we as a nation have done a very good job in addressing these old Euro ills, to include very gentle and positive treatment of the state of Israel. I have no problem with supporting Israel: it is a democratic state in a region where freedom is an alien concept to the vast majority of inhabitants.
    ME: I appreciate your comments.
    I do support Israel. But only to the point where such support coincides with the interests of my own nation. I most emphatically do not support Israel when its actions threaten the security of my nation.
    ME: I couldn’t agree more. I’ve said to Steve that the big discussion that needs to take place is…what are the US’s genuine interests? I’m not sure the answer to that question is obvious. Or as obvious as some make it sound.
    And that is apparently where I differ from folks such as yourself and Mr. Birnbaum.
    ME: Am I getting tarred here as a proto-traitor?
    Patrick Lang also differs. People like us do not view Israel uncritically, nor do we believe that whatever they do is OK.
    ME: Nor do the vast number of Israelis. In fact, Israel usually takes much swifter and more profound steps to punish Israeli malfactors and incompetents than we do with our own. Maybe this is one way people like you and Pat should suggest that US become more like Israel.
    Israel is a (usually) friendly foreign nation and our relationships with it should be approached just as they are with other such nations.
    ME: Agreed.
    Israel is not perfect. IMO, Israel has made some grave errors in its relationships with the Palestinians and other states. We have erred equally in uncritically accepting and supporting them in their errors. We have been too often been in the position of being enablers.
    ME: Agreed +. I’ve long argued on these threads that the US should use its “pull” with Israel to move it in the direction of peace and justice with and for the Palestinians, to the degree that that is possible.
    I brought up Pollard and the Liberty (and I note you did not address the Liberty) for a reason.
    ME: No real reason except that my posts are already long. What I know about the Liberty suggests that the nature and reason for the incident is disputed.
    You mentioned Americans spies as a red herring. There are some significant differences. First, there is no foreign government or lobby working to free Pollard.
    ME: True; this is a difference; but it’s not clear to me why it’s important. Personally, I think Pollard should rot in jail. He’s a convicted traitor. My focus was to say that WAH arguable did more damage to the US than Pollard. Individuals go astray; that’s my view of Pollard.
    And of course, we do not have any persons currently in our prisons after having been convicted of espionage on behalf of England, France or Germany, just to mention some other “allies” that are somehow able to refrain from conducting clandestine intelligence operations against us. In this, Israel is the outlier “ally.” And one wonders just why that is.
    ME: These other countries haven’t been in extremis since their birth. Countries whose focus is survival are more likely to take desperate measures, even with friends. I’ll mention only in passing the scud missiles that Israel “took” on our behalf during the Gulf War…and the plans we had at one point (apparently) to bomb Israel. Is that any way to treat a friend? Point is, it’s a bit of a different realtionship all the way around.
    One also wonders why so many Americans support the release of one single individual convicted of the heinous crime of espionage against his own nation. It is most unfortunate for your thesis that Pollard was spying for Israel rather than for England or Germany.
    ME: How many are “so many”? And maybe these “many” are simply wrong in their views. At one point, good Americans were members of the Communist Party; so what? You seem to be pointing to a larger thesis, but I can’t make out what it is.
    Finally, I want to ask you, MP, have you ever taken an oath to the Constitution of the United States? I have. And so has Pat Lang. That oath is pretty unequivocable: no other nation is ever placed before our own. So my beef is not with you or with Birnbaum.
    ME: You say that, but if you re-read your post, your beef WAS with Birnbaum. In fact, you called him “stateless.” Why was that? Because Birnbaum said that he found some things Lang said to be “ugly.” No; I haven’t taken the oath; but I am a loyal American. You know history, however, so you know that when we embark on witch hunts for “disloyal” Americans, we really are into HUAC and McCarthy territory–or not far therefrom.
    Unless, of course, you’ve taken that oath. My beef is with those U.S. Government officials who’ve taken that oath and who’ve nevertheless taken actions to favor Israel even when such actions damage our own interests.
    ME: Such actions would be entirely wrong and should be punished.
    I know they rationalize their actions by a construct that views the interests of Israel and the U.S. as always being identical. That may even be a defense in federal court. But it won’t work. Secretly aiding another nation amounts to working against the interests of the U.S. That is what we call disloyalty. And that is what I’m all about.
    ME: Agreed.
    I think you’re on shaky ground defending certain government officials and AIPAC. The problem is it looks as if they’ve violated oaths of office and the law. You might wish to examine your own motivations for defending them.
    ME: When and where did I defend certain government officials? If you are going to accuse me of something, the least you can do is specify what I did and show it. Nor have I defended AIPAC despite POA’s constant refrain. My point about AIPAC (again) is that it operates to influence policy much the same way other lobbies do. Whether Weissman and Rosen are convicted of espionage, this point stands. If they are convicted, they should sit in jail next to Pollard…and WAH…and any other disloyal Americans so convicted. The difference here–and this speaks to my motivation–is that American society may well regard the actions of these three individuals as due cause for tarring millions of other Americans who’ve had nothing to do with this and who have only given their all for this country. No other “Websters,” “Aldridges,” or “Hansens” will get tarred for WAH’s actions. No members of Opus Dei will be brought before the tribunal of public opinion. No members of any Protestant group will come under suspicion or become political pariahs. And that, my friend, is the essence of anti-Semitism and racism. When you do it, you’re just a bad apple. When we do it, it reflects on the entire group. Even if, as is the case with WAH, the “it” is much more damaging to the US and US assets and involves the principal enemy of the US (at that time). So, in that sense, WAH is not a red herring, but an apposite comparison.
    Now, as a practical matter, a lot of Jews understand this. That’s why, when someone prominent does something wrong, their first thought is often, “I hope he wasn’t a Jew.” Because they know or fear that the rest of us are going to get tarred with the same brush. Stateless Birnbaum, for example.
    In my case, this is also a matter of sentiment. When Jews act the way Wolfie et al have acted, I’m personally ashamed of them. I’m embarrassed that a Jew would act this way. I expect and hope much more from them. But this is a matter of sentiment. As a matter of principal, however, they are no different from anyone else who does wrong–WAH for example–and should be treated/punished equally. That is what this country is supposed to be all about. POA “hates it” when someone posts those lists of Jews in government; but what he should hate is the anti-Semitism and hatred that is the motivation for these kinds of posts.
    Just to step back a little…one of the ironies of this is that, among all the immigrant groups to the US at the turn of the century, the Jews were probably the most eager to become Americans and enthusiastically embraced their new home in all ways. Many fewer of them returned to the “old country” than did members of the other groups who found that America’s streets really weren’t paved with gold.
    Aside from the important fact that they were inspired by this country’s ideals, the other reason for this was a bit starker: They didn’t have a country to return to. There was no Italy, Germany, or Poland for them. Even without an Israel, they were considered dualists, loyal only to their own tribe. It didn’t matter how beautifully they wrote German or how many Iron Crosses they earned in WWI. In the end, they were “stateless.”

    Reply

  79. PissedOffAmerican says:

    If you read these threads, however, you will “learn” that AIPAC is sort of a second Israeli embassy, or more like a US outpost for the Mossad.
    Posted by MP
    Gee, MP, just who the hell do you think the AIPAC spies were passing intelligence to, Santa Claus?

    Reply

  80. MP says:

    Sam writes: “AIPAC and Israel??? What evidence do you have that AIPAC = Israel? I have never read of any Israeli position supporting AIPAC nor have I come across any Israeli sites that promote AIPAC. AIPAC CLAIMS to be all about supporting Israel but many if not most intelligent Jews do not think the idiots and their fellow travelers do help.”
    An interesting point, Sam. If you read these threads, however, you will “learn” that AIPAC is sort of a second Israeli embassy, or more like a US outpost for the Mossad. I remain unconvinced, but this is taken as gospel by many on these threads. Thanks for your comments.

    Reply

  81. MP says:

    Thanks Matt…I’ll read it.

    Reply

  82. MP says:

    Publius writes: “I do support Israel. But only to the point where such support coincides with the interests of my own nation. I most emphatically do not support Israel when its actions threaten the security of my nation. And that is apparently where I differ from folks such as yourself and Mr. Birnbaum. Patrick Lang also differs. People like us do not view Israel uncritically, nor do we believe that whatever they do is OK. Israel is a (usually) friendly foreign nation and our relationships with it should be approached just as they are with other such nations.”
    I agree with this entirely and it reflects my own support for Israel apart from sentiment. I don’t see anything in what I wrote, or even in what Birnbaum wrote on this thread, that suggests an “uncritical” support for Israel. I can’t speak for Birnbaum–I only know what I read–but this is true for me. So you are extrapolating here in an unfortunate manner.

    Reply

  83. MP says:

    POA writes: “So, you are saying that Publius considers this Birnbaum schill a “Jewish-American that has reached a position of power and influence”?”
    No, but he used the word “you” referring to Birnbaum. He said many things about Birnbaum, one of which is that Birnbaum is stateless, conflicted in his loyalties, etc. No need on my part to make anything up. It’s there in black and white.

    Reply

  84. smchris says:

    “He [Wolfowitz] said, ‘No, no, they’ll be glad to see us,'” Lang continued. “This will start the process of revolution around the Middle East that will transform everything.’
    No, Lang told Wolfowitz, “that’s not gonna happen. It’s just an impossibility. They’re not like that. They don’t want to be us.”
    This is a key points for the history books. There must be many reasons we are in Iraq from oil to the President’s Oedipal complex. But among the true believers like Wolfowitz was this barbarously stupid ignorance of history and the world.
    Millions of us around the world were protesting on the eve of this invasion because _we_ understood it was idiotic to the point of insanity. It looks like our only consolation so far is that we can see Wolfowitz recorded in a footnote as one of the great morons of American policy-making.

    Reply

  85. Carroll says:

    Back to the business at hand.
    I recommend everyone read this for Memorial Day. Because it is true. And all the election tizzy among the sheepel and media is just more crapola on top of more crapola. Nothing will change, there will be no hero president to represent the people and save America, until we do something more than talk.
    Burn Washington to the Ground and Start Over sounds especially right to me this Memorial Day. This is by Steve’s friend whose son was killed in Iraq.
    http://tinyurl.com/ywua4l
    Washington Post
    I Lost My Son to a War I Oppose. We Were Both Doing Our Duty.
    By Andrew J. Bacevich
    Sunday, May 27, 2007; Page B01
    (a snip)
    “Not for a second did I expect my own efforts to make a difference. But I did nurse the hope that my voice might combine with those of others — teachers, writers, activists and ordinary folks –to educate the public about the folly of the course on which the nation has embarked. I hoped that those efforts might produce a political climate conducive to change. I genuinely believed that if the people spoke, our leaders in Washington would listen and respond.
    This, I can now see, was an illusion.
    The people have spoken, and nothing of substance has changed. The November 2006 midterm elections signified an unambiguous repudiation of the policies that landed us in our present predicament. But half a year later, the war continues, with no end in sight. Indeed, by sending more troops to Iraq (and by extending the tours of those, like my son, who were already there), Bush has signaled his complete disregard for what was once quaintly referred to as “the will of the people.”
    To be fair, responsibility for the war’s continuation now rests no less with the Democrats who control Congress than with the president and his party. After my son’s death, my state’s senators, Edward M. Kennedy and John F. Kerry, telephoned to express their condolences. Stephen F. Lynch, our congressman, attended my son’s wake. Kerry was present for the funeral Mass. My family and I greatly appreciated such gestures. But when I suggested to each of them the necessity of ending the war, I got the brushoff. More accurately, after ever so briefly pretending to listen, each treated me to a convoluted explanation that said in essence: Don’t blame me.
    To whom do Kennedy, Kerry and Lynch listen? We know the answer: to the same people who have the ear of George W. Bush and Karl Rove — namely, wealthy individuals and institutions.”
    Money buys access and influence. Money greases the process that will yield us a new president in 2008. When it comes to Iraq, money ensures that the concerns of big business, big oil, bellicose evangelicals and Middle East allies gain a hearing. By comparison, the lives of U.S. soldiers figure as an afterthought.
    Memorial Day orators will say that a G.I.’s life is priceless. Don’t believe it. I know what value the U.S. government assigns to a soldier’s life: I’ve been handed the check. It’s roughly what the Yankees will pay Roger Clemens per inning once he starts pitching next month.
    Money maintains the Republican/Democratic duopoly of trivialized politics. It confines the debate over U.S. policy to well-hewn channels. It preserves intact the cliches of 1933-45 about isolationism, appeasement and the nation’s call to “global leadership.” It inhibits any serious accounting of exactly how much our misadventure in Iraq is costing. It ignores completely the question of who actually pays. It negates democracy, rendering free speech little more than a means of recording dissent.
    This is not some great conspiracy. It’s the way our system works.
    In joining the Army, my son was following in his father’s footsteps: Before he was born, I had served in Vietnam. As military officers, we shared an ironic kinship of sorts, each of us demonstrating a peculiar knack for picking the wrong war at the wrong time. Yet he was the better soldier — brave and steadfast and irrepressible.
    I know that my son did his best to serve our country. Through my own opposition to a profoundly misguided war, I thought I was doing the same. In fact, while he was giving his all, I was doing nothing. In this way, I failed him.”
    Andrew J. Bacevich teaches history and international relations at Boston University. His son died May 13 after a suicide bomb explosion in Salah al-Din province.
    >>>>>>>>
    Anyone not advocating or trying to bring this totally corrupted political system DOWN is not a patriot..it is way,way,way,way,way past time for a second American Revolution.

    Reply

  86. Carroll says:

    He’s totally right … the issue is hard line “likudism” (in america we would call it neo-conservativism)…It has nothing to do with being Jewish per se, it is about the meaning of power – and who should excersize it.
    Posted by matt at May 27, 2007 08:06 PM
    >>>>>>>>>>>
    And I agree with matt….except I would add that the hard line “lukidism” is embodied in AIPAC in the US…I don’t think anyone doubts the AIPAC group is hard line Lukid all the way.

    Reply

  87. Carroll says:

    Well count me in with… Posted by Publius at May 27, 2007 09:46 PM..I think he is very fair in his assessment.
    And MP you simply must get over this “jews as the oppressed” thing. Do you seriously think jews in the US are in any way oppressed?
    Do you actually even know anyone who hates you just for being Jewish..I bet not.
    It’s time to quit using the holocaust as justification for everything and lay it to rest except as a warning to future civilizations of the dangers of mad men and brainwashed societies.
    That doesn’t mean not protecting the rights of minorities but it does mean not letting our entire country be driven by the irrational ideas and demands of a few based on their past victimhood and view of the world.
    The jews as victims or the oppressed here or most countries doesn’t apply to todays times.
    And you know looking back I don’t remember anti-semitism or the jewish factor being part of any political discussions until after 911 and Iraq when Israel and AIPAC popped into view and become so vocal and involved in our “terrier” war. And not till criticism of Israel started in relation to all that, did the anti-semite thing start being thrown about and used as a defense of AIPAC and Israel actions.

    Reply

  88. Zhu Bajie says:

    I’m surprised that no one has brought up the Protestant Fundamentalists and their desire to bring on the Battle of Armegeddon. If AIPAC and Israeli rightwingers have power in the US, it’s because they tell the Religious Right (who number in the 10s of millions, remember) what it wants to hear.
    Jews don’t rule America; Protestant Fundies rule America.
    Zhu Bajie, ex-fundie

    Reply

  89. Publius says:

    I guess I should proof read. Obviously, where it reads, “First, there is no foreign government or lobby working to free Pollard,” should read “First, there is no foreign government or lobby working to free any but one of the convicted spies now resident in federal prisons. That one is of course Pollard.”

    Reply

  90. Publius says:

    Well, looks as if my comments excited MP a bit. Sorry, MP, but as others have suggested, you’re engaging in the strawman business and are also playing the good old anti-Semitism card. It doesn’t wash. It’s not what I said. Further, to expand a little bit on my comments, perhaps you’re not familiar with the history of Jews in the Western world. The fact is one of my major concerns about the overt favoritism for Israel demonstrated by several high level governmental officials is that their actions can do nothing but revive the old European hatreds. Backlash, in other words. We don’t want that in our country. Period. Further, given the history and reality, it’s not nearly as likely that all Christians will be tarred by the actions of fundamentalist wackos.
    Bad enough that our hands weren’t entirely clean during the Holocaust; the old European attitudes afflict our society, too. IMO, we as a nation have done a very good job in addressing these old Euro ills, to include very gentle and positive treatment of the state of Israel. I have no problem with supporting Israel: it is a democratic state in a region where freedom is an alien concept to the vast majority of inhabitants.
    I do support Israel. But only to the point where such support coincides with the interests of my own nation. I most emphatically do not support Israel when its actions threaten the security of my nation. And that is apparently where I differ from folks such as yourself and Mr. Birnbaum. Patrick Lang also differs. People like us do not view Israel uncritically, nor do we believe that whatever they do is OK. Israel is a (usually) friendly foreign nation and our relationships with it should be approached just as they are with other such nations.
    Israel is not perfect. IMO, Israel has made some grave errors in its relationships with the Palestinians and other states. We have erred equally in uncritically accepting and supporting them in their errors. We have been too often been in the position of being enablers.
    I brought up Pollard and the Liberty (and I note you did not address the Liberty) for a reason. You mentioned Americans spies as a red herring. There are some significant differences. First, there is no foreign government or lobby working to free Pollard. And of course, we do not have any persons currently in our prisons after having been convicted of espionage on behalf of England, France or Germany, just to mention some other “allies” that are somehow able to refrain from conducting clandestine intelligence operations against us. In this, Israel is the outlier “ally.” And one wonders just why that is. One also wonders why so many Americans support the release of one single individual convicted of the heinous crime of espionage against his own nation. It is most unfortunate for your thesis that Pollard was spying for Israel rather than for England or Germany.
    Finally, I want to ask you, MP, have you ever taken an oath to the Constitution of the United States? I have. And so has Pat Lang. That oath is pretty unequivocable: no other nation is ever placed before our own. So my beef is not with you or with Birnbaum. Unless, of course, you’ve taken that oath. My beef is with those U.S. Government officials who’ve taken that oath and who’ve nevertheless taken actions to favor Israel even when such actions damage our own interests. I know they rationalize their actions by a construct that views the interests of Israel and the U.S. as always being identical. That may even be a defense in federal court. But it won’t work. Secretly aiding another nation amounts to working against the interests of the U.S. That is what we call disloyalty. And that is what I’m all about.
    I think you’re on shaky ground defending certain government officials and AIPAC. The problem is it looks as if they’ve violated oaths of office and the law. You might wish to examine your own motivations for defending them.

    Reply

  91. sam dobermann says:

    Uh, why doesn’t anybody give credit to the Iraqi ex-pats lobby (INC iirc) who lobbied to actually invade Iraq.
    There were a number of Jewish groups here and in Israel that were AGAINST the invasion of Iraq. Israel is not a monolith — just as this country is not and the fact that they did elect Sharon (thanks to the Infitada, something I’m sure Arafat took into account) does that mean that Israelis were united behind him. In fact, Israelis actually forced Sharon to a more moderate position and even party. Yeah the proof of that pudding would have been tested but for . . . and Olmert is no prize. Lord, save us from those who are trying to prove their leadership/manhood by being warlike. But his rejection by Israelis is greater than US rejection of Bu$h.
    re comments like this from carroll:
    No matter what other motives others besides AIPAC and Israel may have for attacking Iran..the conservation about cutting Israel out of America is going to only become more so. While I am all for getting Israel and AIPAC meddling out of our goverment and congress I don’t want a war with Iran to get that job done.
    AIPAC and Israel??? What evidence do you have that AIPAC = Israel? I have never read of any Israeli position supporting AIPAC nor have I come across any Israeli sites that promote AIPAC. AIPAC CLAIMS to be all about supporting Israel but many if not most intelligent Jews do not think the idiots and their fellow travelers do help.
    I frankly wish they’d self destruct then yo-yos could NOT act/speak like Israel = AIPAC.
    How can we get the word through to Congress critters that support for AIPAC may (is) even detrimental to Israel.

    Reply

  92. matt says:

    Pissed off american said aways above me on this thread ….
    “The issue is NOT about Jews. It is about politicians and organizations that place Israel’s interests above our own. Certainly, someone can be Jewish, yet still hold a stronger allegiance to the United States than they do to Israel. Just because a representative might be Catholic, are we then going to claim they favor Italy’s interests over our own?
    This thing about “Jews” and “anti-semitism” just clouds the true issue, which is one of allegiance. It is not an individual’s religion that is the barometer of their patriotism, rather it is their actions that are the true indicaters of their allegiance.”
    He’s totally right … the issue is hard line “likudism” (in America we would call it Neo-conservativism)…It has nothing to do with being Jewish per se, it is about the meaning of power – and who should exercise it.
    May I humbly suggest the best article ever written on the topic: Nicholas Xenos’s “Leo Strauss and the Rhetoric of the War on Terror”
    Here’s the address (sorry no hypertext link)
    http://www.logosjournal.com/xenos.htm

    Reply

  93. matt says:

    Pissed off american said aways above me on this thread ….
    “The issue is NOT about Jews. It is about politicians and organizations that place Israel’s interests above our own. Certainly, someone can be Jewish, yet still hold a stronger allegiance to the United States than they do to Israel. Just because a representative might be Catholic, are we then going to claim they favor Italy’s interests over our own?
    This thing about “Jews” and “anti-semitism” just clouds the true issue, which is one of allegiance. It is not an individual’s religion that is the barometer of their patriotism, rather it is their actions that are the true indicaters of their allegiance.”
    He’s totally right … the issue is hard line “likudism” (in america we would call it neo-conservativism)…It has nothing to do with being Jewish per se, it is about the meaning of power – and who should excersize it.
    May I humbly suggest the best article ever written on the topic: Nicholas Xenos’s “Leo Strauss and the Rhetoric of the War on Terror”
    Here’s the address (sorry no hypertext link)
    http://www.logosjournal.com/xenos.htm

    Reply

  94. PissedOffAmerican says:

    POA writes: “Well, MP, perhaps Publius didn’t bring them up because they have nothing to do with AIPAC or Israel, which is what we are talking about.”
    No, Publius was talking about Birnbaum. Let’s take a look:
    Publius writes: “It is truly a shame that many Jewish-Americans who’ve reached positions of power and influence seem to place the interests of a foreign country ahead of those of their own nation. It is equally a shame that Jewish-Americans, the vast majority of whom are fine, loyal citizens, are tarred by the actions of these people…..
    Blathered by MP.
    So, you are saying that Publius considers this Birnbaum schill a “Jewish-American that has reached a position of power and influence”?
    Again, MP, how do you dream this crap up?

    Reply

  95. MP says:

    POA writes: “Well, MP, perhaps Publius didn’t bring them up because they have nothing to do with AIPAC or Israel, which is what we are talking about.”
    No, Publius was talking about Birnbaum. Let’s take a look:
    Publius writes: “It is truly a shame that many Jewish-Americans who’ve reached positions of power and influence seem to place the interests of a foreign country ahead of those of their own nation. It is equally a shame that Jewish-Americans, the vast majority of whom are fine, loyal citizens, are tarred by the actions of these people.
    ME: Here, Publius says that “many” JA’s…place the interests of a foreign country ahead of those of their own. How many is “many” — especially compared to the number of JA’s in government? In what sense is this even a meaninful statement? It strikes me as out and out demagoguery with good grammar.
    Birnbaum, Israel is a foreign country. Its interests do not necessarily coincide with the best interests of our nation. One need only reference Jonathon Pollard, who rightly still languishes in a federal prison despite the best efforts of the Israeli government and a few unsavory Americans. One might also reference the Liberty in determining how Israel views the United States.
    ME: Birnbaum is essentially being compared to Pollard. Like Pollard, he doesn’t get that Israel isn’t the US. If you doubt my interpretation, read on…
    Birnbaum, you are, as are some of the high-level politicians cited, clearly a person of conflicted loyalties. Which makes you essentially stateless persons. It seems the diaspora is more important than allegiance to the United States. It is a pity that you’ll never understand the greatness of this nation and can never be truly loyal to it.
    ME: Translation: Birnbaum, you’re as good as a traitor. You just haven’t done the deed yet. All because Birnbaum called Pat Lang’s comments “ugly.”
    My point: Jewish Americans sometimes go astray, just like others, such as WAH. But for Publius, Pollard and Birnbaum are espeically heinous as are “many” Jewish Americans in government. The irony, as I’ve pointed out, is that WAH probably did more damage to the US than Pollard.
    Hey, it’s the WE. I’ve already posted WAY too much.

    Reply

  96. MP says:

    POA writes: “Well, thats simple. Because whenever we point to the actions of “a few”, some asshole comes along and claims we are being “anti-semitic”, and paints us as accusing all the jews.”
    I guess these “assholes” are correct. If we’re going to get tarred anyway, what the heck.

    Reply

  97. MP says:

    POA writes: “Oh, give us a break. “Fair”, my ass. How do you dream this shit up? Care to tell us what role the NRA, the AMA, the tobacco industry, or any of the other lobbys had to do with contributing to the LIES that facilitated the invasion of Iraq? Or how are these lobbys helping to exagerate the threat posed by Iran?”
    None. But all these groups use the same AMERICAN system to get their way…through lies, money, and tough persuasion. That’s been my point all along. You just want to ignore it.

    Reply

  98. MP says:

    Sandy, thanks for your comments. Here’s what I’d say (I’m not responding to everything):
    My problem is with the neo-conservative “movement” and the strong arm tactics they and their followers (both Jewish and Gentiles, yes) believe in as their modus operandi. They believe in, and promote, war to achieve their ends. That, in and of itself, is to me outrageous. That’s what makes me livid…gets me going. And, while the AIPAC is but one group (the most powerful) it’s the most successful in promoting neo-con beliefs and agenda.
    ME: I would agree with you–some quibbles, but not worth mentioning. The Christian right wing, by all accounts, seems to hold the cards with respect to what Republicans can and can’t get away with. Jews ain’t too powerful in the red states.
    Now then….MP, you said:
    “However, the question in my mind is…in what sense does AIPAC CONTROL the actions of some 500 lawmakers and hundreds of career policymakers? If AIPAC is ‘running the show,’ it’s only because all of these other folks have relinquished the power they have. AIPAC has no power other than through these people. This is a fact that seems to escape you.”
    You are right in the sense that no one is a “victim”. That those who “go along to get along” have made a conscious choice to BE “controlled”….to BE played….to BE “gamed” and USED by the AIPAC and neo-cons. It isn’t a fact that has escaped us, really.
    ME: If it’s a conscious choice that fact means they have power.
    Many of those who post here have been equally outraged, e.g., by the Jewish and non-Jewish Democrats who have “caved” in to …..or been bought off by …..the AIPAC and its influence/threat.
    ME: The biggest helping of blame should be heaped on the Republicans who were in power through most of the critical moments. The Dems were given a fait accompli and an impossible situation with no good options and have a slender majority in both houses and not the votes to override vetoes.
    You need only witness the Don Imus flap (okay it’s not the best analogy really) to take note of the “politically correct” times we are living in. If you don’t believe the AIPAC Israel lobby can very powerfully destroy and go after anyone who challenges them — using “anti-Semitism” front and center as always — then you either are not familiar with the London Review of Books’ John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt’s essay on ‘The Israel Lobby’….or, you aren’t being completely honest with us.
    ME: Not sure if you’re saying that the Lobby deep sixed Imus. If so, they were speaking out for some nappy headed hos who were essentially powerless to fight back. And Gwen Ifill. Anyway, not sure if this is your point. I am familiar with M&W. I think their paper was a good corrective, but given how smart and well-educated they are, I was surprised that they said that Israeli citizenship is based on “blood.”
    Also, it is a well-known (and not anti-Semitic) fact that many of the most powerful and brilliant CEO’s of industry, corporations, scientists, and so on happen to be Jewish.
    ME: And? I haven’t looked recently, but I think most of the country’s big wealth is in non-Jewish hands. But even if Jews “happened” to control most of the wealth, what of it? Should they become less ambitious, less educated, less hard-working, less willing to participate in society to let everyone else catch up? Sandy, I’m struggling with your point here.
    Just happen to CONTROL ….a whole lot. Could, say, end someone’s career if you “crossed” them and they chose to.
    ME: See above. All powerful people have power, sometimes they use it benevolently and sometimes not. Again, nott sure about your point.
    What happened, I ask you, to The New York Times coverage — to name just one newspaper, one piece of the MSM…in the run up to the War on Iraq? Who owned and ran the NYT? What about Judy Miller? Lewis Libby and what he fed her? What was their “agenda”. Who were THEY beholden to? And, what of Doug Feith? Richard Perle? Fred Kagan and on….and on….and on.
    ME: What happened to the WaPo? I don’t think Graham is a Jewish name, but I could be wrong. How about Clear Channel? Or the Wall Street Journal? Or the LA Times? The only member of the MSM that got it right in the run up to the war as far as I know is Knight Ridder. Are you saying that the ENTIRE MSM is owned by Jews? Or controlled by AIPAC?
    Would Birnbaum suggest that in naming them and their deeds anyone who does so is “anti-Semitic”??? WTF? As Jack Nicholson said, maybe the fact is “You (or he…or one) can’t handle the Truth!” (about the AIPAC, etc.)
    ME: Not sure about Birnbaum, but I’d say no. But if you said their being Jewish was an important factor in what they wrote or didn’t write, I’d ask you to prove it. BTW, in that movie, Nicholson was the BAD guy.

    Reply

  99. PissedOffAmerican says:

    “WHY is it that the “vast majority” of Jews are “tarred” by the actions and views of a few?”
    Well, thats simple. Because whenever we point to the actions of “a few”, some asshole comes along and claims we are being “anti-semitic”, and paints us as accusing all the jews.

    Reply

  100. PissedOffAmerican says:

    (The double standard is profound. Publius mentions Pollard. But what about Webster or Hansen or Aldridge who, arguably, did much more harm to the US than Pollard, never mind the fact that W, H, and A are three to Pollard’s one.)
    Well, MP, perhaps Publius didn’t bring them up because they have nothing to do with AIPAC or Israel, which is what we are talking about.
    But hey, keep that straw coming. We wouldn’t want you to to be at a loss for words now, would we?

    Reply

  101. Mrs. K8 says:

    Many, many years before Colin Powell became Secretary of State for GWB, I knew precisely what kind of person he was — Powell’s role in the cover-up of the responsibility of higher-up officers for the My Lai massacre and his subsequent quick rise in professional stature at the Pentagon (as reward for the cover-up), told you all you needed to know about him.
    That he was ever touted as a man of honor has always been a bitter and very sad joke.

    Reply

  102. MP says:

    Carroll writes: “If AIPAC and the right wing Jews and their fellow neos get their way with Iran the US will be hurt, but ultimately the Jewish community in this country will be tarred with the same brush as AIPAC and will be finished politically and in the eyes of the public for all intents and purposes. The “christian” zionist will slither out of all responsibility for their part when the tide turns and be the first ones to dennounce the Jewish influence.”
    Publius makes the same point here: “It is truly a shame that many Jewish-Americans who’ve reached positions of power and influence seem to place the interests of a foreign country ahead of those of their own nation. It is equally a shame that Jewish-Americans, the vast majority of whom are fine, loyal citizens, are tarred by the actions of these people.”
    This is a long conversation, but essentially this is one way anti-Semitism works. I would ask Publius, WHY is it that the “vast majority” of Jews are “tarred” by the actions and views of a few? By your statement, are you threatening, predicting, hoping, or simply saying “this is the way it is”? You see, the fact that Christian right wingers can do whatever they want and they’re still good ole ‘Mericans…but if a few Jews do the same…well, they will be “finished politically” — whatever that means — shows to me that a basic anti-Semitic perspecctive is at work.
    (The double standard is profound. Publius mentions Pollard. But what about Webster or Hansen or Aldridge who, arguably, did much more harm to the US than Pollard, never mind the fact that W, H, and A are three to Pollard’s one.)
    The fact that Publius could call Birnbaum “stateless” because he had the temerity to call a Pat Lang’s comments “ugly” is pretty chilling when you think about it. And if the US were to adopt a looser definition of “traitor,” things will get much worse than they already are.
    Carroll, I’m NOT calling you or Publius anti-Semitic. But this discussion says a lot about why oppressed minorities do what they do and why they tend to look at larger events and ask, “Is it good or bad for the Jews?” Again, it’s a MUCH longer discussion, and I trust you can overlook any exaggeration and get my drift.

    Reply

  103. Sandy says:

    I appreciate the points you have raised, MP. It did bother me that Larry Birnbaum suggested I am anti-Semitic (he quoted my words back in a later post, e.g.). I am NOT!
    My problem is with the neo-conservative “movement” and the strong arm tactics they and their followers (both Jewish and Gentiles, yes) believe in as their modus operandi. They believe in, and promote, war to achieve their ends. That, in and of itself, is to me outrageous. That’s what makes me livid…gets me going. And, while the AIPAC is but one group (the most powerful) it’s the most successful in promoting neo-con beliefs and agenda. Now then….MP, you said:
    “However, the question in my mind is…in what sense does AIPAC CONTROL the actions of some 500 lawmakers and hundreds of career policymakers? If AIPAC is ‘running the show,’ it’s only because all of these other folks have relinquished the power they have. AIPAC has no power other than through these people. This is a fact that seems to escape you.”
    You are right in the sense that no one is a “victim”. That those who “go along to get along” have made a conscious choice to BE “controlled”….to BE played….to BE “gamed” and USED by the AIPAC and neo-cons. It isn’t a fact that has escaped us, really. Many of those who post here have been equally outraged, e.g., by the Jewish and non-Jewish Democrats who have “caved” in to …..or been bought off by …..the AIPAC and its influence/threat.
    You need only witness the Don Imus flap (okay it’s not the best analogy really) to take note of the “politically correct” times we are living in. If you don’t believe the AIPAC Israel lobby can very powerfully destroy and go after anyone who challenges them — using “anti-Semitism” front and center as always — then you either are not familiar with the London Review of Books’ John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt’s essay on ‘The Israel Lobby’….or, you aren’t being completely honest with us.
    Also, it is a well-known (and not anti-Semitic) fact that many of the most powerful and brilliant CEO’s of industry, corporations, scientists, and so on happen to be Jewish. Just happen to CONTROL ….a whole lot. Could, say, end someone’s career if you “crossed” them and they chose to.
    What happened, I ask you, to The New York Times coverage — to name just one newspaper, one piece of the MSM…in the run up to the War on Iraq? Who owned and ran the NYT? What about Judy Miller? Lewis Libby and what he fed her? What was their “agenda”. Who were THEY beholden to? And, what of Doug Feith? Richard Perle? Fred Kagan and on….and on….and on. Would Birnbaum suggest that in naming them and their deeds anyone who does so is “anti-Semitic”??? WTF? As Jack Nicholson said, maybe the fact is “You (or he…or one) can’t handle the Truth!” (about the AIPAC, etc.)
    Thanks for giving me the chance to say this (and, to Steve). I’ve wanted to for a while now.

    Reply

  104. daCascadian says:

    I`d be interested in knowing how much folks like Mr. Birnbaum get paid to spread that misinformation & propaganda. Seems one might make a decent income given how much it is done. Hello IRS.
    “…there is an eroticism of money…” – Neue Zurcher Zeitung

    Reply

  105. PissedOffAmerican says:

    “I can’t count the number of times I’ve mentioned MJ or IPF.”
    Posted by MP
    Thats sure the truth. Just like we can’t count the number of times martians have abducted our president.

    Reply

  106. PissedOffAmerican says:

    “However, I’m not sure it’s fair or right to complain when one group works the system and not when the others do the same”
    Oh, give us a break. “Fair”, my ass. How do you dream this shit up? Care to tell us what role the NRA, the AMA, the tobacco industry, or any of the other lobbys had to do with contributing to the LIES that facilitated the invasion of Iraq? Or how are these lobbys helping to exagerate the threat posed by Iran? Why is it you have to always lay these asinine beds of straw around your arguments. The statement “However, I’m not sure it’s fair or right to complain when one group works the system and not when the others do the same” has to be one of the stupidist statements I have yet seen you make. But hey, keep it up, stupid beats dishonest, any day of the week.

    Reply

  107. fkay says:

    In local government any town USA there is a pervasiveness to slow down things, make it impossible for hard working employees to get promoted, etc. This is their M.O. And I believe that the USA govenment does exactly that. They want to hold their positions so they make it hard for good, talented workers to gain on them.

    Reply

  108. MP says:

    POA writes: “Yeah right. Its interesting you have never mentioned them here. Nor have you ever mentioned “Peace Now” or “Americans for Peace Now”.”
    I can’t count the number of times I’ve mentioned MJ or IPF.

    Reply

  109. PissedOffAmerican says:

    Yes. I try to support other voices within the Jewish community, such as MJ’s IPF.
    Posted by MP
    Yeah right. Its interesting you have never mentioned them here. Nor have you ever mentioned “Peace Now” or “Americans for Peace Now”.
    In MP’s world, you constantly defend that that you are opposed to, and don’t mention that that you support. Kinda bizarre, but there you have it.

    Reply

  110. Carroll says:

    AIPAC is evil; its bad for Israel; for Jews; for the US and for democracy.
    sam
    Posted by sam dobermann at May 27, 2007 03:18 PM
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>
    Yes AIPAC is evil.
    Not being jewish my concern is more for my country than Israel. But also, any Jew not fighting AIPAC and Israel in what is going on in Isr-Pal has more to lose than I do. If AIPAC and the right wing Jews and their fellow neos get their way with Iran the US will be hurt, but ultimately the Jewish community in this country will be tarred with the same brush as AIPAC and will be finished politically and in the eyes of the public for all intents and purposes. The “christian” zionist will slither out of all responsibility for their part when the tide turns and be the first ones to dennounce the Jewish influence.
    No matter what other motives others besides AIPAC and Israel may have for attacking Iran..the conservation about cutting Israel out of America is going to only become more so. While I am all for getting Israel and AIPAC meddling out of our goverment and congress I don’t want a war with Iran to get that job done.
    Better to ratchet up the pressure and criticism and action against these people and their congress gofers by calling a spade a spade.

    Reply

  111. MP says:

    POA writes: “So while voicing an opposition to AIPAC, (an opposition completely polar to his original stance here), he is usually engaged in an insinuated defense of AIPAC’s techniques, as well as engaged in an attempt to minimize the percieved influence AIPAC and Israel has in shaping American foreign policy.”
    My point about AIPAC is this: It’s a creature of the AMERICAN political system in its current incarnation. It wields power the same way–and with as much interest in “the truth”–as other powerful lobbies. I’m NOT defending those techniques, but they are what they are. However, I’m not sure it’s fair or right to complain when one group works the system and not when the others do the same.
    In terms of what I’m reading, including from Steve, it appears that American foreign policy has more influence on Israel than the other way. For example, it appears that during the Lebanon War, Washington wanted Israel to expand the conflict to Syria and Israel did not. Israel has been carrying on long-term discussions with Syria, and Washington has been opposed to these and, at one point, wanted Israel to cut them off. AIPAC wanted the American embassy moved to Jerusalem, and Rabin objected, successfully.

    Reply

  112. PissedOffAmerican says:

    Again, as far as Web discourse goes–especially of the POA variety–Birnbaum’s comment on its face was mild. I myself would insist that Birnbaum back up his comments, but frankly if I did that with every baseless comment on these threads, I’d be working full time.
    Posted by MP
    ROFLMAO!!!!! Tell us about the Washington Post again MP. Or lets hear your depiction of Cheney’s reception at AIPAC.
    And I did ask Birnbaum to back up his comments. Thats when he slithered out of the conversation.

    Reply

  113. MP says:

    Sam writes: “What we need to do is to figure out how to disenchant the Congress critters from obeisance to AIPAC.”
    Yes. I try to support other voices within the Jewish community, such as MJ’s IPF.

    Reply

  114. MP says:

    Carroll writes: “What birnbaum is doing though is using a left handed way to imply that Lang is somehow fostering some anti-semitic site. I have seen criticism of Israel on there but not the anti jewish rants he alludes to. It seems more that birnbam doesn’t like Lang’s “more realistic” take on the Israeli part or position among all the ME actors. That is the part he should address if he wants to instead of the mild but not so subtle smearing of Lang.”
    I read Lang irregularly, but liked him a great deal when he appeared a great deal on TV during the run up to the war. I don’t know if Birnbaum is correct about the rants, but it’s also possible that you missed them or interpreted them differently. I would ask Birnbaum to supply the ugly comments he references, either by Lang or his commenters. However, I don’t see any evidence HERE–as Publius claims–that Birbaum has dishonored Lang. Lang apparently doesn’t cut others slack; why should others cut him slack? He ain’t infallible after all.
    Again, as far as Web discourse goes–especially of the POA variety–Birnbaum’s comment on its face was mild. I myself would insist that Birnbaum back up his comments, but frankly if I did that with every baseless comment on these threads, I’d be working full time.

    Reply

  115. MP says:

    POA writes: “So, MP’s argument boils down to….
    “Although I don’t like AIPAC, it really is no big deal that they are lying to the American public. So what?”
    ME: I don’t say it’s “no big deal.” I say that they don’t control American foreign policy except to the degree that duly elected US lawmakers and the rest of the government let them.
    Well, MP, your assertion that you aren’t in AIPAC’s camp is a lie.
    ME: Prove it.
    Anyone that cares to can go back to your early posts, and marvel at your apparent metamorphosis.
    ME: I’m willing to look at anything I’ve posted earlier, if anyone finds it worth their time. If I’ve changed or refined my views, I would say that that is the product of this ongoing discussion and, therefore, a GOOD thing.
    And your apparent rationalization about the lies being confined to the AIPAC website is just yet another example of your obvious attempts to marginalize the impact AIPAC has on American politicians and on our foreign policies.
    ME: No; I’m marginalizing the impact the AIPAC website has on PUBLIC opinion. I think they have a big impact on politicians–unfortunately. But that doesn’t let the politicians off the hook.
    The AIPAC website is merely a gauge of AIPAC’s disinfornmation program. It is ignorant to think the same deceptions are not being sent out in newsletters, marketed at conferences, dispersed to the media, and handed to the bought and paid for Washington politicians as talking points to advance the propaganda.
    ME: True–but my point had to do with the public. I also don’t think it’s possible for AIPAC to buy and sell all the Washington politicians. That imputes to them a power they simply don’t have. Ultimately, in terms of political Darwinianism, all politicians care about is getting elected and re-elected, and AIPAC doesn’t have the power to elect a majority of the politicians. Even MJ Rosenberg will tell you that. The Jewish establishment doesn’t have THAT much money, especially as compared to the other establishments. And they certainly don’t control that many votes. All the Jews in America comes to about 2-3% of the voting public–and AIPAC represents a tiny fraction of that 2-3%. You see, THIS is the source of Birnbaum’s plaint: This argument parallels very closely the ridiculous arguments about Jewish bankers controlling everything, starting all the wars, etc.
    And as far as your insinuation that these AIPAC deceptions are not actual “lies”, I note you completely avoid comment on the latest lie I pointed out on the AIPAC website, about the Iranians blocking the IAEA’s access to Nanatz.
    ME: I didn’t read about the latest “lie.” However, I did explore your comment about the NY Times article and found it wanting.
    You tell us, MP, why did they not archive that article, as they do with 99.9% of the articles they put on their website? The fact is, when actual BLATANT lies have been posted at that site, they do not get archived. They simply dissappear. Why?
    ME: This line of argumentation is very similar to the dubious points you make about 9/11. First, I don’t know if they haven’t archived it. Second, I don’t know if they archive ALL articles. Third, it’s possible they made a mistake and forgot to archive it. Fourth, it’s possible their technology accidentally deleted it. Fifth, it’s entirely possible that they read your post; realized the errors of their ways; and didn’t want even a trace of this untruth sitting on their site where unsuspecting and trusting cow farmers might read it and drive their tractors to D.C. demanding war with Iran. In short, I don’t know; nor do I think it’s a revealing question if we could ever answer it accurately.
    As to this: “One can easily draw the conclusion that MP has some sort of “inside information” here about whether or not LWM’s assertions are accurate. Think about it.”
    ME: I will think about it. LWM made an ASSERTION–that Birnbaum had gotten booted. That suggests that HE has “inside” knowledge, not me. I merely asked him to back up his assertion, because I thought it was extraordinary.

    Reply

  116. mikey says:

    Colin Powell “SOLD his Soul” to become a Political Player as a US Army Major in the Americal Division in 1968 when faced with investigating “alleged” US Atrocities.
    He knew nothing and saw nothing…the Perfect Sgt. Schultz Defense. Google it for the details.

    Reply

  117. PissedOffAmerican says:

    Buying into MP’s assertion of his own chagrin at the machinations of AIPAC and Israel is naive. Virtually all his posts qualify his feigned chagrin with a “yeah but” that inevitably seeks to rationalize and justify the influence AIPAC has on American politicians and our foreign policies in regards to the middle east. His defense of Birnbaum’s scripted horseshit should tell us all we need to know about MP’s motivations and allegiances. As I have commented before, I cannot stand dishonest framing of debate. And MP’s assertions of opposition to AIPAC epitomizes the concept of argument based on false premise.
    MP is a master at skirting around direct queries about his more outrageous bullshit, such as his recent crap about the AIPAC conference, the reception Cheney recieved, and his assertion that the WP regularly runs articles about “the plight of the Palestinians”.
    He has also regularly sought to minimize the relevance and viability of the two presidential candidates that have vocally opposed AIPAC, Kucinich and Ron Paul.
    So while voicing an opposition to AIPAC, (an opposition completely polar to his original stance here), he is usually engaged in an insinuated defense of AIPAC’s techniques, as well as engaged in an attempt to minimize the percieved influence AIPAC and Israel has in shaping American foreign policy.

    Reply

  118. FreeDem says:

    That still does not excuse Powell and Wilkerson about the WMD vans. As I laid out in my post here,
    Stupider than Screen Sided Submarines the falsehood did not need a personal inspection to see how crazy the idea was.
    Worse they had careful drawings showing that these were not enclosed, air conditioned, level five containment structures, but plain ole canvas, colored dark brown, sitting in the Iraqi sun.
    How stupid does a concept have to be before assurances fail to overcome what just looking at the picture can tell.

    Reply

  119. sam dobermann says:

    MP has it exactly right except he doesn’t go into the RW christian take over of that group. It is mainly made up of far right jews (neocons) and “christian zionists” who have not and are not acting in the interests of either Israel or US. That this absolutely bizarre group has so much influence is preposterous but it is not because they “represent” the Jews in US who are barely 2% of the population. Congress critters don’t kowtow to 2% of the pop; they react to the power and noise makers of the Right wing.
    That some of the Israli pols like Sharon were right wing “strong men” don’t mean that even the majority of Isralis or of US jews are. Sharon was elected by a people that were scarded by Arafat’s second infatada just like the US reelected that RW idiot we have based in fear he spewed. The movers and shakers of the neo-cons like Feith are brilliant at using and corrupting everything they touch. They brought a power mode and access to AIPAC and rightwingers, especially those that want to hasten Armageddon, are riding high.
    What we need to do is to figure out how to disenchant the Congress critters from obeisance to AIPAC.
    AIPAC is evil; its bad for Israel; for Jews; for the US and for democracy.
    sam

    Reply

  120. Carroll says:

    Posted by MP at May 27, 2007 02:04 PM
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    birnbaum can say whatever he wants but….let me say about Lang…I read him about once a week and think he has the experience and background in the ME to be accurate in what he says …
    Also,….if you read thru Lang’s reponse to comments it is clear he doesn’t suffer fools lightly and insults any and all commenters that stray off into la-la land on what he post.
    What birnbaum is doing though is using a left handed way to imply that Lang is somehow fostering some anti-semitic site.
    I have seen criticism of Israel on there but not the anti jewish rants he alludes to. It seems more that birnbam doesn’t like Lang’s “more realistic” take on the Israeli part or position among all the ME actors. That is the part he should address if he wants to instead of the mild but not so subtle smearing of Lang.
    But I agree we should stick to specific people in our criminal witch hunts, be they jewish or non jewish, instead of diluting it with “these people” and ‘those people” and etc…publishing list of jews in goverment does nothing constructive….the list of those in gov who should hang for our current FUBAR is divided about equally between jews and gentiles.

    Reply

  121. Pissed Off American says:

    “As to LWM’s comment that Birnbaum got “booted,” I suppose he has some words from Lang to that effect. Care to quote them?”
    One can easily draw the conclusion that MP has some sort of “inside information” here about whether or not LWM’s assertions are accurate.
    Think about it.

    Reply

  122. Pissed Off American says:

    So, MP’s argument boils down to….
    “Although I don’t like AIPAC, it really is no big deal that they are lying to the American public. So what?”
    Well, MP, your assertion that you aren’t in AIPAC’s camp is a lie. Anyone that cares to can go back to your early posts, and marvel at your apparent metamorphosis.
    And your apparent rationalization about the lies being confined to the AIPAC website is just yet another example of your obvious attempts to marginalize the impact AIPAC has on American politicians and on our foreign policies. The AIPAC website is merely a gauge of AIPAC’s disinfornmation program. It is ignorant to think the same deceptions are not being sent out in newsletters, marketed at conferences, dispersed to the media, and handed to the bought and paid for Washington politicians as talking points to advance the propaganda.
    And as far as your insinuation that these AIPAC deceptions are not actual “lies”, I note you completely avoid comment on the latest lie I pointed out on the AIPAC website, about the Iranians blocking the IAEA’s access to Nanatz.
    You tell us, MP, why did they not archive that article, as they do with 99.9% of the articles they put on their website? The fact is, when actual BLATANT lies have been posted at that site, they do not get archived. They simply dissappear. Why?

    Reply

  123. Pissed Off American says:

    AMAZING!!!! Its a weekend MP!

    Reply

  124. Carroll says:

    Well here is a summer project for everyone.
    Federal Bureau of Investigation
    J. Edgar Hoover Building
    935 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
    Write a letter to Robert Meuller and demand he investigate the neos and/or politicians of your choice ..and be sure to cc it to the politican.
    Fed’ex them both and require a signature of receipt.

    Reply

  125. MP says:

    POA writes: “I hate these “Jews in the US government” posts. They really just play into the hands of those that use the accusation of “anti-semitism” to rebut any criticism of AIPAC or Israel.”
    I quite agree. The problem for progressives, however, is that the honest and true criticism of Israel and AIPAC…and the “Jews in the US Government” posts…are often, in their effect, like two streams that empty into the same river.
    Honest criticism of the Lobby is necessary, but it is important to be aware that it also gives fuel to the true anti-Semites who use these arguments as proof of their own.
    This is equally a problem for patriotic Jewish Americans who have strong feelings for Israel.
    POA writes: “AIPAC paranoia??? AIPAC is lying their asses off on their website, as I have pointed out, repeatedly here. Not only are the slimey pieces of shit lying to us on their website, like that last bit of horseshit they ran about Iran blocking inspections of Nanatz, but they are in turn removing the propaganda, and not archiving it, so their slimey lying crap can be denied after they’ve managed to get their Congressional whores in Washington to spill American blood in Iran.”
    There is no question that AIPAC has a strong position and pushes it very hard, even in an underhanded ways, see: McCollum. As I’ve said many times, I oppose AIPAC and its positions.
    However, the question in my mind is…in what sense does AIPAC CONTROL the actions of some 500 lawmakers and hundreds of career policymakers? If AIPAC is “running the show,” it’s only because all of these other folks have relinquished the power they have. AIPAC has no power other than through these people. This is a fact that seems to escape you. It also seems to escape you that any number of other groups in the US are pushing the same agenda. For example, the religious right. And yet, by comparison, one hardly ever hears about them on these comments.
    The fact that AIPAC “lies” on its site is laughable. First, as I’ve said before, about .000001% of the American public, if that, reads the AIPAC site; and those who do have many other sources of information on, say, Iran’s nuclear program. So the notion that AIPAC is controlling public opinion on, let’s say, Iran, just isn’t credible. They do a much better job with the lawmakers.
    Second, the notion that “information” on the AIPAC is a “lie” or turns out not to be true, or is pulled down and not archived so it can be later denied is equally laughable. So what? Every group pushes the facts that support its arguments. Period. Web politics is nothing but one big argument. How often does Kos publish information that doesn’t further his political views or aims? But since you bring up this point, I will say this:
    A while back you brought up the squib on the AIPAC site that quoted the NY Times on Iran’s progress toward a nuclear weapon. And then you said (rightly) that if one read the entire Times article, there were lots of qualifiers about the obstacles that still remained, etc., etc. So I DID read the article, at your suggestion: AIPAC quoted the articles LEAD three or four paras, the most important part of the article from a news standpoint. You wanted us to pay attention to the LESSER important part of the article, the paras down below. Arguably, you were distorting the Times article more than AIPAC. And, in fact, the WaPo, which you now seem to like or trust, has followed up with at least one front page article, quoting El Baradei, on how Iran is making faster progress than expected, how it’s hard for the IAEI to get access to the sites, etc. So my point is, AIPAC is playing it up…and you’re playing it down…but I’d say you’re distoring here as much as they are.
    As to Publius, here is what Birnbaum said, “I respect Col. Lang’s service to our country. I used to read his blog but began finding the tone of some of his comments and those of his readers rather ugly. I just checked it out again, and it’s pretty much the same.”
    Here is what you said, apparently as a rejoinder: “Birnbaum, I don’t think you have any room to complain. In fact, I’m surprised you still have the balls to come back here. You impugned an honorable man, Pat Lang, for no other reason than that he doesn’t agree with giving Israel—a foreign country—carte blanche access to our councils of state. You’ve exposed yourself as an agent of influence, a disinformation agent.”
    By Web standards, what Birnbaum said was pretty mild. Also, it expressed his personal reactions. He never put forward the proposition that Israel should have carte blanche? Where do you read that? In what sense did he “impugn” Lang’s “honor”? By finding some of his remarks “ugly”? More importantly, how has Birnbaum “exposed” himself as an “agent of influence” or a “disinformation agent?”
    As to LWM’s comment that Birnbaum got “booted,” I suppose he has some words from Lang to that effect. Care to quote them?
    Starting your sentence with “Most of us are…” simply shows the
    need some commenters have to cleanse these threads of anyone who strongly disagrees with them. You don’t like what Birnbaum says? Too bad.

    Reply

  126. Carroll says:

    Gen Franks was likely right in thinking Feith dumb — which is saying something given how dumb he turned out to be — but Alexander Cockburn’s magazine, which is the source of the claim above that he was investigate by the FBI as a possible Israeli agent, simply isn’t a credible source. That Cole references it without question isn’t exactly a mark in his favor.
    Posted by larry birnbaum at May 26, 2007 05:01 PM
    >>>>>>>>>>>
    On the contrary, the article was entirely credible.
    It was a recounting of the FBI interviewing Stephen Green. The FBI was seeking to know what Green knew about certain people…Feith, Perle, Wolfowitz and some others. And Stephen Green is completely credible. Besides the information about the prior investigation of Perle and Feith and Wolf have been published by many sources. And verified by many other people including goverment officials who were in goverment at the time the investigations took place.
    I think you are wasting your time bashing real experts like Lang, Cole and Green. If you have something real, show it otherwise you just sound silly.

    Reply

  127. Pissed Off American says:

    It appears that Birnbaum has fled the commentary. It is a shame that the “anti-semitism” card cannot be as easily trumped in the MSM and Washington DC as it can be on a blog such as this. It is astounding how little substance people such as Israel/AIPAC apologists like Birnbaum can actually bring to the discourse. Show them a few facts, quote a few sources, ask for a rebuttal, and poof, they dissappear. It is particularly telling when one notes their total absence when actual irrefutable campaigns of misinformation are exposed, such as the attention I recently drew to AIPAC’s blatant lies, as posted on their website recently about Nanatz. Its not the first time I have linked to the AIPAC website, and exposed the blatant and irrefutable disinformation that AIPAC engages in. And not one single time has Birnbaum or his ilk offered an explanation, justification, or rebuttal to the obvious existence of an active and irrefutably deceptive propaganda program being waged by AIPAC designed to affect public opinion in regards to the threat that Iran poses.
    Oh well. At least more people are speaking up on the blogs, and nipping this “anti-semitic” horseshit off a lot quicker, and a lot more effectively.

    Reply

  128. rapier says:

    The mobile bio weapons labs were on their very face a joke. An almost impossibility and even if possible in some limited sense of absolutely no strategic significance. The biggest joke however was branding bio weapons as weapons of mass destruction. This was the silliest sort of rhetorical game. There are nuclear weapons and then everything else.
    Saddam’s Iraq had no navy, no air force, and a ill equipped ill trained poorly motivated army. As for it’s nuclear program Saddam still had some old radium dial watches stuffed in a drawer somewhere I’m guessing. I suppose that’s a bit to flippant but .the UN inspectors proved again and again what common sense dictated. That the poor weak Iraqi regime could not possibly marshal the resources to build a workable nuclear weapon. In any case how was this imaginary weapon going to be delivered, by camel?
    No ‘facts’ about bio weapons labs could possibly have been material at all in the decision to invade Iraq. Only because the great Colin himself brought this pile of stool into UN chambers was it believed to be of any importance at all. After watching his performance I kept thinking of the first Conan movie where James Earl Jones was the cult leader and in one of the funnies lines in movie history someone said ” I thought it was just another snake cul.t”
    The US had been taken over by not just another snake cult but the bestest one ever.

    Reply

  129. ckrantz says:

    A transcript of the forum on May 7th is available at http://tinyurl.com/2f995q.
    Sorry for the long quote below but it’s worth reading for the evaluations on the WMD intelligence by both Lang and Goodman.
    ‘Lang: Well, I had the advantage of being around in DIA in the first Gulf War, and for several years thereafter, before I left to go into business, and I knew, with great certainty, having participated, along with my friends and companions out at CIA, in the total destruction of the Iraq nuclear program, to the point that—I won’t say how we did that, but it was a very thorough job. And that went on for a couple years, and it wasn’t any doubt at all, that it was just wreckage, and the only thing left were a bunch of people, maybe 5,000 scientists, engineers, technicians, who were very smart folks who had nothing to work with. And we knew that was just gone.
    And then, if you talk about the biological weapons program, that was never more than research, in my opinion. It was research… Every Arab country plays around with biological warfare research. It’s kind of a prestige item. It shows “we’re big people,” you know that “we’re doing that kind of stuff.”
    And then there was the chemical weapons thing. Well, you know, people are frightened of chemical weapons with good reason. In this room here, some sarin would wipe us all out easily. But this is not really a strategic weapon. In fact, this is really a battlefield tactical weapon. Even the most persistent kinds are not persistent for a very great period of time. And it isn’t the kind of thing you can threaten the life of a great country with, really. It’s harassment basically. Even a real job in the subway in Tokyo, but you know, including in the subway in New York City; yet this is not something which threatens the life of the United States.
    So, people started talking about how this guy had these weapons programs, I knew for a fact that the BW [biological weapons] thing, and the chemical thing, even though I’d been away for a few years—I’d been hanging around the Middle East all that time, since I left—and I knew very well that these things did not fill the bill for the terrible, terrible threat that was being portrayed. And the nuclear program, we’d smashed it up so totally that I didn’t see how they could be doing more than maybe trying, after ’98—that’s when the inspectors left. And after they’d left, maybe they were trying to resume some kind of furtive thing. But this is a big enterprise, making nuclear weapons. This is not something you do in your garage. And you have to have an awful lot of equipment, and people, and stuff.
    So, my impression was, when I started to listen to this, and the drumbeat got higher and higher, and heavier and heavier all the time, that there’s something really screwy about this. There’s something here that doesn’t add up. In fact, in terms of what the realities could possibly be, what they could be doing.
    So, I became increasingly suspicious as time went along after 9/11. Here we kept hearing this more and more and more. And then it became increasingly clear after a while, that the intelligence was being driven, the analysis of information and the evaluation of the information, was being driven by policy, rather than being a free-standing object intended to limit policy, which is the way I always did it. (People always thought I was pretty limited anyway.)
    And, in fact, I thought there was something very basically wrong. But I’ll shut up there, because other people will have other things to say, and I could go on for a couple hours.
    The CIA Caved In to the Administration
    Goodman: Well, let me make three points, to join what Pat was saying.
    Number One, you have to realize that the best source of intelligence that the CIA had, was the fact that they had operational people on the United Nations inspector teams. They had a significant number in every round of inspection. And they were there to collect intelligence, not only in terms of WMD, but on Saddam Hussein, and on a variety of Iraqi chiefs.
    When the UN inspectors left, and tried to get back in after Desert Fox, the Clinton bombing attack on Iraq in 1998, Saddam Hussein said no. What that meant was the CIA lost the very best intelligence collection, the clandestine collection that it had. The reason why this is important, is, they went from 1998, when they had some collection, and were very cautious about what they said about chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons—and if you look at all of their intelligence throughout the ’90s, up to ’98, they were extremely cautious—they went in 2002, all of a sudden, with no additional collection, the CIA claims they have high confidence—and Tenet talks about high confidence in this book.
    So, I knew that was nonsense. They had no reason to be confident, and they had no reason to claim that they had any specific information, because for four years, they had nothing.
    The second point that’s important—and remember I was at the War College then, so I still had all the clearances I had when I was at the CIA—I called up NSA colleagues from times past when I worked on the Soviet Union, and I basically asked them, without telling me anything in terms of sources and methods, what were they picking up that would give them any indication that Iraq was working on either chemical weapons, biological weapons, or nuclear weapons?
    Now, the background of that was, I knew from my Soviet experience, there was no way that Iraq, or any other country, could be moving things around without certain circuits pulsing, that NSA [the National Security Agency] had access to, particularly in the Middle East. NSA knew there was nothing in terms of nuclear weapons.
    So, if NSA says there was nothing—and I consider NSA a very fine professional outfit, and in some ways, it’s the most professional outfit in the intelligence community—it was clear to me that there was nothing there.
    Then, the third thing that’s very important, and gets to the heart of the corruption of the tradecraft of the CIA—and this is what I blame Tenet for, as much as anything else: Not only did they politicize the intelligence, but they didn’t honor any of the basic tradecraft of how you go about doing intelligence analysis. The fact of the matter is, the CIA had made a decision—I think they made it in August/September of 2002—basically to cave in to the Administration and to give them what they wanted.
    The White House, according to the Downing Street memo, had decided to fuse the issues of terrorism and WMD, to make a case for war, and [then head of British MI6 Richard] Dearlove, the author of that memo, has said that the agency was fixing its intelligence to that policy. And the clearest indication of that was the very good intelligence the CIA was collecting on the fact that Iraq had nothing. And that was intelligence from Saddam Hussein’s son-in-law, remember, who defected, went out to Jordan in the middle of the 1990s, somewhere around ’94 or ’95; he was debriefed by the Jordanians, and debriefed by the CIA, and he told them, since he was the head of the Iraqi military mobilization department, he was responsible for destroying a lot of the chemical and biological stocks and missiles—they didn’t have a nuclear program after ’91—and he told them all of this.
    The CIA didn’t put any of this information in its finished intelligence products.
    Number two, the CIA was doing a very good job in recruiting a former foreign minister of Iraq by the name of Sabri, until the White House said, lay off of Sabri, we don’t want his information any more. As Tyler Drumheller says in his very useful book, this isn’t about WMD any more, this is about regime change. Well, Sabri was telling us everything we needed to know about what Iraq did not have.
    And also the CIA had a very curious character who I’m not going to get into by the name of Charlie Allen, who’s now over at the Department of Homeland Security, who was very controversial at CIA, but he came up with something very interesting in the 2002 period. It was Charlie Allen’s idea to go around the country, to find Iraqi-Americans who had relatives in Iraq who worked in the weapons area, who were scientists, engineers, technicians. Send them back to Baghdad and Iraq, before the war started, to see what they could find out from family members, who had access. These people came back, and they reported, and they said, “All of these programs have been shut down.”
    And again, the CIA had never printed any of this material in the President’s daily brief, in the National Intelligence Estimates, in any kind of intelligence assessment.
    So, what the CIA did, and it’s a violation of the Holy Grail—I mean, this is the worst possible thing you can do, they ignored all of the intelligence that you could argue, you could make one series of assumptions from, and they trumped up the intelligence that for the most part was single source, or primary source. And any good investigator or reporter—Knut is one of the best investigative reporters, and he’ll tell you that you don’t go into print with one source—and that’s exactly what the CIA did. They found the source that told them what they needed to know. And when I testified against Bob Gates in 1991, when he was confirmed as CIA Director, I said the CIA and Gates and Bill Casey were guilty of judge-shopping in the courthouse. That’s what exactly what George Tenet did. It’s what John McLaughlin did. It’s what Paul Pillar did, it’s what Robert Walpole did, and it’s what Alan Foley did. And it’s totally unconscionable, and it needs to be corrected.’

    Reply

  130. Marcia says:

    All these people who conceived and executed the take over of our government changed the laws that would have impeded their coup.
    Now everything is in place for the next step and the new Congress has not restored Habeas Corpus, is doing nothing to stop the illegal eavesdropping programs or the privatization of government functions to allow passing under the radar of Congressional oversight.
    They draw attention to one subject while they advance a pawn to facilitate a total hi-jacking of government at the time of their choosing. If you ask the question of what their main objective is I think the answer must be – Staying in Power.
    Everything else depends on that. Cheney has nothing to loose. He has lost his health, his reputation and credibility. All he has left is the power of brute force which seems to be his favorite tool, and the semi-clandestinely of his operations.
    Youtube has a student video of what will surely be an unforgettable moment for Andrew Card.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dp4MYii7MqA
    This is the kind of reception they should all receive each time they leave what should be house arrest by popular protest.

    Reply

  131. Sandy says:

    I remember hearing that Tenet and Feith both teach now at Georgetown University. What in the world is that university thinking?

    Reply

  132. cal says:

    I guess I’m really weary of Lawrence Wilkerson running around trying to get Colin Powell off the hook, but, especially weary that he’s given a platform. A platform of any kind.
    Please stop.
    It’s really amazing how Powell has been fawned on over through the years, especially by the press and even now, casual observers of public matters buy into the Wilkerson line about Powell and how he was scamed by that charlatan George Tenet.
    The fact is, Colin Powell shouldn’t have been there to be scammed. For that matter George Tenet shouldn’t have been there for the scamming.
    Both men knew that an invasion of Iraq was wrong and a catastrophe in the making.
    Both men should have resigned long before and went public with their objections and should have revealed what they’d seen on the inside.
    But Powell’s the main character here. He’s the one with the high name recognition. He’s the one worshipped by the celebrity press.
    Colin Powell rose to the top of the military because he was an intelligent man who knew how to PROTECT his superiors. In the Bush administration he remained a loyal soldier.
    Whether it’s people like Tenet who’re loyal to remain a ‘part of it’ or Powell who salutes and says yes sir, the nation is not served when high public officials forget that their only real loyalty SHOULD be to the American people.

    Reply

  133. Publius says:

    Birnbaum, I don’t think you have any room to complain. In fact, I’m surprised you still have the balls to come back here. You impugned an honorable man, Pat Lang, for no other reason than that he doesn’t agree with giving Israel—a foreign country—carte blanche access to our councils of state. You’ve exposed yourself as an agent of influence, a disinformation agent.
    It is truly a shame that many Jewish-Americans who’ve reached positions of power and influence seem to place the interests of a foreign country ahead of those of their own nation. It is equally a shame that Jewish-Americans, the vast majority of whom are fine, loyal citizens, are tarred by the actions of these people.
    Birnbaum, Israel is a foreign country. Its interests do not necessarily coincide with the best interests of our nation. One need only reference Jonathon Pollard, who rightly still languishes in a federal prison despite the best efforts of the Israeli government and a few unsavory Americans. One might also reference the Liberty in determining how Israel views the United States.
    Birnbaum, you are, as are some of the high-level politicians cited, clearly a person of conflicted loyalties. Which makes you essentially stateless persons. It seems the diaspora is more important than allegiance to the United States. It is a pity that you’ll never understand the greatness of this nation and can never be truly loyal to it. Loyality is like a marriage, where forsaking all others is the most important ingredient.

    Reply

  134. Pissed Off American says:

    Still throwing horseshit, eh Birnbaum? Well, what else can you do, seeing as how you can’t argue facts?

    Reply

  135. larry birnbaum says:

    Many truly unpleasant remarks above. People tell you what they are.

    Reply

  136. Hedley Lamarr says:

    Could we please leave the Jew counting to Malek?

    Reply

  137. TruthSeeker says:

    I’m glad Lawrence Wilkerson has the tenacity to defend himself and Powell. However, I still think Powell is sitting on a key piece of information that could help us better understand how this whole thing went down. Steve, I wonder if you would consider using your influence to get Powell on the record about the run up to the war in Iraq?
    One more thing: If everyone knows Feith is an idiot, how on earth did he continue to get high-level positions? Even if he had well-connected friends, don’t you think his sheer lack of knowledge would reflect negatively on them at some point?

    Reply

  138. Pissed Off American says:

    I hate these “Jews in the US government” posts. They really just play into the hands of those that use the accusation of “anti-semitism” to rebut any criticism of AIPAC or Israel.
    The issue is NOT about Jews. It is about politicians and organizations that place Israel’s interests above our own. Certainly, someone can be Jewish, yet still hold a stronger allegiance to the United States than they do to Israel. Just because a representative might be Catholic, are we then going to claim they favor Italy’s interests over our own?
    This thing about “Jews” and “anti-semitism” just clouds the true issue, which is one of allegiance. It is not an individual’s religion that is the barometer of their patriotism, rather it is their actions that are the true indicaters of their allegiance.

    Reply

  139. TruthSeeker says:

    I’m glad Lawrence Wilkerson has the tenacity to defend himself and Powell. However, I still think Powell is sitting on a key piece of information that could help us better understand how this whole thing went down. Steve, I wonder if you would consider using your influence to get Powell on the record about the run up to the war in Iraq?
    One more thing: If everyone knows Feith is an idiot, how on earth did he continue to get high-level positions? Even if he had well-connected friends, don’t you think his sheer lack of knowledge would reflect negatively on them at some point?

    Reply

  140. Jenny says:

    Some Neo-con Jews in positions of power
    (and the positions they hold or recently held)
    1). Paul Wolfowitz — Deputy Defense Secretary, Bush’s foreign policy campaign advisor. Appointed to the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency in 1973. Mark Green in his article Serving two flags: Neo-Cons, Israel and the Bush administration http://www.counterpunch.org noted: �Wolfowitz�brought to ACDA a strong attachment to Israel�s security, and a certain confusion about his obligation to U.S. national security.� Investigated in 1978 for passing classified documents to Israel through an American Israeli Public Affairs Committee intermediary. There was no indictment.
    After the terrorist attacks of 9/11 Wolfowitz argued strongly for war with Iraq rather than with the center of power and training for Al Qaeda, Afghanistan.
    2). Richard Perle — One of George Bush’s Foreign Policy Advisors. Chairman of the Pentagon’s Defense Policy Board. A close personal friend of former prime minister of Israel Benjamin Netanyahu. in 1996, Perle was behind the report A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm written for the incoming Israeli Likud Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu.
    In 1970 Pearle was recorded by the FBI discussing classified information with the Israeli Embassy. In 1981 he worked for an Israeli defense contractor. Also in 1981 he was appointed Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Policy an agency that monitors defense technology exports.
    3). Douglas Feith — Headed reconstruction in Iraq. Was Under Secretary of Defense and Policy Advisor at the Pentagon. He is a close associate of Perle and served as his Special Counsel.
    Feith was fired from a position with the National Security Council in 1972 due to an investigation into his passing documents to the Israeli Embassy. In 1986 he opened a law firm in Israel Feith and Zell and later obtained a pardon for the Jewish arms dealer Marc Rich from president Clinton. During the late 80’s and early 90’s he wrote op-ed pieces in Israeli newspapers arguing for the Palestinians moving to Jordan and that the West Bank was a part of Israel. He also argued for regime change in Iraq. He is a founding member of One Jerusalem, an Israeli organization that wants no compromise with the Palestinians on any part of Jerusalem.
    4). Elliott Abrams — National Security Council Advisor. He previously worked at Washington-based “think tank” Ethics and Public Policy Center. He is associated with “think tanks” PNAC, AEI, CSP, JINSA, and with the Likud government in Israel. Close associate of Richard Perle, Bill Kristol, Marc Paul Gerecht, Michael Ledeen and Paul Wolfowitz. In his boo he calls for Jews to marry Jews and retain their ethnic cohesion. Convicted of lying to Congress in the Iran/Contra affair he was sentenced to 2 yrs. probation, 100 hours of community service and a $50.00 fine. He was given a Christmas pardon by Bush 1.
    5). Abraham Shulsky– Prot�g�e of Richard Pearle and friend of Paul Wolfowitz. He was appointed head of the Office of Special Plans which was under Feith and Wolfowitz. This office eventually became more powerful in relation to Iraq than the CIA or the Defense Intelligence Agency. It supplied the major portion of the fraudulent intelligence that was used by the Bush administration to justify the War in Iraq. It is believed that the OSP worked closely with Mossad to exaggerate Iraqi weapons estimates.
    6). Stephen Bryen In 1978 he was investigated for offering classified documents to the Israeli Embassy’s Mossad chief in front of a representative of the American Israeli Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC). From 1979 to 1981 Bryen served as executive director for the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs. He was hired by Richard Pearle during the Reagan years for the position of Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense. In 1988 Richard Pearle and Stephen Bryen temporarily got permission to export sensitive technology used in anti-ballistic missiles (klystron technology). Two senior Department of Defense colleagues said the attempt to export the technology was “standard operating procedure” for Stephen Bryen. They recalled numerous instances of US companies being unable to get export licensure for certain technologies only to find (US derived) copies being sold by Israel.
    The investigation was closed after the Senate Foreign Relations Committee refused to grant access to the Justice Department’s files and after Plilip Heymann, the Jewish chief of the Justice Department’s Criminal Division (very active in the campaign to free Israeli spy Pollard) closed the investigation.
    7). Michael Leeden Executive Director of the Jewish Institute of National Security Affairs 1977-1979. During the years of Ronald Regan Leeden was considered an agent of influence by the CIA and suspected of espionage by his superior at the Defense Department, Noel Koch. Consultant to Abraham Shulsky’s Office of Special Plans that supplied fraudulent intelligence to the Bush Administration regarding Iraq.
    (and Scooter Libby)
    Some Jews in the United States Government
    8). Michael Chertoff–Secretary of Homeland Security
    9). Robert Satloff — U.S. National Security Council Advisor; Satloff was the executive director of the Israeli lobby’s “think tank,” Washington Institute for Near East Policy.
    10). Dov Zekheim — Under Secretary of Defense and Comptroller. Ordained Rabbi.
    11). Richard Haass — Director of Policy Planning at the State Department and Ambassador at large. He is also Director of National Security Programs and Senior Fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR).
    12). Robert Zoellick — U.S. Trade Representative, a cabinet-level position.
    13). Mel Sembler President of the Export-Import Bank of the United States. A Prominent Jewish Republican and Former National Finance Chairman of the Republican National Committee.
    14). Joshua Bolten — Bush’s Chief Policy Director, banker and former legislative aide. Prominent in the Jewish community.
    15). Steve Goldsmith — Senior Advisor to the President, and Bush’s Jewish domestic policy advisor.
    16). Adam Goldman — White House’s Special Liaison to the Jewish Community.
    17). Joseph Gildenhorn — Bush Campaign’s Special Liaison to the Jewish Community.
    18). Christopher Gersten — Former Executive Director of the Republican Jewish Coalition, husband of Labor Secretary Linda Chavez.
    19). Daniel Saul Goldin — Head of NASA, National Aeronautics and Space Administration.
    20). Mark Weinberger — Assistant Secretary of the Treasury.
    21). Samuel Bodman — Deputy Secretary of Commerce.
    22). Bonnie Cohen — Under Secretary of State for Management.
    23). Ruth Davis — Director of Foreign Service Institute, who reports to the Office of Under Secretary for Management. This Office is responsible for training all Department of State staff including ambassadors.
    24). Lincoln Bloomfield — Assistant Secretary of State for Political Military Affairs.
    25). Jay Lefkowitz — General Counsel of the Office of Budget and Management.
    26). David Frum — White House speechwriter
    27). Brad Blakeman–White House Director of Scheduling
    28). I Lewis Libby–Chief of Staff to Vice President Cheny, former lawyer for Marc Rich (Jewish arms dealer), whom Bill Clinton pardoned, member of Rockefeller�s Council on Foreign Relations.
    29). Adam Goldman White House liaison to the Jewish Community (2001-03)
    30). Cliff Sobel–Ambassador to the Netherlands
    31). Stuart Bernstein–Ambassador to Denmark
    32). Nancy Brinker–Ambassador to Hungary
    33). Frank Lavin–Ambassador to Singapore
    34). Ron Weiser–Ambassador to Slovakia
    35). Martin Silverstein–Ambassador to Uruguay
    36). Jay Lefkowitz–Deputy Assistant to the President and Director of the Domestic Policy Council
    37). Blake Gottsman–President’s personal aide
    37). Daniel Fried–Special Assistant to President and Senior Director for European and Eurasian Affairs
    38). Stephen Friedman–Senior White House Economic Adviser, member of the Council on Foreign Relations and Rockefeller’s powerful Trilateral Commission .
    40). Max Kampelman–Geneva Arms Talks negotiator
    39). Marc Grossman — Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs. He was Director General of the Foreign Service and Director of Human Resources at the Department of State.
    40). Henry Kissinger — One of many Pentagon Advisors, Kissinger is on the Pentagon’s Defense Policy Board.
    41). James Schlesinger — One of many Pentagon Advisors, Schlesinger also is on the Pentagon’s Defense Policy Board.
    42). Ari Fleischer — Former White House Spokesman for the Bush (Jr) Administration 2001-2003. Prominent in the Jewish community.___________

    Reply

  141. LWM says:

    Pastor Hagee speaks at AIPAC saying Israel has no choice but to strike Iran
    http://www.matthewyglesias.com/archives/2007/03/nice_bedfellows_youve_got_ther/
    You’ll need you tin foil hats for this one…
    “So you see, John Hagee, who wants to see Israel adopt a hawkish foreign policy that he believes will result in its destruction at the hands of a Russo-Arab alliance is a friend of the Jews. By contrast, everyone who thinks a little pressure to make peace could wind up helping Israel in the long run is an anti-semite.”

    Reply

  142. Pissed Off American says:

    http://www.counterpunch.org/green02282004.html
    An excerpt……
    Douglas Feith: Hardliner, Security Risk
    Bush’s appointment of Douglas Feith as DoD Undersecretary for Policy in early 2001 must have come as a surprise, and a harbinger, even to conservative veterans of the Reagan and George H.W. Bush Administration. Like Michael Ledeen, Feith is a prolific writer and well-known radical conservative. Moreover, he was not being hired as a DoD consultant, like Ledeen, but as the third most senior United States Defense Department official. Feith was certainly the first, and probably the last high Pentagon official to have publicly opposed the Biological Weapons Convention (in 1986), the Intermediate Nuclear Forces Treaty (in 1988), the Chemical Weapons Convention (in 1997), the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty (in 2000), and all of the various Middle East Peace agreements, including Oslo (in 2000).
    Even more revealing perhaps, had the transition team known of it, was Feith’s view of “technology cooperation,” as expressed in a 1992 Commentary article: “It is in the interest of U.S. and Israel to remove needless impediments to technological cooperation between them. Technologies in the hands of responsible, friendly countries facing military threats, countries like Israel, serve to deter aggression, enhance regional stability and promote peace thereby.”
    What Douglas Feith had neglected to say, in this last article, was that he thought that individuals could decide on their own whether the sharing of classified information was “technical cooperation,” an unauthorized disclosure, or a violation of U.S. Code 794c, the “Espionage Act.”
    Ten years prior to writing the Commentary piece, Feith had made such a decision on his own. At the time, March of 1972, Feith was a Middle East analyst in the Near East and South Asian Affairs section of the National Security Council. Two months before, in January, Judge William Clark had replaced Richard Allen as National Security Advisor, with the intention to clean house. A total of nine NSC staff members were fired, including Feith, who’d only been with the NSC for a year. But Feith was fired because he’d been the object of an inquiry into whether he’d provided classified material to an official of the Israeli Embassy in Washington. The FBI had opened the inquiry. And Clark, who had served in U.S. Army counterintelligence in the 1950’s, took such matters very seriously…..more seriously, apparently, than had Richard Allen.
    Feith did not remain unemployed for long, however. Richard Perle, who was in 1982 serving in the Pentagon as Assistant secretary for International Security Policy, hired him on the spot as his “Special Counsel,” and then as his Deputy. Feith worked at ISP until 1986, when he left government service to form a small but influential law firm, then based in Israel.
    In 2001, Douglas Feith returned to DoD as Donald Rumsfeld’s Undersecretary for Policy, and it was in his office that “OSP”, the Office of Special Plans, was created. It was OSP that originated–some say from whole cloth–much of the intelligence that Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld have used to justify the attack on Iraq, to miss-plan the post-war reconstruction there, and then to point an accusing finger at Iran and Syria…..all to the absolute delight of Prime Minister Ariel Sharon.

    Reply

  143. LWM says:

    Let me be blunt, Birnbaum. You got booted from Col. Lang’s the minute you opened your AIPAC fed bullshit spewing mouth. He doesn’t take crap from little Keyboard Kommandos like you and no one here does either. Peddle your lame accusations of anti-semitism somewhere else. It’s already a meaningless accusation. Most of us are pro-peace in the ME and pro-American, not pro-Palestinian or pro-Israeli. We are anti-AIPAC, anti-Zionist and anti-Likud, and damn proud of it. Deal with it. But do it somewhere else, please. Your sprurious charges of anti-Semitism just aren’t even amusing enough to justify your continued presence here. You have nothing to add to the conversation.

    Reply

  144. Pissed Off American says:

    ……but Alexander Cockburn’s magazine, which is the source of the claim above that he was investigate by the FBI as a possible Israeli agent, simply isn’t a credible source. That Cole references it without question isn’t exactly a mark in his favor.
    Posted by larry birnbaum
    So, Birnbaum, how about we cite the Washington Post. Or are the facts still getting in the way of you finding the path out of Horseshit Alley? What is it with you people? You always have to attack the messenger because its the only way you can spread yuour pure unadulterated horseshit, and defend the indefensible?
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A60497-2004Sep3?language=printer
    Or hey, maybe CNN is more to your liking?
    http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/08/27/fbi.spy/
    Don’t like CNN, birnbaum? Well just ask, there are plenty of other sources. I guess, when you make some BS comment like the one I quoted above, your ego just tells you that everyone is too ignorant to rebut, and they will just buy into your crap. Well, those days are over Birnbaum, eyes are opening up, Israel and AIPAC’s unquestioned propaganda is beginning to be seen for what it actually is, an act of espionage and disinformation being employed by the agents of a foreign government.
    BTW, I notice you are avoiding comments about AIPAC’s lies that have been repeatedly exposed here. That speaks volumes about your true allegiance.

    Reply

  145. L.W.M. says:

    “Many fascinating insights but an undercurrent of AIPAC conspiracy paranoia which in some of his readers’ comments degenerates into the Jewish banker conspiracy theory of history. I don’t think he’s an anti-Semite (although some of his readers clearly are), but on the other hand he doesn’t seem to have much clarity about where this kind of thinking can end up.
    Posted by: larry birnbaum”
    Never seen that there, Larry. I think you are a liar. Do you call Ze’ev maoz, Norman Finkelstein, Lenni Brenner and norm Chomsky anti-semites, too?
    If the State of Israel and the Likud party loses it’s meal ticket here, it’s because of lying mendacious propagandists like you. You are the real anti-semites and the destruction of the state of Israel and bloodshed will be on your hands.

    Reply

  146. Sandy says:

    Birnbaum….and every American…needs to read the US-Israeli neoconservative manifesto
    “A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm,
    commonly referred to as the “Clean Break” report, was prepared in 1996 by a study group
    led by Richard Perle for Benjamin Netanyahu, the then-Prime Minister of Israel.[1]
    The report explained a new approach to solving Israel’s security problems in the Middle East with an emphasis on “Western values”. It has since been criticized for advocating an aggressive new policy and advancing right-wing Zionism.
    Sidney Blumenthal’s summary of the report:[4]
    “Instead of trading land for peace, the neocons advocated tossing aside the Oslo agreements that established negotiations and demanding unconditional Palestinian acceptance of Likud’s terms, peace for peace. Rather than negotiations with Syria, they proposed weakening, containing, and even rolling back Syria. They also advanced a wild scenario to redefine Iraq. Then King Hussein of Jordan would somehow become its ruler; and somehow this Sunni monarch would gain control of the Iraqi Shiites, and through them wean the south Lebanese Shia away from Hezbollah, Iran, and Syria.”
    “With several of the Clean Break paper’s authors now holding key positions in Washington, the plan for Israel to transcend its foes by reshaping the Middle East looks a good deal more achievable today than it did in 1996. Americans may even be persuaded to give up their lives to achieve it.”
    the ‘Clean Break’ paper
    “called for Israel to take steps to reorder the entire Middle East. Netanyahu did not follow their advice, but Feith, Perle and Wurmser were soon urging the Bush administration to pursue those same goals. The Ha’aretz columnist Akiva Eldar warned that Feith and Perle ‘are walking a fine line between their loyalty to American governments … and Israeli interests’.”[7]
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Clean_Break:_A_New_Strategy_for_Securing_the_Realm

    Reply

  147. Jeffery Haas says:

    None of this comes as a surprise, none of it at all.
    Everything joves handsomely with Wolfowitz and Feith’s jarring hostility toward what is termed “the reality-based community”. These nimrods are no more capable of creating empires than they are making pigs fly but in their world wishing and demanding makes it so…until the blindfold falls off.
    Unfortunately most of the American public is still blindfolded and balanced on the head of a pin, otherwise these two and several of their minions would be standing trial right now.

    Reply

  148. erichwwk says:

    Powell, while striking me as a more honorable sort, is also of the mindset that the ends justify the means, having previously lied us into what (at the time) seemed like the right move (lying the public into Gulf War 1, along with Dick Cheney). I suspect that is why they are a bit puzzled by not being able to con the public another time, or at least, pull if off despite dissent. Lets not forget that it was Clinton, not GWB, that pissed off bin-Laden, and that while the number of Iraqis killed (about 1 million each?) are now about equal, Clinton caused deaths had a higher percentage of children.

    Reply

  149. larry birnbaum says:

    Gen Franks was likely right in thinking Feith dumb — which is saying something given how dumb he turned out to be — but Alexander Cockburn’s magazine, which is the source of the claim above that he was investigate by the FBI as a possible Israeli agent, simply isn’t a credible source. That Cole references it without question isn’t exactly a mark in his favor.

    Reply

  150. mbowdoin says:

    Juan Cole had a post about Feith’s “Vlemmo” scam. http://www.juancole.com/2007/05/bushies-just-made-it-up-saddam-al-qaeda.html
    This passage stuck out for me:
    “Feith had been investigated by the FBI earlier in his career as a possible Israeli intelligence asset and was raised in a fringe, far-rightwing Zionist family. His father was a member of Betar, the organization devoted to teachings of fascist Zionist thinker Vladimir (Ze’ev) Jabotinsky and to “Greater Israel” expansionism. Persons in this tradition often believe that Israel extends into Iraq itself.”
    It would be interesting to know whether Feith believes in a “Greater Israel.” I have long suspected that at least some of the “brains” behind this fiasco in Iraq had a “Greater Israel” in mind. According to the Old Testament, God promised Abraham land that includes most of Iraq. I’ve often wondered how much of the blowback we’re experiencing is due to the fact that most Muslims are no-doubt familiar with the God’s promise to Abraham themselves and may see us as a proxy for Israel. Even if the warmongers were not motivated by this kind of radical Zionism.

    Reply

  151. Pissed Off American says:

    Powell is just one of the criminals. There are many that are now speaking out that didn’t when it could have made a difference. Wilkerson comes to mind.
    But almost worse are these posturing pieces of shit like Hillary, that justify their complicity by claiming that they were hoodwinked and that “everybody thought Saddam had WMDS”. Not only did Hillary sign on to the obvious lies, she is now lying to justify signing on to the lies.
    Then you have Obama, selling us the same kind of Israeli nurtured horseshit about Iran that we were sold about Iraq.
    One thing about it, the scum in Washington is growing on both sides of the aisle, and if we fumigate, we better make sure we get it all. Just cleaning out the Oval Office ain’t gonna cut it.

    Reply

  152. rapier says:

    Powell should have known better. No matter because we didn’t go to war with Iraq because of intelligence. Powell surely knew we were going into Iraq by January 02. He should have known in January 00 or whenever it was he signed on to the Bush campaign and made it possible for Bush to win. Without Powell Bush loses. (He lost anyway but all those other close races would have fallen to Gore without Powell.)
    Cheney made a half hearted effort to take the SOS job from Powell and a full on effort to undermine and humiliate Powell from Inauguration day forward. Yet Powell took his little vials to the UN and pretended they were real and that they were a reason to go to war. He might have been stupid enough to believe the ‘intelligence’ but he couldn’t have been stupid enough to think they were a reason for war.
    It wasn’t the CIA’s bad intellegence that is making people die, it was Colin Powell. Powell could have easily stopped the madness in its tracks by just quitting. He and he alone could have derailed the this political war and he didn’t. This is Powell’s war.
    Either he was for it all along or he was against it. I suspect the latter which is far worse. He sold out himself and his country for a quiet cushy life among the equestrian set in suburban Virginia and some harebrained notion of loyalty.

    Reply

  153. Pissed Off American says:

    It amazes me that I can repeatedly link to AIPAC’s website, and by doing so prove irrefutably that AIPAC is engaged in a campaign of propaganda using lies to convince Americans that an invasion of Iran is warranted and essential……..
    …….yet these people like Birnbaum refuse to recognize the lies, or admit to the complicity of Israel in driving this nation towards war in both Iraq and Iran.
    It cannot be denied that AIPAC is blatantly lying, as I have shown here repeatedly. Yet heres Birnbaum, casting the usual horseshit about anti-semitism and conspiracy theories.
    Move to Israel, Birnbaum. Spill YOUR OWN blood for Israel’s lies.

    Reply

  154. Pissed Off American says:

    How do you feel about AIPAC’s recent lies about Nanatz, Birnbaum?
    Or does your ignorant horseshit demand that you ignore the facts?

    Reply

  155. larry birnbaum says:

    As I said, the tone can get rather ugly.
    The underlying model is roughly what Oliver Stone promulgated in the movie JFK: The American people are good, and if for some reason we have done something bad, we must have been manipulated into it by a hidden cabal. In his case of course the something bad was Viet Nam, and the manipulation included the assassination of a President.
    In this case, it’s the Middle East and Iraq. Our country is no longer ours, it’s been taken away from us, they’re working to “get their whores in Congress to spill American blood in Iran,” but we’re awakening at last, “we are not fooled.” “We” of course being “real Americans.”
    Shades of black helicopters. Or Joseph Goebbels.
    And this is what I meant when I said that Col. Lang seems a bit naive, at best, about where this kind of thinking and talking can lead.

    Reply

  156. kathleen says:

    Many experts warned against the invasion. Iaea’s El Baradei, Scott Ritter, General Zinni, Madeline Albright, Jimmy Carter, Cia analyst, Flynt Leverett and many more.
    I just do not buy Senator Clintons and others statments “if only we knew then what we know now”. How could a soccer mom in Ohio hear so many experts on the Diane Rehm show ,Democracy Now, etc warn against the invasion based on questionable intelligence.
    This repeated claim is hogwash!

    Reply

  157. Sandy says:

    http://www.antiwar.com/roberts/?articleid=11027
    “…President Bush, the Republican Party, and the Democratic Party have proved to the entire world that the American people have no voice. The American people have no more ability to affect their government’s policy than inmates in a gulag would have.
    What do people in other countries think when they hear Bush prattle on about “freedom and democracy” while he ignores opinion polls and election results and detains people without warrants, tortures them, and puts them before military tribunals in which they are denied even knowing the evidence against them? Bush has contrived a situation for defendants in which no defense is possible. In Bush’s America, people can be executed on the basis of hearsay and secret evidence. If this is “freedom and democracy,” what is tyranny?
    Recent polls show that the majority of the American people are no longer fooled, no matter what politicians say and media report….”
    We are not fooled, Birnbaum. Not.

    Reply

  158. Pissed Off American says:

    AIPAC paranoia??? AIPAC is lying their asses off on their website, as I have pointed out, repeatedly here. Not only are the slimey pieces of shit lying to us on their website, like that last bit of horseshit they ran about Iran blocking inspections of Nanatz, but they are in turn removing the propaganda, and not archiving it, so their slimey lying crap can be denied after they’ve managed to get their Congressional whores in Washington to spill American blood in Iran. Its interesating you show up to drool your AIPAC defending horseshit, but only when the links to AIPAC’s lies have scrolled off of the homepage. You never show up when irrefutable proof of AIPAC’s lies are posted.
    Pretty hard to defend blatant lies and propaganda, isn’t it Birnbaum?

    Reply

  159. larry birnbaum says:

    I respect Col. Lang’s service to our country. I used to read his blog but began finding the tone of some of his comments and those of his readers rather ugly. I just checked it out again, and it’s pretty much the same. Many fascinating insights but an undercurrent of AIPAC conspiracy paranoia which in some of his readers’ comments degenerates into the Jewish banker conspiracy theory of history. I don’t think he’s an anti-Semite (although some of his readers clearly are), but on the other hand he doesn’t seem to have much clarity about where this kind of thinking can end up.

    Reply

  160. RonK, Seattle says:

    As pre-war intel comes in for a belated second look, I’m reminded of another set of loose links that have not yet been jiggled.
    Powell’s UN presentation
    http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/02/20030205-1.html
    included a selection of audio intercepts which were ominous-sounding but strikingly devoid of context. Colonel who? What modified vehicle? Omigod!
    My impression at the time was that these were just so much sideshow carnival barkery … but who was zooming who in these cases?
    Are sources and methods still such compelling concerns that we can’t see the tree, or at least the branch, from which these cherries were harvested?

    Reply

  161. profmarcus says:

    i am waiting, not very patiently, for the day when those in the best position to know will no longer feel restrained to share what they know, will come forward, will speak out in public forum, and will place ALL of the lies on the table, right next to the clear, unvarnished truth… our nation desperately needs this healing… i just hope our constitution surives long enough for it to happen…
    http://takeitpersonally.blogspot.com/

    Reply

  162. GoRonGo says:

    I watch a week-daily program on Link TV called Mosaic, which is news from the Middle East translated into English. On Thursday’s program an Israeli new show had on Norman Podheretz, i.e., father of the neo-CONS. He seemed very sure that USrael would indeed attack Iran.
    Link TV is Dish TV channel 9410, Direct TV 375, it’s on Comcast too I think. But you can watch it online at LinkTV.org
    The show is invaluable so I would suggest that anyone interested in the Middle East tune in.

    Reply

  163. della Rovere says:

    “How come we learned so much of this dispute only after the war?”
    That’s because we have such a crackerjack mainstream media providing all the news and commentary our rulers want us to have. When birdcage liners like the Posts (Washington and NY) represent journalism we do not have a functionning democracy. We have an ill-informed, ill-prepared populace run by authoritarian elites. America today.

    Reply

  164. bob mcmanus says:

    I keep saying, tho nobody listens, that although Wolfowitz said and acted as if “They will be pleased to see us” that does not prove Wolfowitz actually believed “They will be glad to see us.”
    They certainly were given enough predictions that contradicted the premise.
    But the history has been written. Tho Wolfie et al are liars, this time he didn’t lie. Tho Wolfie et al are often brilliant, in this case he was astonishingly stupid. But sincere & well-intentioned of course. Why? Because he said so.

    Reply

  165. liz says:

    There is no decency and moral obligation anymore anywhere. Why allow bad people to run over “the right decision”??Everytime???
    Why didn’t one of these Americans speak out before now? Why have they spoken now?
    Who is and who is not a neocon?
    How in the world do we consciously purge Neocon from the American vocabulary? Neocons are anti America.

    Reply

Add your comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *