“Surging” is No Plan: Concerned Americans Plan Picket Action at McCain/Lieberman Appearance

-

It has become a sad cliche that Americans deserve better from their leadership than they are getting.
The President and some Members of Congress are calling for an increase in troop levels in Iraq to attempt to keep implementing the same domestic security and training plan for Iraqi police and militia units that America has had in place all along.
The plan has not changed — just the call, finally, for more forces. But it’s too late for 20,000 — 30,000 — or even 40,000 — troops to matter.
I’m not sure that several hundred thousand troops would make a difference, but all bias aside, Iraq and the sectarian civil war that is erupting calls for a much bolder, bigger action than a simple “surge” in U.S. troops.
Solving Iraq, if it can be solved, now means getting real about and engaging in a broad range of Middle East dealmaking between internal groups inside Iraq as well as among its neighbors.
It means working to establish the State of Palestine in a manner that maintains the viability and security of both Israel and Palestine. It means offering Syria a Libya-like arrangement out of the international doghouse. It means massaging Iran’s ego in the region without handing the entire Middle East over on a golden platter — which America seems to be doing with its counterproductive strategy. It means figuring out what China and Russia want most in their foreign policy objectives and doing what we can to trade their needs for our own.
This all means that we must have an end to diplomacy on the cheap — and national security on the cheap. And a surge in troop levels without a plan, without the other component parts of a credible and believable grand strategy — is sending more soldiers off to die unnecessarily — or to kill Iraqis, many who are absolutely innocent in all this mess and who will no doubt hate the United States for a long time ahead.
I cannot attend tomorrow as I am traveling, but there is a picket action that is taking place on Friday at noon in Washington at 1150 Seventeenth Street (near 17th and M Streets) to protest the campaign that Senators John McCain and Joseph Lieberman are launching tomorrow to support President Bush’s call for more troops in Iraq.
This peaceful picket action is called “No Iraq Escalation” and folks will have colorful signs and other material to carry around if you wish.
I know both Senator McCain and Lieberman — and I know that both think that this “surge” is something that they have to support. My response to them — if I was discussing the matter privately — is that they are not asking the tough questions of the President and of our nation’s top strategists. They are not thinking this through well enough or fully enough and are calling for an “escalation” of an already terrible situation.
They need to hear some alternative voices out there. That’s what our democracy is about.
Feel free to send this post to others in the DC area, or to other blogs, or email lists.
I hope that those of you who can will share your views tomorrow at 1150 17th Street and give our elected representatives a sense that Americans are sick of being asked to send young men and women into a war that has gone way off the rails.
Bush is cherry-picking the Iraq Study Group report — cherry-picking what he wants to continue a failed four year plan. But without the big deal and the other important parts of the ISG Report, Bush — and enabling Senators — are making America’s situation even worse.
— Steve Clemons

Comments

231 comments on ““Surging” is No Plan: Concerned Americans Plan Picket Action at McCain/Lieberman Appearance

  1. MP says:

    USA writes: “Wherever you are… WE KNOW YOU and WHAT YOU ARE AFTER!!!!”
    Sorry, you obviously don’t…but best of luck.

    Reply

  2. Oh My USA!!!! says:

    MP,
    I have been following you in this blog for some time now…
    Your primary purpose here is not to debate in critical issues, but rather to monitor comments referring to Israel, AIPAC, etc and provide misinterpretations, and, when that is too revealing, attacking people and questionning their motive for saying so…
    You often try hard to make it appear as an objective observation of a cocerned American.
    you remember your recent outbrust?
    oh well …
    Wherever you are… WE KNOW YOU and WHAT YOU ARE AFTER!!!! Keep on trying.

    Reply

  3. pauline says:

    Back to the original, “”Surging” is No Plan: Concerned Americans Plan Picket Action at McCain/Lieberman Appearance”, here’s the multiple, ever-changing McCain positions —
    October 27, 2006 — McCain Calls For 20,000 More Troops in Iraq:
    Reporters asked him to elaborate on his statement last week in Iowa that more combat troops are needed in Iraq to quell a “classic insurgency.”
    “Another 20,000 troops in Iraq, but that means expanding the Army and the Marine Corps,” he said. [Link]
    December 6, 2006 — McCain Calls For 100,000 More Troops In Iraq:
    “We must have more troops over there,” Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., said after meeting with the president. “Maybe 20,000 more Marines, and 80,000 Army. We have to have a big enough surge that we can get Baghdad under control.” [Link]
    January 4, 2007 — McCain Calls For 30,000 More Troops In Iraq:
    MCCAIN: I would advocate two additional combat brigades in Anbar province, four in Baghdad, with one in reserve. That’s around 30,000. [NBC, 1/4/07]
    January 4, 2007 — McCain Suggests 20,000 Troop Escalation Is Too “small”:
    LAUER: The president seems to be settling on the 20,000 number. Is this a numbers game? Will 20,000 do the job, in your opinion?
    SEN. MCCAIN: I’m not sure. I have not seen the exact plan, so it’s hard for me to know. But to make it of a short duration and a small size would be the worst of all options to exercise, in my view.” [NBC, 1/4/07]
    January 5, 2007 — McCain Says He Is “Not Specific on Numbers” About Troops in Iraq:
    QUESTION: How many troops are you calling for in Iraq?
    MCCAIN: We are not specific on numbers, we don’t have — we are talking about 3 or 4 combat brigades, in Baghdad, and one or two more in Anbar province. We are not that much detailed oriented. [AEI “Future of Iraq” Conference, 1/5/07]
    http://thinkprogress.org/

    Reply

  4. MP says:

    Carroll writes: “…MP is a liar who spends all his comments lying about what other posters said instead of offering anything to think about regarding our dire situation.”
    First of all, I don’t lie. It’s possible that I’ve misrepresented things people have said, but if so, I did so innocently. Perhaps you can point to actual quotes where you can show I lied.
    Second, I do offer lots of things to think about. The problem for you is that you don’t want to think about them.

    Reply

  5. MP says:

    POA writes: “In other words, between Olmert’s admission that Israel has nuclear weapons, and Israel’s announcement of plans to attack Iran with nuclear “Bunker Busters”, Israel is now legally blocked from US Foreign Aid, under US laws.”
    Really? Your quoted material doesn’t seem to say that.

    Reply

  6. Pissed Off American says:

    FACT SHEET: U.S. SANCTIONS LAWS RELATED TO FOREIGN POLICY
    NUCLEAR PROLIFERATION PREVENTION ACT OF 1994
    (April 30, 1994)
    Sections 821 and 824 mandate sanctions against any person determined to have helped a non-nuclear-weapon state acquire nuclear material or devices. The sanctions prohibit any such person from bidding on U.S. federal government procurement or from dealing in federal bonds.
    Section 825 prohibits the Export-Import Bank of the United States (Ex-Im Bank) from providing credits to any country that helps a non-nuclear-weapon state acquire nuclear devices or materials.
    The law also amends the Arms Export Control Act in a number of ways. It prohibits U.S. government sales of munitions and defense services to countries violating nuclear non-proliferation agreements. It prohibits foreign aid to any country that receives or delivers to another country nuclear enrichment materials or technology without proper safeguards or that attempts to export illegally from the United States anything used to make nuclear weapons. It also requires a number of sanctions against both sides in a transfer of nuclear devices, components, or designs from any country to a non-nuclear-weapon country.
    Posted Jan 7, 2007 03:05 PM PST
    Category: ISRAEL
    In other words, between Olmert’s admission that Israel has nuclear weapons, and Israel’s announcement of plans to attack Iran with nuclear “Bunker Busters”, Israel is now legally blocked from US Foreign Aid, under US laws.
    (Found on “What Really Happened”.)

    Reply

  7. Arun says:

    http://www.ynetnews.com/Ext/Comp/ArticleLayout/CdaArticlePrintPreview/1,2506,L-3346275,00.html#n
    “And finally, Iran will continue to pursue its nuclear program while the world continues to “babble.” If American and European actions continue in the current pace and quality, there will be no change in the Iranian nuclearization path. Instead of allotting several months for diplomatic activity and preparing for a military strike on Iran’s nuclear infrastructure, the world continues to talk nonsense and play with illusions regarding the success of moderating diplomatic moves.
     
    President Bush lacks the political power to attack Iran. As an American strike in Iran is essential for our existence, we must help him pave the way by lobbying the Democratic Party (which is conducting itself foolishly) and US newspaper editors. We need to do this in order to turn the Iranian issue to a bipartisan one and unrelated to the Iraq failure.
     
    We must turn to Hillary Clinton and other potential presidential candidates in the Democratic Party so that they publicly support immediate action by Bush against Iran. We should also approach European countries so that they support American actions in Iran, so that Bush will not be isolated in the international arena again.
     
    We must clandestinely cooperate with Saudi Arabia so that it also persuades the US to strike Iran. For our part, we must prepare an independent military strike by coordinating flights in Iraqi airspace with the US. We should also coordinate with Azerbaijan the use of airbases in its territory and also enlist the support of the Azeri minority in Iran. In addition, we must immediately start preparing for an Iranian response to an attack.
     
    The Americans must act. Yet if they don’t, we’ll do it ourselves, because there are no free rides and our existence isn’t guaranteed. Addressing Iran would have positive implications for us in terms of the strategic balance in our region and when it comes to Hizbullah, stability in Lebanon, and Syria’s power. ”
    “Brigadier General (Res.) Oded Tira is the former IDF chief artillery officer”
     

    Reply

  8. Arun says:

    http://www.antiwar.com/reese/?articleid=10276
    “Scott Ritter, a former U.N. arms inspector in Iraq, has written a book, Target Iran, in which he accuses the Israeli government and its American lobby of pushing the U.S. into attacking Iran.
    Ritter writes, “Let there be no doubt: If there is an American war with Iran, it is a war that was made in Israel.” He accuses some members of the lobby of dual loyalty and urges that the American Israel Public Affairs Committee be required to register as a foreign agent.”

    Reply

  9. Winnipeger says:

    hmm… his supposed last post at 4:16pm and he’s already back by 7:39pm!
    well, at least you made it 3 hours!
    i told you so 🙂

    Reply

  10. Pissed Off American says:

    “one minor point, however: you did already admit, den, that you were the first person to write “fuck off,” correct? in the face of this admission, i find it completely bizarre that i’m being accused of single-handedly destroying the discourse on this blog.”
    “not to mention the fact that, as i’ve already stated, POA has hurled more epithets and vulgar invective in this forum THAN ANY OTHER CONTRIBUTOR EVER.”
    Following is part of the fourteenth post on this thread. (And the first “fuck you”)……..
    “fuck you, poa. how about a christian american/neocon created clusterfuck in iraq?!?!”
    Posted by winnipeger

    Reply

  11. Den Valdron says:

    Steve, sorry to hear about your disk crash. Welcome back. Feel free to get more involved.

    Reply

  12. Den Valdron says:

    And the dog returns to lick his own vomit.
    I knew you were lurking, Winnepegger.

    Reply

  13. MP says:

    ET…thanks for your note.
    “…Deitrich Bonhoeffer, ”
    I think the disease is spreading -:)

    Reply

  14. Winnipeger says:

    btw,
    why no more reference to the “massacre” in jenin?
    55 dead palestinians and 23 dead israelis
    even the u.n. (no friend of israel) conceeded the truth.
    what, you mean that the entire incident wasn’t israel’s fault?!
    http://www.un.org/peace/jenin/

    Reply

  15. ET says:

    Hey, MP. Just so that you know, that “defense” did not come cheaply for me. It has its historical bases in the pastorate of Deitrich Bonhoeffer, who, as a teenage theology student quietly inserted into a seminar of Barth, this remark: “The curse of a godless man can sound more pleasant in God’s ears than the Hallelujah of the pious.”
    And, in my own history, without Bonhoeffer, I would have spiritually disintegrated from all that I learned in South Africa and from the seven years I had to spend writing about it. After I left the region, Amy Beale, a researcher who came after me, was killed. The dangers to my life weren’t imaginary. Those who search out truth are always in danger. But the greater danger is in not seeking, in shutting down our hearts.
    Consider reading Bonhoeffer’s story of a unique fellowship in an underground seminary during the Nazi years. An excerpt:
    “In the gray dawn of an April day in 1945, in the concentration camp at Flossenburg, shortly before it was liberated by the allied forces, Dietrich Bonhoeffer was executed by special order of Heinrich Himmler…
    His last weeks were spent with men and women prisoners of many nationalities, Russians, Englishmen, Frenchmen, Italians and Germans. An English officer wrote:’Bonhoeffer always semmed to me to spread an atmosphere of happiness and joy over the least incident and profound gratitude for the mere fact that he was alive… He was one of the very few persons I have ever met for whom God was real and always near… On Sunday, April 8, 1945, Pastor Bonhoeffer conducted a little service of worship and spoke to us in a way that went to the heart of all of us. He found just the right words to express the spirit of our imprisonment, the thoughts and the resolutions it had brought us. He had hardly ended his last prayer when the door opened and two civilians entered. They said, ‘Prisoner Bonhoeffer, come with us.’ That had only one meaning for all prisoners — the gallows. We said good-bye to him. He took me aside: ‘This is the end, but for me it is the beginning of life.’ The next day he was hanged in Flossenburg.”
    The text on which he spoke on that last day was “With his stripes we are healed.”
    His holy life moved me so deeply. I felt, just reading his words, that I could touch God. I was so scared in Africa, I used to sleep with his book in my arms.

    Reply

  16. Winnipeger says:

    den wrote:
    “Slicing and dicing trolls is an art form, POA.”
    yeah, you’ve really done a good job “slicing and dicing,” den.
    one minor point, however: you did already admit, den, that you were the first person to write “fuck off,” correct? in the face of this admission, i find it completely bizarre that i’m being accused of single-handedly destroying the discourse on this blog.
    not to mention the fact that, as i’ve already stated, POA has hurled more epithets and vulgar invective in this forum THAN ANY OTHER CONTRIBUTOR EVER.
    good riddance, poa. maybe you can build yourself a new stool or something.
    but mark my words, the fool won’t be able to stay away… you’ll see.

    Reply

  17. Steve Clemons says:

    This would have to blow up while I was traveling and suffering from a hard disk crash.
    Folks…..all of you, please, debate policy — stop the ad hominem attacks. It takes multiple parties to create the escalating hyperventilation I see here.
    I like debate — but the attacks, all of them, need to stop. If you feel insulted by someone on this blog, ignore it — and stick to the issues being debated…not the personalities.
    I can’t screen these posts right now — but I will try an do so when I return to DC next week.
    I haven’t blocked any posters for a while — but that may be the result of my getting more deeply involved in the comments section if this doesn’t clean up soon.
    Best regards,
    Steve Clemons

    Reply

  18. Winnipeger says:

    poa wrote:
    “Now, I’m off this blog until this winnipeger thing is history.”
    we should all be so lucky, but i don’t believe you for a second, poa. i simply don’t believe that you can stay away; you don’t have anything better to do.

    Reply

  19. Den Valdron says:

    Slicing and dicing trolls is an art form, POA.

    Reply

  20. Pissed Off American says:

    Den, winnipeger won’t go after MP.
    And MP’s tepid indictment of him is yet another MP charade designed to imply moderation. The true test of MP’s mettle is not how he reacts to our questioning of his defense of winnipeger, but how he reacts to winnipeger’s actual posting. It is one thing to react to admonishments of hypocricy, but yet something entirely different to be exhibiting the actual hypocricy being underlined. Note that MP was perfectly willing to cite specific grieviences in regards to my posting, but in his weakly framed indictment of winnipeger he completely avoids specifics. And never once have I seen MP willingly and voluntarily call winnipeger to task for his behaviours, although many times MP has felt prompted to chastise me for my posting style. The despicable manner in which winnipeger has preyed upon the mistake I made in confiding my age and proffession begs comment from any who truly oppose winnipeger’s destruction of the discourse on this blog, yet MP has carefully avoided any specific statements about what exactly he is indicting in winnipeger’s posting style. On a personal level, I could care less what winnipeger thinks of my age or my proffession. I only continue to cite winnipeger’s treatment of the issue because it so perfectly underscores the vindictiveness and petulance of winnipeger’s blogging behaviour. And, as well, it underscores MP’s blatant hypocricy he displays in his condemnation of other poster’s blogging techniques, rhetoric, or opinions. He condemns what he claims is certain poster’s biases, bigotries, and prejudices, yet he stands idly on the sidelinbes while his ideological compatriot incessantly insults a posters age and proffession. There’s something wrong with that picture.
    Now, I’m off this blog until this winnipeger thing is history. You guys can have him. He’s ruined this blog. 200 posts so far on this thread, 80% combative and non-constructive bantering about some immature asshole who delights in ruining the flow of information and debate. It simply ain’t worth the agravation. I am sure, given winnipeger’s self illustrated lack of character or backbone, he will see this as a victory of sorts. And that alone is all the indictment needed when judging Winnipeger’s character.
    I’ll be back after Andy Gump cleans the place up.

    Reply

  21. MP says:

    POA writes: “Which begs the question, why are you defending him?”
    Well, I’ve given you my views on this the best I can. I don’t have anything more to add that wouldn’t be a repeat of what I’ve said. I concede the discusson to you and Den (and Rich and Carroll for good measure).

    Reply

  22. rich says:

    Den Valdron>>>>”This latest [“]dialogue[“] between Rich and Winnepegger is an example.”
    Not saying as I can call it a “dialoguge,” but I felt compelled to turn the smears of “anti-semitism” back towards the real question at hand:
    Where state-sanctioned torture, injustice and terrorism exist, regardless of the source, are we to sit silently by, pretending that anything can be justified, or that history is dead and unavailable to us?
    I think not.
    I’m sorry I haven’t the time to publiish a fully fleshed-out dissertation on Tillich or Niebhur or the History of Union Theological Seminary. Genuinely. The Fareed Zakarias and Billy Kristols of the world could use a lesson from those smarter than their collective intellectual weight. [My folks met at Union & studied under the faculty there.]
    Wnnpgger is right about one thing. Civil disobedience doesn’t work under all circumstances. It wouldn’t and didn’t work against Hitler–though there are incredible and valiant stories of limited success and scale–nor against the death squads of El Salvador, nor agaisnt the US carpet bombing in Vietnam. Nor against Israel. That’s why the FMLN and the French Resistance fought back. Palestinian families having the economic life squeezed out of them have but one choice–let their candle be snuffed out, or be heard. Where one cannot be heard, and cannot choose death, the imperative ‘to get through to’ those ultimately responsible in a democratic society–the voting citizen, the civilian public–suicide bombings is the only option. Israel had already waged war not against an army, but against a population–a nation. Is it horrific? Of course. Is it understandable? Without question. NO one sends their children to die that way–unless there IS NO other choice. The cry that ‘innocent civilians’ were the targets shows a collective amnesia about what matters most about a democracy–and about who’s responsible when their government commits horrific crimes–even in the absence of democracy. You’d think THAT lesson–of all of them–would be covered by the cry “Never Forget!”

    Reply

  23. Den Valdron says:

    Sorry Arun, I doubt that Hamas would accept Winnepegger. He’s just a run of the mill ‘single issue troll’ who insists that every topic must be derailed in favour of his two favourite topics.
    In this case: Himself and Israel.

    Reply

  24. Arun says:

    I was hoping to learn more about what Clemons wrote about; but after perusing this thread, the most I can say I learned is that Winnipeger must be a Hamas agent, determined to sour everyone on Israel.

    Reply

  25. Den Valdron says:

    Well, in point of fact, the local daily papers in the City of Winnipeg, Manitoba, are the Winnipeg Sun and the Winnipeg Free Press. There was also a daily, the Winnipeg Tribune, which shut down in the 80’s.
    The Globe and Mail is not a ‘local’ paper, but rather a national daily newspaper which prints in every major city in Canada.
    This implies a lack of knowledge and lack of affiliation with Winnipeg. So I’ll take it that he was lying about his residence. This brings up issues of credibility. Point to P.O.A.
    Carroll, I agree that discussing Winnepegger may be a waste of time and bandwidth. But still, its worth noting that he’s gone silent. It’s also inescapable that if he is reading lurking on this thread, and he probably is, then he realizes that the entire discussion is about what a lying asshole he is, and that the only issue in contention is the degree to which he is a lying asshole. I think that has to be humiliating and painful for him. Particularly when his defender, MP, concedes so many of his character defects.
    I’m also slightly amused. Given his pronounced immaturity, how long will it be before his resentment at MP’s faint defense and real criticisms leads him to making a target out of MP. And won’t that be fun? Where will he be then?

    Reply

  26. Pissed Off American says:

    Sorry, in the post above, I said…..
    “……how do you think they would feel about someone posting in the manner MP posts?”
    What I meant to say was…….
    “…….how do you think they would feel about someone posting in the manner WINNIPEGER posts?”
    (Hmm, a Freudian slip, I suppose.)

    Reply

  27. Pissed Off American says:

    Both of you are neglecting to mention the fact that he lied, irrefutably and demonstrably, by his intitial comments about his residence. Those that followed the exchange can draw no other conclusion than that he was lying. He attested, in one breath, to have just found Steve’s blog in a “local newspaper”, The Globe and Mail, and in the next breath he was attesting to be an American citizen.
    As far as his “membership” in “Peace Now”, if in fact he is a resident to New York, he would actually be supporting APN, or Americans for Peace Now. They have two separate websites, the actual “Peace Now” homepage site being largely frequented and contributed to by Israeli nationals.
    http://www.peacenow.org/
    http://www.peacenow.org.il/site/en/homepage.asp
    Now, one would think a “member” of Americans for Peace Now, or, Peace Now, would regularly call attention to the activism and views expressed by either website. Have we seen winnipeger cite any such activism, or call our attention to fresh items of interest on either website? The American wevbsite is updated fairly regularly, winnipeger can find nothing there that buttresses his opinions on the I/P issue? Gosh, now why can that be?
    And, lastly, in regards to the Peace Now claims. Should one of us endeavor to contact Peace Now,(as I am tempted to do), and draw their attention to winnipeger’s manner of posting on this blog, how do you think they would feel about someone posting in the manner MP posts, while claiming participation in their efforts to promote peace? If YOU were working towards I/P peace, would YOU want winnipeger as a spokesman on a well respected Washington blog?
    But, really, MP, like I said, your endorsement of winnipeger says far more about YOU than it does about him. I know hes a troll. YOU know hes a troll. There is no disputing the fact his posts are purposely disruptive, and that he destroys most threads he posts on. There is no disputing that he is commonly loathed here by the majority of the posters. Yet here you are defending his character and his credibility. Whats up with that?
    And me? Yep, I am abrasive, and at times brutally and vulgarly honest in my opinions. But, I am what I am, and have been, under one screen name, since I got here. Most of my venom is voiced towards the individual bastards within our government, and the agencies, lobbies, and think tanks that spawned them. And I full well intend to continue to express myself here as I always have. And yes I do attack certain posters. Morrow’s sociopathic droolings disgust me, and I regularly make that clear. And winnipeger is a lying posturing obnoxious piece of shit, whose sole purpose here is to inflame and disrupt.
    Which begs the question, why are you defending him?

    Reply

  28. Carroll says:

    Gawd!..can we get back to the really important “gossip”?..like Iraq and Iran?
    Winne is a nutcase and MP is a liar who spends all his comments lying about what other posters said instead of offering anything to think about regarding our dire situation.
    So let’s talk about what people close to the situation are having to say.
    Like Clark? Who probably, due to his former experience, current closeness to the political backroom and the pentagon grapevine, is in a better position than many to know how serious the Iran sceniro is getting. If Clark is worried, I am worried.
    Here is what he said at the recent swearings – in’s in DC.:
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/arianna-huffington/dc-notes-wes-clark-is-_b_37837.html
    “At the packed-to-the-rafters brunch preceding Nancy Pelosi’s formal swearing in, Melinda and I ran into Wes Clark (and I mean that literally; like I said, it was packed). Clark was really angry about what he’d read in this column by UPI Editor at Large Arnaud de Borchgrave. In the piece, which Clark quickly forwarded to my BlackBerry from his Trio, de Borchgrave details Bibi Netanyahu leading the charge to lobby the Bush administration to take out Iran’s nuclear facilities, and paints U.S. air strikes against Iran in 2007/08 as all-but-a-done deal.
    “How can you talk about bombing a country when you won’t even talk to them?” said Clark. “It’s outrageous. We’re the United States of America; we don’t do that. Don’t get me wrong, I’m not saying the military option is off the table — but diplomacy is not what Jim Baker says it is. It’s not, What will it take for you boys to support us on Iraq? It’s sitting down for a couple of days and talking about our families and our hopes, and building relationships.”
    When we asked him what made him so sure the Bush administration was headed in this direction, he replied: “You just have to read what’s in the Israeli press. The Jewish community is divided but there is so much pressure being channeled from the New York money people to the office seekers.”
    At one point Melinda reminded him that she was taking down everything he said (a fact that would have been hard to miss, since she was taking notes on a not-inconspicuous legal pad). His response: ‘Yes, I know.” For Clark, this is the biggest foreign policy issue facing the U.S. “I’m worried about the surge,” he said. “But I’m worried about this even more.”
    >>>>>>>>>>>
    It’s time for us to let our politicans know that if they even think about a “premptive” attack on Iran..a la Iraq…conventional , much less anything nuclear, by Isr or the US that they better have a passport in another name and a foreign hidde hole picked out to flee to.

    Reply

  29. Den Valdron says:

    This latest dialogue between Rich and Winnepegger is an example.
    Winnepegger simply states “I know more than you can ever know in your lifetime” nyah nyah nyah.
    Rich, in response cites Paul Tillich and Reinhold Nieburh, implying that he’s familiar with these writers and can both articulately describe and apply their ideas.
    This is one of those situations where context leads to assessments of credibility.
    One simply makes blanket triumphal statements empty of specific content. The other makes focused statements referencing and implying a deep and specific knowledge of the subject.
    Which one, on the face of this limited information, is more credible? Which is the worthier position?

    Reply

  30. Den Valdron says:

    But there’s the point, MP. The claim of a Nobel Prize is as unverified and unverifiable as the claim for Peace Now. Your response is to seek verification to assess the claim. You do not automatically accept it as truthful because it is merely asserted.
    On that front, you have to admit that your acceptance of the Peace Now claim, or any other claim, is at least as unsupported and irrational as those who take the view that it is a lie.
    The choice of POA as a nobel prize winner is not a bad example, but a rhetorical device, using an exaggerated example to highlight the problem with your position. Often problems can be identified by extending them to the point where a flaw in the premise is writ large. Thus, Winnepegger makes an unverified claim, I make a big claim to demonstrate unverifiability.
    You are correct that questionable or dishonest debating tactics, frenzied invective and suspicious one-upsmanship does not mean that he is a 360 degree liar. But on the other hand, bad behaviour and tactics which undermine credibility do so in a general way. Winnepegger may not be a 360 degree liar. But on the other hand, there’s no way to determine the truthfulness of any particular unverified claim, and given the general credibility problem, all unverified claims must be treated with skepticism.
    In support of his credibility, you argue that he’s claimed to work for social welfare organizations, and this supports the likelihood of membership in Peace Now.
    But seriously, isn’t the claim to work for social welfare organizations itself an unverified and unverifiable claim. You are using unverified claims to give credibility to other unverified claims? MP, you’re building a pyramid out of nothing.
    And as for the claim to work for social welfare organizations, while this is hardly determinative, I must say that its behaviour and argumentation on these threads give me pause. Winnepegger has exhibited overt racism, short temper, one upsmanship, a penchant for invective and grudges, and is highly, even irrationally, partisan. At no point has he displayed any detailed knowledge of social welfare organizations or service delivery or poverty issues. This is not a set of attributes that often find favour in social welfare organizations. This isn’t disproof, of course, but it is cause for skepticism.
    When it was asserted to me, I was unimpressed with it, among other reasons, simply because it was an unverified assertion that could not be proven or disproven, and because he exhibited no special contextual knowledge or insight that would give such a claim credibility. Frankly, it was an earlier example of his efforts at ‘one upsmanship.’
    Since you are arguing that the context makes Winnepegger’s ‘peace now’ claim credible, perhaps you can explain what that context is?
    You’ve already conceded that the claim is inherently unverifiable, and you’ve conceded that his ‘debating tactics leave much to be desired’ that he engages ‘one upsmanship’ and concede that he’s ‘unhinged’ on his obsessive topic, and that he’s prone to histrionic invective.
    So seriously, what context gives it credibility? I’d really like to know.

    Reply

  31. rich says:

    >>>Winnipegger wrote:
    dare i say that i’ve studied and experienced more about the holocaust than you will in your lifetime.
    Posted by Winnipeger at January 7, 2007 12:01 PM
    <<<<
    It’s not simply that you ARE in error there: it’s that your attitude is completely at odds with the American core character and set of values that is the ONLY ANTIDOTE to a repeat of genocide AND/or the Holocaust–at any scale.
    Without reasoned debate bounded by shared principles, the foundation of the antidote, there’s no solution to be had. The problem is your claim to/presumption of ownership of the issue–when it’s a shared problem with a shared solution–is un-American as hell. It’s not yours to own. It’s profoundly ill-advised. It puts a stake through the heart of fruitful discussion.
    You say you study–but you fail to learn THE CORE lessons to be distilled from the Holocaust–and eagerly repeat the very same mistakes.
    You go running in riverside park–right past Riverside Church and Union Theological Seminary–YET what have you learned from Paul Tillich, Rheinhold Niebuhr, of Bonhoeffer??
    Not much, apparently. The truth can’t set ya free without minimal adherence to the facts. And without minimal adherence to American political principles, you’ll never win this debate by pushing your fellow discussants and political allies around over this issue. When Israel and the US can claim to adhere to their own principles, ONLY THEN will there be any potential to resolve the issue.
    That’s poli sci 101–it’s also the core lesson of the Holocaust and of the American Revolution. Love it. Live it. Be strong. But I won’t bow to your methods, nor cede to your abuse. Knowing something about the Holocaust doesn’t justify claiming to know everything, and surely not to own the issue.

    Reply

  32. MP says:

    Den writes: “That would be legitimate. I think we’re entitled to use contextual evidence to assess credibility.
    In that light, I’d advise you to consider Winnepegger’s contextual writings – invective laden, laced with self pity, continually taking offense, almost wholly personal attacks, and the almost complete absence of rationality. This is hardly the hallmark of a stable personality, and certainly not suggestive of any kind of integrity that you should presume to rely upon.
    Worse, there is a thread of ‘one upsmanship’ in many of Winnepeggers personal comments that undermines credibility. Thus if I say a friend of mine’s father was in Auschwitz (an unverifiable claim), Winnepegger feels compelled to trump that with then blanket assertion that his whole family went to Auschwitz. If Rich claims knowledge of the Holocaust, Winnepegger asserts that he is an expert on the Holocaust.
    Presumably if someone claimed to have ridden in an airplane, Winnepegger would claim to be a fighter jet pilot, if someone evinced knowledge of astronomy, Winnepegger would claim to have ridden in the space shuttle. You see the pathology at work? It doesn’t suggest crediblity.”
    You make some interesting points. Here’s what I’d say. First, if you asserted that POA was a Nobel Prize winner, I wouldn’t call you a liar (as he has been called). I might say, “Den, really? What did he win it for? In what year?” And if you had answers to all of these questions, I’d have to say that crazier things have happened in this world. Without proof, I might still doubt you, but I wouldn’t call you a liar.
    Second, your example isn’t that good because it’s far easier to believe that Winnepeger filled out a form and sends a regular contribution to Peace Now than it is to believe that POA is a Nobel winner. Why? A lot more is involved in the latter than in the former. It’s a lot easier to pull off.
    Third, as I said before, before this exchange heated up some threads ago, he said quite plainly that he worked for social welfare organizations, and this strikes me as fully consistent with belonging to Peace Now. I think, at the time, you believed that he worked for these organizations, even if you weren’t impressed by it.
    Fourth, because certain people become unhinged on certain topics and have strange ways of arguing (one upsmanship)–and the I/P debate is often one of those topics– doesn’t mean they’re 360-degree liars. Any number of other people have become unhinged here on this topic.
    So, yes, I’m judging the context, but, in this case, the context doesn’t suggest to me that he’s lying. POA is asserting that he’s lying. But the problem here, as I see it, is that only Winnepeger knows if he is or not. Since the context (to me) doesn’t suggest he is, I choose to believe him on this point.

    Reply

  33. Den Valdron says:

    MP, the burden of proof *always* rests with the person making an assertion. Anything else is simply nonsense, and we both know that. This is both irrational and unworthy of you.
    I suppose he could disclose his name, refer us to the membership rolls of Peace Now, and verify it in this way. But he chooses not to do so.
    I think that the best you could say is that beyond the unverified assertion, there is no evidence that Winnepegger is or is not a member of Peace Now, or any equivalent organization. Essentially, the best you can say is that you can’t say anything.
    Your concession that Winnepegger’s ‘debating style leaves much to be desired’ amounts to a concession that there are credibility issues here.
    While these credibility issues do not relate to a specific claim, such as ‘Peace Now’ the simple existence of credibility problems has to generalize to the evaluation of unverifiable claims.
    Admittedly, this is a matter of judgement. But in this case, the behaviour and attending credibility issues are so pronounced that I have to wonder how you can ignore it.
    As for your comment that if Winnepegger really is a member of Peace Now, then he’s done more than a lot of people on this thread… well, first, that’s a pretty big conditional ‘IF.’ Second, you’re discounting P.O.A.’s Nobel Peace Prize. Third, you can’t know what if anything others have done for peace which they did not disclose, or if disclosed cannot verify.
    To put it another way: Talk is cheap, Whisky costs money.

    Reply

  34. rich says:

    Winnipeger,
    I read every newspaper account printed at the time. There’s an extensive documented record of Israeli actions in Lebanon. Blindly embracing a whitewashing doesn’t cleanse History.
    >>>”well, rich, you clearly haven’t read the fact in regards to jenin.”
    . . .
    Posted by Winnipeger at January 7, 2007 11:59 AM <<<<
    Maybe I’ll see you out at riverside park today. I’m going over to meet a friend near the church, we’re headed to the park after.
    Look, winnipeger–I would never claim the Holocaust and another genocidal action are one and the same thing. I make careful distinction between Jewish people and Israel, between identity and policy. The historical difference are obvious and don’t need to be itemized.
    Isreael’s security and ability to defend itself is paramount precisely to ensure that “Never Again” carries the day. Yet the tools Israel uses backfire continually; the counterproductive blowback is immeasureable. Pointing the finger, shrilly, at others is disingenous–and plain scapegoating. It’s identity-based scapegoating that is exactly the same tool used to target Jews in the Third Reich. First came the special laws curtailing the status and freedoms of Jewish citizens, the patches to be worn, and the confiscations of property.
    Israel confiscates the property of indigenous citizens, it curtails what rights and dignity remain–based on identity. What can this lead to? Mad about the Holocaust? By all means, kills some Germans. The US just ordered Josias Kumpf deported–guess why?
    http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=549537 But to turn around and perpetrate similar injustices against a people you fear and distrust, and to pretend they didn’t and don’t happen is as irresponsible as anyone, anywhere who also stood by and did nothing. Nuremburg didn’t look kindly on that attitude–and for that reason, it and history won’t serve America or Israel well.

    Reply

  35. Den Valdron says:

    As for attributing blame, while I acknowledge that POA is capable of histrionic invective, he also engages in reasoned discourse. Such reasonability is absent with Winnepegger.
    I would note that I too have watched this and other threads, so I can make a comment or two.
    You have two problems: The histrionic invective is all Winnepeggers. That is, he originates it on his own. No one needs to start it for him. His pattern on this and other threads is to seek out fights and escalate them. He has constantly gone out of his way to be offensive, when that offensiveness is responded to in any way, civil or otherwise, he automatically escalates. He carries feuds from thread to thread, gratuitously cross attacks, and continually looks for new people to provoke.
    He continually attempts to distract threads onto his personal issues, raising Israel’s ‘persecution’ when the thread was not even peripherally related to Israel. A perfect example is this thread, which originated as a discussion of the ‘surge’ and continued in that vein, right up until his self pitying hijacking.
    If you were truly paying attention, all this would be clear and obvious to you. I fear that your dislike for POA has blinded you to the qualities of the person you are defending.
    I’d warn you that a scorpion doesn’t change his habits. Inevitably you yourself will sooner or later become the target of Winnepegger’s childish personal invective.

    Reply

  36. MP says:

    Den, one more point: If he is telling the truth about Peace Now, he’s actually doing more to resolve the conflict, then many people here who say the right things in the right way.
    Also, in this case, the burden of proof I’d say rests with folks who want to assert that he’s lying.
    But I will grant you: His debating style leaves a lot to be desired.

    Reply

  37. Den Valdron says:

    So your thesis is that without direct proof to the contrary, we should simply accept whatever assertions Winnepegger makes?
    Frankly, I find that proposition questionable. You’re correct in that Steve notes that we cannot truly know anything about each other…
    But the problem for you, is that this does not amount to an endorsement that anything said is the truth. Rather, it means that such claims cannot be verified as true or false.
    Suppose I were to tell you that P.O.A. has a nobel peace prize? Would you be inclined to believe that? To disbelieve that? Truthfully, you would be unable to take a position for or against. Ultimately, the assertion would be meaningless.
    For this reason, most people posting here, yourself included, generally avoid personal claims. It’s not central to their discussions, not verifiable, and generally not useful.
    Of course, you might choose to disbelieve POA won a Nobel Peace Prize by your judgement of his writing and reasoning on this Board.
    That would be legitimate. I think we’re entitled to use contextual evidence to assess credibility.
    In that light, I’d advise you to consider Winnepegger’s contextual writings – invective laden, laced with self pity, continually taking offense, almost wholly personal attacks, and the almost complete absence of rationality. This is hardly the hallmark of a stable personality, and certainly not suggestive of any kind of integrity that you should presume to rely upon.
    Worse, there is a thread of ‘one upsmanship’ in many of Winnepeggers personal comments that undermines credibility. Thus if I say a friend of mine’s father was in Auschwitz (an unverifiable claim), Winnepegger feels compelled to trump that with then blanket assertion that his whole family went to Auschwitz. If Rich claims knowledge of the Holocaust, Winnepegger asserts that he is an expert on the Holocaust.
    Presumably if someone claimed to have ridden in an airplane, Winnepegger would claim to be a fighter jet pilot, if someone evinced knowledge of astronomy, Winnepegger would claim to have ridden in the space shuttle. You see the pathology at work? It doesn’t suggest crediblity.
    Frankly, I’m at a loss to understand your unquestioning credulousness towards a person whose sole mission here seems to be to become offensive.

    Reply

  38. MP says:

    Den writes: “MP, I’m just curious, but what basis do you have to believe anything Winnepegger says? Its consistent MO on this site has been to attack everyone and anything with histrionic invective, and exagerated but unsupported personal claims. We’ve had our disagreements, but frankly your endorsement of such a pathetic troll really does seem to be a precipitous new low.
    Three reasons: 1) I try to take what people say on a blog at face value, because there is no way to get “behind” the face value. 2) Because I’ve watched the evolution of the exchange and saw that, at the beginning, he was pushed by others as much as he pushed them when he called into question some of the more outlandish statements about Israel. This started long before you came into the picture. 3) He said, early on, that he works for social welfare organizations, and this would be consistent with belonging to Peace Now.
    Could he be lying about this? Yes. But I have no reason to doubt that he is. Which is to say, I can’t assert that he does belong to Peace Now, but I see no point in calling him a liar.
    As to attacking people with “histrionic invective,” that really did begin with POA. But even there, I try to look at the substance of what he’s saying. And I, too, “lose it” here from time to time.

    Reply

  39. Pissed Off American says:

    You know what, MP? Your endorsment of the slimey little prick says more about YOU than it does about him.
    No reason to doubt him??? ROFLMAO!!!!!

    Reply

  40. Winnipeger says:

    den wrote:
    “First things first. To Winnipegger: Fuck off, you snivelling little turd, shouldn’t you be douching you mom? Have you gotten around to playing the victim yet? All these mean people picking on you? Big bad Valdron giving you an unprovoked ‘fuck off’ for nooooo reason at all (except of course for your obnoxious behaviour on this and other threads)? I figure your self pity party is due to start any time now.”
    phew. now that we’ve gotten that out of the way, it’s 50 degrees and sunny in nyc and i’m heading out to riverside park for a run. maybe i’ll see you later, friends 😉

    Reply

  41. Pissed Off American says:

    BTW, for those of you that entertain the notion that these bastards on the left are any different than the bastards on the right, note that the left is advancing the exact same propaganda that Israel and the Bush Administration is about Iran’s nuclear program. Never mind the IAEA report. Never mind the CIA’s conclusions. Never mind the false advocations of diplomacy when dealing with Iran or Syria. Israel wants Iran attacked, and by God, what Israel wants, Israel gets. After all, AIPAC doesn’t spend all this money without expecting a return on their investment…
    Democrats: Nuclear Iran unacceptable
    By HILARY LEILA KRIEGER
    Talkbacks for this article: 117
    Iran with nuclear weapons is unacceptable, new House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer told The Jerusalem Post hours after entering the party leadership position.
    The Maryland Democrat said the view is shared by his party, rejecting assertions that the Democrats would be weaker than the Republicans on Iran.
    He also said that the use of force against Teheran remained an option.
    Hoyer, second only in the hierarchy of the House of Representatives to Speaker Nancy Pelosi, is charged with articulating and strategizing on party policy.
    He spoke to the Post on Thursday, the opening day of the 110th Congress, after making an appearance at the National Jewish Democratic Council reception honoring the six new Jewish members of Congress.
    The council gathering was one of scores of events on Capitol Hill held to celebrate the start of the new session.
    Hoyer is considered close to the Jewish community and many Israel supporters have hailed his elevation in the House.
    He was one of the few non-Jewish lawmakers to attend the council reception.
    Hoyer said the Democrats’ position, like that of the Bush administration, was that preventing a nuclear-armed Iran had to be done through “discussions, negotiations, sanctions.” Hoyer added that the US needed to work with the international community to block Teheran’s nuclear ambitions.
    At the same time, Hoyer said the use of force hadn’t been taken off the table.
    “I’ve not ruled that out,” he said, but added, “It’s not an option we want to consider until we know there is no other option.”•
    http://tinyurl.com/ycfdcv

    Reply

  42. Winnipeger says:

    I see NO reason not to believe him. Yet, it has been asserted many times here that he must be lying because of x,y, or z comment. What sort of argumentation is that? Steve has himself many times pointed out that we know next to nothing about each other and what we do with our lives. So, accusing winnepeger of lying about which organizations he belongs to is out of bounds and accomplishes nothing, except to insult him.
    Posted by MP at January 7, 2007 12:14 PM
    thank you. thank you. thank you.
    i NEVER understood this line of reasoning. why would i lie about what organizations i do or don’t support?!?! seriously! i have no trouble voicing my opinion here, no matter how offensive and aggressive the response may be so why wouldn’t i decry Peace Now if i disagreed with their mission?!
    if nothing else, it would give me another opportunity to disagree with my ‘friends” on this blog 😉

    Reply

  43. Den Valdron says:

    MP, I’m just curious, but what basis do you have to believe anything Winnepegger says?
    Its consistent MO on this site has been to attack everyone and anything with histrionic invective, and exagerated but unsupported personal claims.
    We’ve had our disagreements, but frankly your endorsement of such a pathetic troll really does seem to be a precipitous new low.

    Reply

  44. Den Valdron says:

    First things first. To Winnipegger: Fuck off, you snivelling little turd, shouldn’t you be douching you mom? Have you gotten around to playing the victim yet? All these mean people picking on you? Big bad Valdron giving you an unprovoked ‘fuck off’ for nooooo reason at all (except of course for your obnoxious behaviour on this and other threads)? I figure your self pity party is due to start any time now.
    Now, to business, and to the rest of you, P.O.A. among others.
    I still maintain that Israel’s security considerations were not the dominant motive for the Iraq war.
    I’ll readily concede that the US has subordinated its interests and better judgement to Israeli extremists in other circumstances, the recent Lebanese War and the management of the Gaza and West Bank. There is a large scope to criticize Israel’s actions, and the collusion of Americans in these actions here.
    With respect to the Iraq invasion and occupation, I’ll readily concede that Israeli extremists views of its security needs was a contributing factor, it was part of the mix, no question.
    My point is that it simply wasn’t the decisive factor.
    What was the decisive factor:
    http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/article2132569.ece
    It really was simply about stealing the oil, in one form or another.
    Nuff said.

    Reply

  45. Winnipeger says:

    mp,
    thanks for the heads-up on bitterlemon.org. at first glance it seems to be everything that these comments threads lack: civility, insight and equal criticism.

    Reply

  46. MP says:

    Winnipeger writes: “well, i’m supporting candidates whose policies i agree with and criticizing those i don’t. i’m making financial contributions to non-profit, social welfare organizations whose work i support, including peace now and the new israel fund and i’m continuing to travel to israel, the occupied territories (not for the last few years — it’s simply to unsafe — they’re kidnapping AP photographers for God sakes) and the greater ME, although please keep in mind, with an israeli stamp in my passport and as a jew, I’m FORBIDDEN TO EVEN ENTER MANY ARAB COUNTRIES. that makes sense, huh?”
    Now, winnepeger has said many times that he is a member of Peace Now and contributes money to it. These people are doing real work within Israel to stop Israel’s abuses against the Palestinians and find a just solution to the conflict. (More than is done by posting on this blog or any other blog.)
    I see NO reason not to believe him. Yet, it has been asserted many times here that he must be lying because of x,y, or z comment. What sort of argumentation is that? Steve has himself many times pointed out that we know next to nothing about each other and what we do with our lives. So, accusing winnepeger of lying about which organizations he belongs to is out of bounds and accomplishes nothing, except to insult him.

    Reply

  47. MP says:

    POA wrote: “Well, MP, what exactly HAS Israel done in regards to Gaza and the West Bank? Is it your contention now that Israel HASN’T committed to policies and human rights abuses that have nurtured and fostered the jihadist mindset? Your paragraph IGNORES Israel’s crimes while underlining the crimes of its foes. Is that your idea of balanced argument?”
    No, not at all. I’ve said what I believe on these comments many times. I’ve pointed you to MJ Rosenberg, who, I believe, takes the correct approach and makes compelling points about Israeli abuses. I’ve also pointed you to bitterlemons.org, which also takes a strong, balanced position with Israelis and Palestinians both contributing.
    But frankly, most of the comments here (with some notable exceptions) take a one-sided, anti-Israeli position. And a number of them are nurtured by a view that Israel shouldn’t exist at all (I refer you to Judith’s debut post). I’m simply not going to “pile on” when the discussion is already so out of balance. What’s the point of that?

    Reply

  48. Winnipeger says:

    …and rich,
    dare i say that i’ve studied and experienced more about the holocaust than you will in your lifetime.
    i have absolutely no doubt about this.

    Reply

  49. Winnipeger says:

    rich:
    “What are you doing to insist upon integrity and justice in Israel.”
    well, i’m supporting candidates whose policies i agree with and criticizing those i don’t. i’m making financial contributions to non-profit, social welfare organizations whose work i support, including peace now and the new israel fund and i’m continuing to travel to israel, the occupied territories (not for the last few years — it’s simply to unsafe — they’re kidnapping AP photographers for God sakes) and the greater ME, although please keep in mind, with an israeli stamp in my passport and as a jew, I’m FORBIDDEN TO EVEN ENTER MANY ARAB COUNTRIES. that makes sense, huh? anyone care to criticize that bullshit?!?! didn’t think so.
    i’m not silent about policies and actions which i disagree with, on both the palestinian and the israeli side, but i do vehemently object to the comparison of israeli actions *alone*, in the current WAR, to those of hitler and the nazis. imo, this is thinly veiled anti-semitism. you want to talk about the collective insanity of the palestinians, israelis and a vast majority of the arabs in the ME? fine. i’m with you. you want to single out israel for criticism while ignoring arab atrocities and complicity? no dice. none. nada. if this is what you’re looking for, go instant message with carroll and judith.
    you wrote:
    “You clealry didn’t read the posts on Jenin. You clearly don’t know the history of the Holocaust.”
    well, rich, you clearly haven’t read the fact in regards to jenin. again:
    ****THERE WAS NO ISRAELI MASSACRE AT JENIN****
    55 palestinians and 23 israelis killed in fighting
    read the un report yourself:
    http://www.un.org/peace/jenin/

    Reply

  50. MP says:

    POA wrote: “Hmm, yet you, in your carefully manicured definition of “abhorrent” have selectivelly focused your disdain towards those whose views are opposed to your own, while totally avoiding comment about what winnipeger’s droppings have done to this blog.
    You want low? Read your compatriot’s comments. Then, apply what common sense you have, if any, to a careful introspection about how you appear to those that are observing your indifference to winnipeger’s behaviour here. You seem to want to apply a criteria of ethics based on whether or not someone supports Israel. THATS “sinking low”, MP.
    Well, here’s the deal. It’s pretty clear we’ve divided up into “teams.” For a long time, you’ve said many, many outrageous things and Carroll has said nothing. Carroll has said many outrageous things, and you have said nothing. And many others who share your views on I/P have said nothing, either. (With the sole exception, I believe, of Marky.) In fact, ET offered an interesting and impassioned defense of your behavior, which I found only somewhat compelling.
    I will share this with you: I used to use my real name on these comments until you launched an unprovoked and unsubstantiated attack on me. You googled my name; found someone else who shared my name; quoted this person’s views and attributed them to me; and then began to call me all kinds of vile names. I have to tell you that I felt personally violated. When I brought this up to you, I got silence. So your advice to Judith on this point is ironic.
    There is a lot more to be said about your debating style, but I’ll leave it there.
    If I were winnepeger’s “coach,” I’d help him with a more effective and persuasive debating style, though I agree with the substance of many of his comments (though not all). But I have to tell you this, the only person I recall ever admitting he was wrong on these comments was Frank when he predicted, incorrectly, a pre-election attack on Iran. So why you are asking me for a level-headed, stick to the issues approach when you have never done so yourself–and many on your “team” have never done so–is beyond me.
    But yes, winnepeger has said some things I wouldn’t have said.

    Reply

  51. rich says:

    Poor Winnipegger!
    Again failing to address the salient point: What are you doing to insist upon integrity and justice in Israel. (Not about the Jews, Sir, nor identity, it’s about Israel and methodology.) You have an obligation to stand against the injustice and terror that goes down the road death camps by way of ethnic cleansing–for the sake of your ancestors.
    You continually twist the conversation away from the issue at hand. Equivalency is not the issue–nor are the Jewish people–whom I defend. I’ts the policies and the silence of “Good Canadians” that facilitates more killing, family by family, neighborhood by neighborhood.
    The technical capacity and political standing of Hezbollah has been strengthened in Lebanon–because of politically inept Israeli actions. They immprison hundreds and thousands of wives and children, then complain about a few soldiers being “kidnapped”–an oxymoron in a war.
    You clealry didn’t read the posts on Jenin. You clearly don’t know the history of the Holocaust.
    Poor, lost Winnipegger! You’ll be confused as you witness History forsaking you again.

    Reply

  52. rapier says:

    One of the dominante memes about the surge is that it is a time killing excercise designed to make withdrawl by Bush impossible. Thus leaving the mess for the next resident of the White House. Without doubt there is a kernel of truth to this. These guys after all think of everything. I maintain however that the waiting game involves the very real probability of a significant terror attack on American soil again. Like the first time it will render a new political landscape.
    Everyone has thought of that, but the thought has faded as the years passed. You can be certain however that this idea is behind everything Bush/Cheney do. I’ve always maintained it was the reason, conscious or unconcious why they ignored the pre 911 terror threat, but that’s another story. They know, or think they know, that they will again have total political and military carte blanche when the next attack comes. Only a fool thinks such an attack won’t come. The next terror attack is the elepant in the room.
    Every single discussion of Iraq or the entire Middle East policy or total foreign policy must include that knowlege.

    Reply

  53. Winnipeger says:

    “what winnipeger’s droppings have done to this blog.”
    my droppings?! talk about the pot calling the kettle black!
    i have simply mirrored you and den, poa. please keep in mind (and re-read this thread if you must) that den admits he told me to “fuck off” with zero provocation on my part. well, ok, den, touche to you and then some.
    …and as far as you, you itinerant carpenter, what have *you* offered this blog other than months upon months of vile name calling and hate filled, unconstructive rhetoric?!
    do you want me to cut and past some of your myriad slanderous comments here and now poa? give us all a break and quit playing the aggrieved altruist. you have heaped more obscenity on this blog than all other contributors combined.
    what a fucking hypocrite!!!!!!!

    Reply

  54. Pissed Off American says:

    Well, the irony here is that the REAL nuclear threat in the Middle East seems to be the United States and Israel, as we threaten to use them. Yet we decry the desires of nations we have branded as “evil doers” to possess such weapons? What country in the Middle East LIED and concealed their nuclear program, and has refused to allow IAEA inspections? Threatening pre-emptive nuclear strikes IS NOT the way to halt proliferation, now is it?

    Reply

  55. MP says:

    One more thing that isn’t often noted…
    The longer conflicts like the I/P continue, the harder they are to resolve. Real and apparent injuries pile up on both sides, and the extremist’s view–you can’t make a deal with the other side becasue they just want to kill you–seems to make more and more sense to more and more people simply because the “evidence” is piling up. It becomes harder and harder to see “the other” for who he/she really is.
    For example, it is my impression that Israel lurched heavily rightward just after the Yom Kippur War. Until then, Labor ruled. But Likud was formed in 1973 and won based the “evidence” Israelis saw demonstrated in the surprise attack (and other, internal factors). Ever since then, Likud has been able to jerk the security string whenever Israelis, rightly or wrongly, saw their security imperilled. Not dissimilar to what GWB has been able to do to the American public post 9/11.
    In a lot of ways, the “facts” don’t help you out here, because the “facts” can be interpreted in any number of ways. For example, “does Iran intend to wipe Israel off the map?” Or is this just a mistranslation? Or does he mean that Israel will remain, but it just won’t be a Jewish state any more? I’m not sure anyone really knows. And Israel as a non-Jewish state loses a lot of its appeal to many Jews, just as France without Frenchmen would for the French.
    Iran appears to be a long ways away from getting the bomb and being able to deliver it. But if their intention really is to use it against Israel, this might be cold comfort. On the other hand, Israel has a huge nuclear arsenal ready to go–shouldn’t that be comfort enough? Maybe. But if Nasrallah is to be believed–and they prefer death to life–maybe not. A while back, Den made a compelling case for why Iran isn’t seeking nukes. But if Den is wrong, what kind of comfort will that be?
    I think a huge dose of humility about what one knows and doesn’t know here is in order.

    Reply

  56. Pissed Off American says:

    “jews didn’t declare jihad on germany or the axis. jews didn’t wage open war in their adopted countries. jews didn’t send suicide bombers onto civilian busses and into restaraunts and cafes to blow themselves up in bucharest, or amsterdam, or berlin, or vienna, or prague, or brussells, or cluj-napoca.”
    Well, MP, what exactly HAS Israel done in regards to Gaza and the West Bank? Is it your contention now that Israel HASN’T committed to policies and human rights abuses that have nurtured and fostered the jihadist mindset? Your paragraph IGNORES Israel’s crimes while underlining the crimes of its foes. Is that your idea of balanced argument?

    Reply

  57. Pissed Off American says:

    “People should be accused of being traitors because they have committed traitorous acts. Period. Some people on this forum wish to accuse others of being traitors because these others hold views about America’s interests that are diametrically opposed to their own. I find this abhorrent and sign of how low we’ve fallen.”
    Posted by MP
    Hmm, yet you, in your carefully manicured definition of “abhorrent” have selectivelly focused your disdain towards those whose views are opposed to your own, while totally avoiding comment about what winnipeger’s droppings have done to this blog.
    You want low? Read your compatriot’s comments. Then, apply what common sense you have, if any, to a careful introspection about how you appear to those that are observing your indifference to winnipeger’s behaviour here. You seem to want to apply a criteria of ethics based on whether or not someone supports Israel. THATS “sinking low”, MP.

    Reply

  58. Winnipeger says:

    mp wrote:
    “One of the unfortunate consequences of heated “discussions” like this is that people, on both sides of the issue, feel pushed to take unsupportable positions and support unsupportable actions.”
    agreed, mp.

    Reply

  59. Winnipeger says:

    fran, fran, frank…
    the “dancing israelis” again? besides you, poa and a few other merry dumbsters, NOBODY believes that israel was complicit in the 9-11 attacks. to hold this opinion speaks volumes about you and your attitude towards jews.
    and as far as this gem:
    “How unfitting, how bizarre, and how obscene, that in the news today, one reads of Israel’s alleged plan to NUKE Iranian facilities.”
    bizarre? obsecene? unfitting?
    hmm… let’s see. a country that has sworn to “eliminate” you to “wipe you off the map” is beginning to enrich uranium, possibly in order to make good on its threats and you find israel’s contingency planning “unfitting, bizarre and obscene?”
    well that sure makes a lot of sense…

    Reply

  60. MP says:

    I would have to agree with these two statements, one from Rich and one from Winnepeger:
    Rich says: “Would the victims of Auschwitz countenance this?? They knew the harsh end of these poliies. It’s essential people of every religion fight FOR the state of Israel. But you UTTERLY underestimate the humanity of your own ancestors.
    The issue is whether YOU’RE willing to stand up FOR Justice and against the things you CLAIM to hate. Against policies that create enemies and endanger Israel’s national security. Against the policy and bureaucracy of state terror that killed YOUR ancestors.
    Winnepeger says: “but to compare this war, perpetuated at least as much by the palestinians as the israelis, to hitler’s final solution is irresponsible and disgusting. there is *NO* comparison.
    jews didn’t declare jihad on germany or the axis. jews didn’t wage open war in their adopted countries. jews didn’t send suicide bombers onto civilian busses and into restaraunts and cafes to blow themselves up in bucharest, or amsterdam, or berlin, or vienna, or prague, or brussells, or cluj-napoca.”
    Rich (and others) makes a compelling point about where Israel may be HEADED. MJ Rosenberg, over at tmpcafe, an ardent Zionist, makes similar points. Israel needs to solve the Palestinian issue in a just way as much for its security as for the sake of justice. Winnepeger is correct (factually) that this mess isn’t simply of Israel’s making, but it is (at least for the time being) the stronger party and needs to use its strength to solve the problem the best it can.
    MJ’s most recent post offers Israel an interesting way forward, an opening that holds promise. I read him religiously and suggest others (who care about this issue) do too. He has his head and heart in the right place. He also has an interesting aside about Senor Kantar.
    One of the unfortunate consequences of heated “discussions” like this is that people, on both sides of the issue, feel pushed to take unsupportable positions and support unsupportable actions.

    Reply

  61. Winnipeger says:

    killing clergy as they leave their house of worship, murdering the children of government rivals in drive by shootings, murdering political opponents left and right, kidnapping more press photopgraphers, this time Agence France-Press photographer Jaime Razuri of Peru, the palestinians continue doing what they do best:
    http://tinyurl.com/9pya7
    http://tinyurl.com/yakvwm
    shall we compare them to the nazis too, rich, or should we save that honor for the israelis alone?
    care to comment on the the palestinian “policy and bureaucracy of state terror?”
    didn’t think so.

    Reply

  62. MP says:

    POA writes: “MP is off on one of his divergent drives of purposefully misrepresented argument again. He would want you to believe that all us nasty ‘ol “anti-semites” are against all them poor misunderstood Jewish Americans that hold dual citizenship. What he ignores, with his hopelessly cowardly manner of avoiding the point, is that the problem is in having people within our government, holding key positions, whose dual citizenship represents a blatant conflict of interest.”
    Actually, if you re-read my post, you’ll see that I’m willing to entertain that dual citizenship for people holding sensitive posts is potentially a problem. I said that, or words to that effect.
    This was in response to MC who said something like, If you don’t want to be accused of being a traitor, don’t be a dual citizen. I reject that approach, particularly as it is legal to be a dual citizen. I’m sure there are many fine government servants in all kinds of positions who hold dual citizenship.
    People should be accused of being traitors because they have committed traitorous acts. Period. Some people on this forum wish to accuse others of being traitors because these others hold views about America’s interests that are diametrically opposed to their own. I find this abhorrent and sign of how low we’ve fallen.

    Reply

  63. MP says:

    Judith wrote: “Anti-Semitism means “hating Jews” or “discrimination on the basis of race of religion”.
    Not only Judith. These days, one doesn’t find people “openly” hating the Jews, except the usual suspects.
    But Protocols of Zion-like comments, such as “Jews start all the wars,” “or Jews control everything,” are anti-Semitic.
    I would also say that “Jews have no business wanting their own country” is also anti-Semitic because it is intellecutally unsupportable, especially given recent history, and obviously discriiminatory.

    Reply

  64. Frank says:

    Can any thoughtful American ever wipe out the obscene thought of five dancing Israeli agents on a roof in New Jersey giving each other high fives as the twin towers crashed to the ground? Can any thoughtful American not wonder about the picture taking logistics nececessary to be accomplished by these Israelis BEFORE that tragic historic event took place? Can any one thoughtful not believe that because of these now famous “five dancing Israels” caught after that obscene act witnessed and reported by more than one Jerseyite, that complicity of Israel in the execution of 9/11, if only in default, would be the natural result by not warning the USA of such an attack ?(Or were we warned, but the Israelis were released to go back to Israel provided their warning be kept secret from the American people.)
    Winnipeger, this event, coupled with the deceitful USS Liberty attack by Israel, is what is on my mind when I voice my beliefs about what Israel is about these days.
    P.S. How unfitting, how bizarre, and how obscene, that in the news today, one reads of Israel’s alleged plan to NUKE Iranian facilities. Whether true or not, the holocaust shield of sympathy for Israel is being morphed into a holocaust shield of hypocrosy.

    Reply

  65. Winnipeger says:

    Fuck off.
    😉
    Posted by: Den Valdron at January 7, 2007 10:03 AM
    brilliant, den. what a great mind — you’re right, you really ARE contributing so much more here than me. your mom must be so proud.
    speaking of your mom, when are you gonna move out of her house? 😉

    Reply

  66. Winnipeger says:

    rich,
    one not-so-minor point:
    there were NO “mass killings in jenin.” this is exactly the kind of bullshit obfuscation that i’m talking about. it simply didn’t happen.
    and i hate to break it to you and others, but the palestinians and the israelis ARE AT WAR! of course war entails some death and destruction and unfortunately that’s what is taking place in israel and the territories.
    but to compare this war, perpetuated at least as much by the palestinians as the israelis, to hitler’s final solution is irresponsible and disgusting. there is *NO* comparison.
    jews didn’t declare jihad on germany or the axis. jews didn’t wage open war in their adopted countries. jews didn’t send suicide bombers onto civilian busses and into restaraunts and cafes to blow themselves up in bucharest, or amsterdam, or berlin, or vienna, or prague, or brussells, or cluj-napoca.
    sorry, buddy, but i’m not buying into your moral equivalency here, in fact, i find it disgusting.
    given the large scale palestinian on palestinian murder taking place right now (the same violence that has afflicted israelis and jews for decades) and according to your logic, should we compare the palestinian “policy and bureaucracy of state terror” to hitler’s as well? you wouldn’t want to be hypocritical would you?

    Reply

  67. Den Valdron says:

    Fuck off.
    😉

    Reply

  68. Winnipeger says:

    den,
    you must, must try to get a grip on reality, my chubby friend.
    i always find it toally disturbing when people mistake the internet for the real world. you, poa, and carroll might really want to think about unplugging your computers for a while.
    you wrote:
    “Your credibility on this board is gone. Every other person on this board considers you the biggest asshole they’ve ever met.”
    are you really this delusional, den? we haven’t *met* each other, whacko. typing a few anonymous words back and forth on an obscure blog does NOT constitute “meeting” someone.
    but, i’m not surprised that i have to have to point this out to you. many people these days, including your own band of merry dumbsters mistake surfing the internet for real “meatspace” existence.
    and don’t worry… you’re not vexing, merely amusing 🙂

    Reply

  69. rapier says:

    I’m a bit surprised that the rising US troop body count hasn’t seemed to arouse more bloodlust among voters and politicians. There even seems to be little enthusiasm for nukeing Iran anymore with hopes of body counts in the 6 or 7 digits. Back in the day, post 911, you could tune in the radio and hear calls for nuking Canada for cripes sake. Now nobody cares.
    Upping the boot count on the ground in Iraq stretches out any chance that we will pretend we are cutting back by another year at least. Another year waiting for the next big terror attack here.
    It takes little imagination to guess what that will mean for domestic politics or military stratagy. All this niggling about Iraq troop levels will be forgotten.

    Reply

  70. rich says:

    Winnipegger,
    You’re attacking your allies here. You not only miss the point–you completely misrepresent my statement.
    It’s not about the specific tools. It’s about whether you say nothing, like a “Good Canadian” in the face of tactics–that are OBVIOUSLY dissimilar–but nonetheless abominable. It’s a matter of KIND, NOT degree. What is it that opens the door to a Hitler? Whether ovens & cattle cars are used rather than inexorable extirpation through curfews & torture & imprisoning families & bulldozing olive orchards and homes to building “settlements”–doesn’t matter at all. What matters is whether YOU can sit by and “say nothing,” like all “good men” who pretend these things are “necessary” or “regretable”–but do immeasurable damage to your/our people and Israel or America in teh process.
    You well know the policy is a horrific injustice, the methods used are the definition of state terrorism, and clearly verge on ethnic cleansing up to–and including mass killings at Jenin. Civilians are constantly targeted both in battle and in peacetime.
    Are you REALLY saying you can stand by and say nothing?? THAT’s something your ancestors would be proud of?
    Would the victims of Auschwitz countenance this?? They knew the harsh end of these poliies. It’s essential people of every religion fight FOR the state of Israel. But you UTTERLY underestimate the humanity of your own ancestors.
    The issue is whether YOU’RE willing to stand up FOR Justice and against the things you CLAIM to hate. Against policies that create enemies and endanger Israel’s national security. Against the policy and bureaucracy of state terror that killed YOUR ancestors.
    You deviate from the specifics of policy to engage in denial of ethnic cleansing. The facts are clear & obvious. So you’ve studied as much about the Holocaust as I, but why haven’t you learned anything about what made it possible? You know little of it, far less than me.
    Winnipegger wrote: “i completely disagree with your characterization of the current conflict between israelis and palestinians and i don’t think that there is ANY simmilarity between what is taking place in gaza and the west bank and what took place in hitler’s final solution.”
    Posted by Winnipeger at January 7, 2007 12:27 AM

    Reply

  71. steambomb says:

    I am not willing to criticize the Dems for being cautious about how to handle this situation. With this Administration EVERYTHING is political. The Bush admin set in motion a political war here at home by willingly opposing the will of the american people and the Dems are not going to allow the likes of McCain, Lieberman and Bush to set them up so that they can be shot down before 08. If you want to point a finger at someone just look at how Bush ignores the will of the american people. I doubt the Dems will fund an escalation but they wont hang our men and women out to dry that are in Iraq and Afghanistan either.

    Reply

  72. Den Valdron says:

    Fuck off.
    Isn’t it lovely? Absolutely economical. I don’t even have to read your shit, and I don’t bother. But it sends you absolutely ballistic. Two little words and off you go, embarrassing yourself and pissing off everyone else on the board.
    You figure you’re doing okay? Pretty much everyone else posting here despises you. They’ve pegged you as an immature jerk, a third rate asshole who has nothing, absolutely nothing at all to say.
    Have you engaged a topic? Have you posted a coherent comment. Nope, all you’ve done is flame away and offend people.
    All I’ve had to do is engage others in intelligent dialogue, discussing issues substantively… and push you to foam at the mouth, all with two little words, over and over.
    Your credibility on this board is gone. Every other person on this board considers you the biggest asshole they’ve ever met. You’ve branded yourself a scummy little asshole with no absolutely nothing to contribute. They see a selfish, ignorant little nobody; childish, acting out, uninformed, racist, petty.
    And the best part is, you’ve done it to yourself. All I had to do was press a button now and then. Hardly even had to do that.
    LOL, you really are pathetic.
    You are such a loser.
    ROTFL

    Reply

  73. Winnipeger says:

    judith,
    as if the israelis arent enough trouble, i sincerely hope that your cousins aren’t murdering *each other* right now in palestine. but then again, they are a people ready to live peacefully, side by side with israel right?

    Reply

  74. Winnipeger says:

    well, if you must, den. but you should know, that i find your antipathy strangely invigorating and, as i wrote earlier, quite entertaining. didn’t someone advise you to stop feeding me? or should i stop feeding you? ina any event, fuck you too.
    carroll, poa, judith and you oughta file a class action lawsuit against me. carroll can argue your case and the 4 of you can blame it all on the zionists. of course poa’s can also try to enter 5 “dancing israelis” as evidence.

    Reply

  75. Den Valdron says:

    Winnipegger: Fuck off.

    Reply

  76. MP says:

    Den wrote: “I’ll agree that the Israeli lobby has undue influence. But then this is a symptom of the corruption and irrationality of the American political process, not a cause.”
    Den made essentially this same point several times in this thread. I agree with it. I would add that the attempt to make Israel of all that is wrong with US ME policy comes, I think, from a disbelief that good Americans, left to their own devices such as they are, could come up with something as bad as what is happening now. So the real cause needs to be a “foreign influence” and, of course, facts are adduced (facts are always in ample supply) to “prove” this thesis. But if you’re interested in real solutions, it is a mistake to go down this rabbit hole.
    ET, John (with his Oz quote), and Carroll (previously) touch on an interesting point about Jews’ so-called higher moral standing, status as the “chosen people,” however you want to refer to it. It has been theorized that one cause of anti-Semitism has been the guilt with which Jews have burdened gentiles. The other side of this coin is that Jews have been held to higher standard of moral conduct than others (cf. ET’s dismay at Israel’s connection to SA).
    So, for example, if you see Christianity (and its exacting moral standard) as the Jews’ “gift” to the gentile world, then, over time, the gentiles have resented the Jews for having (literally) given them this cross to bear. And, in turn, have been keen to find, magnify, and punish Jews for any departure from this standard.
    Similarly, in more recent times, gentiles have felt burdened by having to bear responsibility for the Holocaust. They’re sick of it already. They’re tired of it. And (the flip side of the coin) they are perplexed, horrified, and darn well disappointed that the Holocaust didn’t turn Jews into saints, and that, oftentimes, they aren’t very good people (even to each other). It most certainly did not turn Jews into saints or necessarily make them better than they were before. In many cases, it twisted them.
    (Though, of course, in some cases, the Holocaust experience did make many Jews much more sensitive to the genocides around the world.)
    (In one of Carroll’s recent posts, I could feel how relieved she felt to say–truthfully IMO–that all people are pretty much equal when it comes to being good and bad. She was clearly tired of hearing, or believing, that Jews were somehow this superior, chosen group of people.)
    In fact, it was a key plank of the Zionist platform that, with a state of their own, Jews would join the community of peoples as one more people with its unique destiny–and not this strange exception to every rule.
    Jews are chosen in the same way all other peoples are chosen. They are unique and irreplaceable.
    Now, if one delves into Jewish history, it’s pretty clear that the Jews are a remarkable people in a lot of different ways–at least I would say so–but in the fundamental ways, the ways that make us all humans, they are the same.

    Reply

  77. Winnipeger says:

    rich,
    i completely disagree with your characterization of the current conflict between israelis and palestinians and i don’t think that there is ANY simmilarity between what is taking place in gaza and the west bank and what took place in hitler’s final solution.
    i’m not going to get into a point by point analysis of the differences because they are so clear and so obvious that i should not have too. further, my understanding of the events surrounding the holocaust is just fine, thank you. unlike you and others posting on this blog, i’ve spent my life learning the details in various academic settings and extensive travel thtoughout europe and the FSU. again, i my opinion, there is no similarity between the israeli ocuupation of the west bank and the nazi genocide. to claim that there is speaks volumes about you and the other clown around here.
    further, i want to point out again that den was the first person to throw a stone on this thread. he responded to substantive post of mine, in which i agreed with what he had said, by telling me to “fuck off.” look for yourself and read from the top. excuse me for taking offense, but i do. you get what you gove, den, so FUCK YOU.
    and what can i say about poa? for the several months which i’ve been reading this blog, poa has hurled profanity in every direction, treating myself and other contributors with zero respect while he keeps ranting about the “dancing israelis” which he claims choreographed the 9-11 attacks. i find it utterly perplexing that he now blaims me for “ruining these threads.” his vicious, antagonistic, profanity-laced posts have been ruining this blog for a LONG time now.
    and carroll and judith? those two cards speak for themselves; blatantly anti-semitic and uninformed.

    Reply

  78. rich says:

    POA–I disagree entirely. There’s no flaw in the Truth.
    Folks such as Winnipegger have to be met with persuasive narrative that get to the heart of the matter.
    And the matter does have a heart, in every sense of the word.
    Note that Winnipegger COULDN’T address the issues raised–preferring to stick with exchanging volleys of insult and assaultive rhetoric.
    It’s important to stick to the known facts, to supply persuasive, historically-grounded, pragmatic debate that applies equally to current national security of both countries, and to our Constitution and core values.
    Winnipegger enjoys the heated rhetoric and name-calling because it you all seem vein-bulging and unhinged–coupled with his lies about anti-semitism, the casual observer could be fooled.
    So don’t get sucked in. Just ask Winnipegger how he can approve of methods used to such horrific effect during WWII? It’s factual, based on method–NOT identity.
    Winnipegger got no answer. That says it all.

    Reply

  79. Den Valdron says:

    Fuck off.

    Reply

  80. Winnipeger says:

    poa, you’re really coming unhinged. you wrote:
    “As I have commented, and others have as well, winnipeger exhibits all the classic techniques and strategies of the typical troll, TASKED to destroy the discourse taking place at blogs or internet sites that are critical of certain groups, policies, or agendas. Many different factions employ the use of trolls, and they are not exclusive to the “pro-israel at all costs” crowd. However, it is a well known fact that jewish university students are routinely lobbied to monitor internet sites and attempt to steer discourse away from critical comments about Israel or its policies. This is neither “conspiracy theory”, nor anti-semitic paranoia. It is known fact, and has been fairly widely reported.”
    you’re right. you got me. my cover is blown. i’m really a paid operative, or am i a volunteer? oh well, the important part is that i am part of an organized effort to disrupt thread on TWN. my superiors have deemed it important to disrupt the idiotic rantings of a few inbreds on the threads of this fringe blog.
    this is war. we will continue to disagree with you and poke holes in your specious, anti-semitic ramblings. this is the grand design. once we succeed in driving carroll, poa, judith and the rotund rascal, den to distraction, we will have won the battle of TWN.
    how could we not act in the face of such a coterie of intellectual heavyweights? exposing diplomatic charades, revealing truth self evident but to a few. these heroes must be stopped before they foil our master plan.
    poa, sitting in his $14,000 shack of a house in the foothills of visalia. furiously blogging day and night in order to save the innocents.
    carroll, sitting in her hovel just outside the gates of the army base. furiously cutting and pasting articles about a world of which she has only dreamed.
    den, sitting in his dirty boxer shorts and wife beater undershirt, alternately posting here and surfing porn. trying to find his boyish penis, buried under massive rolls of fat.
    judith, native born american. the defender of those perfectly peaceful palestinians (who just so happy to be butchering each other right now).
    unless we stop these freedom fighters here and now on the washington note comments section, surely they will succeed in changing the world.

    Reply

  81. Winnipeger says:

    I don’t believe for a second that anyone you know came within a thousand miles of Auschwitz.
    Now, fuck off.
    Posted by: Den Valdron at January 6, 2007 07:29 PM
    it doesn’t matter in the least what you believe, asshole. but, i wish you were right.

    Reply

  82. Pissed Off American says:

    The truly remarkable aspect of any “change of strategy” in Iraq is that it is being designed by the same deep thinkers that got us where we are today. I ask you, what action has this administration taken, what policies have they pursued, that qualifies them to continue to determine policy?
    “The level of activity that we see today from a military standpoint, I think, will clearly decline. I think they’re in the last throes, if you will, of the insurgency.”- Dick Cheney, June, 2005

    Reply

  83. Pissed Off American says:

    The premise Rich is approaching winnipeger with is flawed. The implication to be drawn by Rich’s comments is that winnipeger is ignorant of the facts in regards to what is being done to the Palestinian people, and if only winnipeger would inform himself, he would be properly aghast.
    Bullshit. Winnipeger is here not to find or spread truth, but to cloud the truth. As I have commented, and others have as well, winnipeger exhibits all the classic techniques and strategies of the typical troll, TASKED to destroy the discourse taking place at blogs or internet sites that are critical of certain groups, policies, or agendas. Many different factions employ the use of trolls, and they are not exclusive to the “pro-israel at all costs” crowd. However, it is a well known fact that jewish university students are routinely lobbied to monitor internet sites and attempt to steer discourse away from critical comments about Israel or its policies. This is neither “conspiracy theory”, nor anti-semitic paranoia. It is known fact, and has been fairly widely reported. I suspect winnipeger may in fact be such a student.
    But, whatever the piece of shit is, it is obvious he is destroying this blog, and he surely destroys each and every thread he posts on. And his spineless manner of posting certainly does not lend optimism to the possibility that efforts such as ET’s or Rich’s are going to get through to him. I suppose Carroll’s option probably has the best odds of neutralizing his rancid contributions here, and I agree that Den’s strategy of throwing “fuck offs” at him are probably just tittilating the sick little prick.

    Reply

  84. Carroll says:

    Posted by rich at January 6, 2007 08:04 PM
    >>>>>>>>>>>
    Yes, exactly as the Germans themselves described it.
    http://www.press.uchicago.edu/Misc/Chicago/511928.html
    They Thought They Were Free
    The Germans, 1933-45
    Milton Mayer
    “How is this to be avoided, among ordinary men, even highly educated ordinary men? Frankly, I do not know. I do not see, even now. Many, many times since it all happened I have pondered that pair of great maxims, Principiis obsta and Finem respice—‘Resist the beginnings’ and ‘Consider the end.’ But one must foresee the end in order to resist, or even see, the beginnings. One must foresee the end clearly and certainly and how is this to be done, by ordinary men or even by extraordinary men? Things might have. And everyone counts on that might.
    “Suddenly it all comes down, all at once. You see what you are, what you have done, or, more accurately, what you haven’t done (for that was all that was required of most of us: that we do nothing). You remember those early meetings of your department in the university when, if one had stood, others would have stood, perhaps, but no one stood. A small matter, a matter of hiring this man or that, and you hired this one rather than that. You remember everything now, and your heart breaks. Too late. You are compromised beyond repair.”

    Reply

  85. Carroll says:

    Posted by ET at January 6, 2007 08:23 PM
    >>>>>>>
    Got it. Great subjects…will register later.
    Love your picture…you resemble my favorite beautiful blonde sister in law.

    Reply

  86. Carroll says:

    This is Carroll, who isn’t from Georgia and graduated from a college in Washington that Steve would know well….asking all posters to please quit responding to the fruitcake winnerpeger.
    Threads are getting really bad with this type of stuff…so just pass him by. Don’t even say fuck you, just ignore him. He will go away if you do. Everyone should have guessed by now that he is a kid, not an adult.

    Reply

  87. ... says:

    charley reese has a good article out today http://www.antiwar.com/reese/?articleid=10276
    title: Israel’s Bad Influence

    Reply

  88. ET says:

    Hey, Carroll,
    http://americaabroad.tpmcafe.com/user/ticia
    or click the purple ET below.
    When you get there, you can click my posts, my comments and write to me and with me anytime.
    Love to see you.

    Reply

  89. ET says:

    Hey, Carroll,
    http://americaabroad.tpmcafe.com/user/ticia
    Or just click the puple ET below.
    Love to see you.

    Reply

  90. Pissed Off American says:

    Rich, you are talking to an ass. Read his posts. He even claims to belong to “Peace Now”, yet constantly drools a spew that no Peace Now member would tolerate, condone, or accept. Your attempts at ideological conciliation with such an abomination will come to no fruition. Read ET’s attempts, and you will see the mentality you are dealing with. Or, save yourself the search, and just peruse the above comments. Trust me, nobody is home at the winnipeger residence.
    Give it up.

    Reply

  91. Carroll says:

    Posted by ET at January 6, 2007 03:41 PM
    >>>>>>>>>>
    Calling ET, calling ET….where is your blog? Give me directions. I didn’t know you had a blog.

    Reply

  92. rich says:

    Winnipegger:
    What I mean to say is this: MANY German-Americans fought bravely and gladly to end the Third Reich’s bloody hold on Europe–and were rightly horrified to Auschwitz and Buchenwald and the rest.
    “Never Again” means something to all of THEM–and to all of US–to Americans who knew that any repeat had to be prevented AT ALL COSTS. You have no ownership of the issue. No repeat means NEVer Again against Jews–AND NEVER AGAIN against any other people. It’s the killing that matters, not the ethnic identity of the victim.
    So “Let Us Not Quibble Over Who Killed Who!”
    I guess I’m just astonished that you seem to know so little about the kinds of failures and actions that allowed the holocaust to come about. “All it takes for evil to prevail is for good men to do nothing.” And you, Winnipegger, are doing nothing. After the Holocaust, came the excuses: “We were only following orders. We are Good Germans.” Well, we’re ALL Good Germans NOW, winnipegger. AND Good Americans & Good Canadians & Good Israelis.
    None of those justifications get us off the moral hook.
    Germany’s reign didn’t last 10,000 years; the comeuppance was swift. This method, this set of policies won’t hold for long: technology and demographics and economics dictate otherwise. It won’t last 25 years, let alone 50. Make sure you are on the right side of history, this time. America’s security and honor is on the line as well.

    Reply

  93. Pissed Off American says:

    The real irony of the UN report is that it eventually found no “evidence” of a massacre at Jenin, despite the fact that the UN team was never dispatched to Jenin because of Israel’s rabid denial of access to the area, not only to investigatory teams, but to essential medical teams and supplies, food replenishments, and human rights organizations. However, the journalists that did manage to get in described a completely different picture than that painted by the conclusions of the UN report.

    Reply

  94. rich says:

    >>>Winnipeger: “but to call it a “death camp” desecrates the memories of all others who have perished in REAL death camps. ”
    Posted by Winnipeger at January 6, 2007 06:43 PM <<<<<
    Look, a death camp is a death camp. It is a matter of kind, not degree.
    The Holocaust can NEVER be justification for using camps, or ghettos, or strategic hamlets or any of the tools of apartheid, to shatter a people wholesale, or dismember an ethnic group. No matter what.
    The ONE thing you have NEVER done, Winnepegger, is state the actual policies towards Palestinians, and then characterize them yourself.
    Do you find imprisoning not only hundreds, but thousands of children and women a just and defensible policy?? The roundups? Do you find a curfew that keeps families shuttered in their homes for 27 out of 32 days (or whatever the exact figure) somehow justifiable?? How are they supposed to eat? to find work? earn a paycheck?
    The policy of organized humiliation has damaged Israel’s national security.
    YOU OF ALL PEOPLE, WINNIPEGGER–since you lost family at Auschwitz–you should know better. You should be exposing and demanding an end to these policies.
    Hairsplitting and semantics just embarrass you! They are an evasion of your responsibility to the ancestors you lost.
    My question: DO YOU REALLY NEED TO SEE 6 MILLION PALESTINIANS DEAD BEFORE YOU CAN CALL THE POLICY AN ABOMINATION UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES? Be they in ghettos, or one at a time, or under curfew, or via bulldozing of olive orchards, or in skirmishes, or as collateral damage, or under the foundations of illegal “settlements,” or in the prisons by night, or behind that absurd “Wall”–which demands the word Apartheid–or in ghettos or whatever you want to call them–
    –I ask you: will 20,000 dead be enough for you to call an end? Will 50,000? Will 200,000 Palestinian dead be enough for you to renounce the abominable methods used? 500,000? 1 million?
    I am all for the state of Israel. Adamantly so. And rightly–for obvious reasons of history. Yet NOTHING can justify turning similar tactics on another people. NOTHING. Because it will CLEARLY end in tragedy for Israel and for Jewish people everywhere. IT WON’T WORK. World War II proved that much. The methods are bankrupt–no matter who uses them. No matter HOW they are wielded, and no matter what pretty names, or PR excuses are used to justify them.
    The lesson is NOT exclusive to the Jews. NEVER AGAIN applies equally to the Vietnamese under Xmas carpet bombing runs, to the El Salvadoran peasants facing American death squads, and to any Palestinian whose family and people has been handed an inexorable death sentence just for existing. Peace NOW, my friend. Shalom.

    Reply

  95. Pissed Off American says:

    Tenth emergency special session
    Agenda item 5
    Illegal Israeli actions in Occupied East Jerusalem
    and the rest of the Occupied Palestinian Territory
    Report of the Secretary-General prepared pursuant
    to General Assembly resolution ES-10/10
    Summary
    This report was prepared on the basis of General Assembly resolution ES-10/10, adopted on 7 May 2002, in which the Assembly requested the Secretary-General to present a report, drawing upon the available resources and information, on the recent events that took place in Jenin and other Palestinian cities. The General Assembly requested the report following the disbandment of the United Nations fact-finding team that had been convened by the Secretary-General in response to Security Council resolution 1405 (2002) (2002) of 19 April 2002.
    continues at…..
    http://www.un.org/peace/jenin/
    An excerpt…………
    Testimony of journalists and humanitarian organizations
    Even journalists were shocked by the scenes of horror that they witnessed in the Jenin camp. Some of them admitted that they had difficulty expressing and describing what they were seeing. Walid al-Amri, a reporter for the Qatar television station Al-Jazeera, stated: “While the Israeli authorities had decided to deny access to the Jenin camp to media outlets and to prosecute them, we were determined to overcome the difficulties and face up the dangers. We had managed to enter the camp in order to reveal the truth, which could only be determined by going there. But tanks and snipers tried to prevent anyone from entering the camp.” Al-Amri was one of the first journalists to enter the Jenin camp during the massacre. He stated: “The road we had taken was dangerous and ‘largely impassable. It wasn’t easy to enter the camp, and the scenes that we saw from the first moment were dreadful. We saw burned and dismembered corpses and dozens of houses destroyed, to the point where it seemed we were in an area hit by a huge earthquake …. The scenes were especially terrible and tragic because the victims were Palestinians who had been driven from their homes 50 years earlier, and who had been driven out again by the very State that had been established on the ruins of their houses. … The most terrible scenes were those of Palestinians, who had been encircled in their homes for over 20 years. … The main question we were asking ourselves was how to save the lives of the survivors, after everything that had happened in the camp and after the unparalleled humanitarian situations we had seen there – people searching for live persons or corpses under the rubble, a mother or a father searching for their children, a child searching for his brothers and sisters and his family, or people searching for their homes under the ruins.”
    In New York, the United States journalist Mary Seral, a correspondent for the Sunday Times, said that she had seen many scenes in the camp, and that all the images that had been shown and broadcast did not reflect the reality. The facts showed that the Israeli army had deliberately destroyed the camp and attacked its population in violation of every law. Israeli soldiers prevented the family of the martyr Gamal Fayed from taking him out of his house, even though he was crippled, was not fighting and did not pose any security threat to the soldiers. As to the Chinese journalist Shu Suzki, a television cameraman, he stated, while wiping away tears: “I realize now that the whole world, without exception, is responsible for this tragedy. I have covered a great many events and tragedies around the world, but the scenes I have witnessed in the Jenin camp are the most violent and the ones that have touched me the most. All of the victims were civilians. The bodies that were found under the rubble were those of children, women and teenagers, and all were civilians. We discovered that some of them had not been fatally injured, and that their deaths were attributable to the fact that they had been unable to receive treatment. This is why I say again that a huge massacre was committed, and that any person who has a conscience anywhere in the world should work to bring an end to this war, this destruction and this tragedy.”
    Chips, the United States volunteer
    Chips, a United States Red Cross volunteer, was one of the first persons to go through the streets of the Jenin camp, to which the medical units of humanitarian relief organizations had been denied access for two weeks. Although she had taken part in many relief operations in a number of countries, Chips said that she was deeply shocked by what she had seen. She stated: “I shared and experienced with the Palestinians moments of pain and suffering as they tried for several days to enter the camp. But the Israeli army prevented them from doing so. In spite of the hundreds of calls for help from children and women and from the camp population in general, none of us was in a position to play our role and come to the aid of anyone. The tanks were everywhere and were even firing on the ambulances, backed up by snipers who were occupying a number of buildings. … The Red Cross did what it could and set up countless contacts so that the Red Cross staff and ambulances, which display the organization’s logo, could be permitted to bring relief to the injured and remove the bodies of the martyrs, but in vain. The Israeli army prevented us from moving, which is both horrible and contrary to international law.” Describing the situation in the camp as catastrophic and tragic, Chips added: “When the Israeli army authorized us to enter the camp, it was too late. As soon as we set foot on the ground, we smelt the odour of death and of the corpses that the army had left in the streets and alleys and under the rubble. … I have been to several regions of the world and have seen destruction of various kinds, but the scenes in the Jenin camp were different, terrible and tragic. We retrieved charred corpses and others that were rotting, and they all belonged to civilians, including women, children and elderly persons. Some bodies were buried under the rubble of houses destroyed by the army. It was a real massacre and the scenes were terrible.

    Reply

  96. Den Valdron says:

    I don’t believe for a second that anyone you know came within a thousand miles of Auschwitz.
    Now, fuck off.

    Reply

  97. Winnipeger says:

    btw,
    there was NO massacre at jenin. merely another fabrication by the anti-israel cabal. oy what passes for truth around here.
    http://tinyurl.com/2566z
    …and widely reported elsewhere

    Reply

  98. Winnipeger says:

    hey poa:
    shouldn’t you be building a stool for a celebrity or something? haha

    Reply

  99. Pissed Off American says:

    “jenin sure as hell ain’t a desireable place to live — and part of that is the fault of the palestinians who are busy murdering each other the last few weeks — but to call it a “death camp” desecrates the memories of all others who have perished in REAL death camps.”
    Posted by Winnipeger
    Here our resident “attorney” shows he is completely ignorant about what Judith is referring to when she talks of the Jenin “death camp”.

    Reply

  100. Winnipeger says:

    I have a friend whose dad was at Auschwitz. Nine brothers and sisters. He was the only one who came out.
    So fuck off.
    Posted by: Den Valdron at January 6, 2007 06:18 PM
    you’re such a fucking asshole, den. you start shit then complain when i call you on it, fuck you again and again, chubs. i’m beginning to think those are the only words you know, but, oh how they hurt (read with sarcasm). 🙂
    and for the record, some of my family perished at auschwitz. great aunts, uncles, nieces and nephews and at least one great grandparent and that is *precisely* why i find judith’s rhetoric so offensive. jenin sure as hell ain’t a desireable place to live — and part of that is the fault of the palestinians who are busy murdering each other the last few weeks — but to call it a “death camp” desecrates the memories of all others who have perished in REAL death camps.

    Reply

  101. winnipger says:

    Lets make it clear!Guantanamo is not an American prison camp but a ZIONAZI one,under US flag!

    Reply

  102. REMEMBERING THE VICTIMS OF JENIN says:

    The Jenin Massacre of April 2002
    http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/51a/index-d.html
    Amid the ruins of Jenin, the gisley evidence of a war crime
    By Phil Reeves, The Independent, 16 April 2002. The Refugee Camp of Jenin goes down into history with Sabra and Chatilla, Qana, and Deir Yassin…to name just the better-known of the horrendous massacres the Israelis have perpetrated in the past in order to suppress and conquer the Palestinian people.
    The lunar landscape that was the Jenin refugee camp
    By Suzanne Goldenberg, The Guardian, 16 April 2002. Hart al-Hawashin neighbourhood, the heart of the Jenin refugee camp, is a silent wasteland, permeated with the stench of rotting corpses and cordite. The first definitive accounts of the battle of Jenin began to emerge as journalists broke through the Israeli cordon and gained access to the heart of the refugee camp.
    China Slams Israel for Disbanding of U.N. Jenin Probe Team
    Xinhua, 03 May 2002. Israel made it impossible for a UN fact-finding team to launch its inquiry into what happened in the Jenin refugee camp; Israel must resume all responsibility for all this. the U.N. team was unanimously adopted by a U.N. resolution, but the developing situation later prompted U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan to decide to disband it, which had been brought into being just a dozen of days before.
    Human rights team accuses Israel over Jenin assault
    By Alan Philps, The Daily Telegraph, 5 May 2002. A growing body of evidence suggests that the Israeli army has a case to answer for war crimes in its assault on the Jenin refugee camp, but human rights experts say there is no evidence of a massacre [ed.: the HRW is often criticized as wedded to the official United States outlook].
    Sharon puts Washington on the spot
    By Julian Borger, The Guardian, (London) 8 May 2002. The Israeli prime minister, Ariel Sharon, went out of his way to embarrass the divided US administration yesterday, openly thanking the Americans for scuttling the proposed UN investigation of Palestinian deaths in the West Bank town of Jenin.
    After massive destruction by Israel, U.S. maneuvers to cover up Jenin massacre
    By Sara Flounders, Workers World, 20 June 2002. The U.S. wrote and proposed a mild diversionary version of a resolution in the Security Council calling for a fact-finding report on the Israeli occupation of the Palestinian refugee camp named Jenin. Israeli demands the team objectives be curtailed, and finally the U.S. gets Annan to cancel it altogether.
    Massacre by Israelis at Jenin so quickly forgotten
    By Jonathan Cook, DAWN, 04 June 2002. United Nations special envoy Terje Roed-Larsen entered Jenin refugee camp on April 18, shortly after Israel lifted its three-week news blackout, and visibly shaken declared the sight of the devastated camp horrific beyond belief.
    How they bulldozed Jenin
    By Asma Rashid, DAWN (Pakistan), 28 June 2002. On May 31, Israel’s widely circulated newspaper Yediot Aharonot published a chilling account of what actually happened in Jenin after it was stormed by Israeli air and ground forces last April.

    Reply

  103. Pissed Off American says:

    Gee, our resident “attorney” fails to recognise the clearly stated “credits” for a 2002 AP/CBS news article. Perhaps mommy and daddy are wasting thier money.

    Reply

  104. Den Valdron says:

    I have a friend whose dad was at Auschwitz. Nine brothers and sisters. He was the only one who came out.
    So fuck off.

    Reply

  105. winnipger says:

    “death camps?”
    this is misleading and irresponsible rhetoric, judith.
    if jenin is a death camp, what was auschwitz et. all?

    Reply

  106. JUDITH HANEY says:

    I have written about Israel’s genocide of the Palestinians here:
    http://www.usnewslink.com/sharonswar.htm
    and here:
    http://www.usnewslink.com/israel.htm
    Why do the Jews kill the Palestinians? Because they dare to RESIST the illegal invasion and occupation of their native land by the Jews.
    If anyone anyplace in the world expects them to ever do anything but RESIST, they simply do not understand the Palestinians intentions.
    Putting Palestinians in death camps like Jenin is a violation of the Geneva Convention, and the Jews wholesale mass killing of them while enclosed in the camps constitutes crimes against humanity.

    Reply

  107. JUDITH HANEY says:

    Here is a link to “Israel To U.S.: Don’t Delay Iraq Attack”
    http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/08/18/world/main519037.shtml

    Reply

  108. Den Valdron says:

    A comment. Canada has been accused of shirking its responsibilities for defense spending and armed forces, relying upon the American security blanket. Japan overtly relies upon the American security blanket. In both cases the expectation is that American soldiers will be sent to die on our behalf.
    Conversely, America fully expects and intends other nationals to die for its interests. That was what the contra war with Nicaragua was all about. That’s what Project Condor, Pinochet, Galtieri and latin American death squads are all about. America has been very successful in having third world proxies die for its interests.
    So there’s nothing particularly sinister about Israel’s efforts to get American soldiers to die for Israel’s interests. The trick is to get Americans to buy into it.
    Did Israel contribute to fabrications of Iraqi wmd’s? Well, its pretty clear that Israel made some extravagant claims. It’s also pretty clear that these claims were false. We can assume either Mossad screwed up big time in its own back yard, as they did in Lebanon. Or that Israel fabricated evidence or information for public consumption for the Bush administration to sell the war on Iraq. Alternately, we might assume that Israel fabricated evidence or information for intended to mislead and manipulate the Bush administration itself.
    My view is that the Bush administration was almost certainly conscious that the information on wmd’s it was promoting was bad. There were too many telltales from too many sources, including illogicalities and weaknesses in the allegations themselves. It was all a put up job for an administration intent upon war.
    Which means in my view that Israel’s wmd fabrications did not mislead or manipulate the Bush administration, but rather, was just handily used by a corrupt administration for corrupt purposes.
    Partners in crime, if you will, settled for their respective purposes on a particular path and inclined to scratch each others back.
    I’m sure that there’s ample material to be found should anyone care to examine Israel’s fabrications or ‘misinterpretations’ of intelligence leading up to the Iraq war.

    Reply

  109. Winnipeger says:

    btw, why no mention by judith and others of the escalating palestinian violence??
    the poor palestinians sure are peace loving folks, huh? butchering each other at an increasing rate while their “leaders” continue to stuff their pockets and feast on their people’s suffering.

    Reply

  110. Winnipeger says:

    Global Research is not a reputable news source. Michael Carmichael wrote an op-ed piece not a news story.
    not much work these days, huh poa?

    Reply

  111. Pissed Off American says:

    Note here, in the following 2002 article, that Israel claims to have “evidence” of Iraq’s chemical and biological programs. Could the Israeli claims have prompted Cheney’s comments about the possibility of Iraqi drone aircraft being deployed on the Eastern seaboard, raining biological or chemical agents on Americans? I wonder how much Israeli “evidence” was relied upon, or used, as the rationale for attacking Iraq? And if Israel wasn’t LYING about this “evidence”, what happened to it? Why hasn’t it been produced?
    You see the same thing today, on the AIPAC website, a complete twisting of the truth about what is known about the Iranian nuclear ambitions and capabilities.
    Den argues above that the Israeli agenda was simply piggy-backed onto a pre-determined plan to attack Iraq. I disagree. I think that the Israelis provided much of the fabricated “intelligence” that was presented to the American people, and to Congress, that allowed a political climate and a public mindset that accepted the invasion of Iraq.
    http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/08/18/world/main519037.shtml
    Israel To U.S.: Don’t Delay Iraq Attack
    JERUSALEM, Aug. 16, 2002
    (CBS/AP)
    Quote
    “Any postponement of an attack on Iraq at this stage will serve no purpose.”
    Ranaan Gissin
    aide to Ariel Sharon
    ——————————————————————————–
    (CBS) Israel is urging U.S. officials not to delay a military strike against Iraq’s Saddam Hussein, an aide to Prime Minister Ariel Sharon said Friday.
    Israeli intelligence officials have gathered evidence that Iraq is speeding up efforts to produce biological and chemical weapons, said Sharon aide Ranaan Gissin.
    “Any postponement of an attack on Iraq at this stage will serve no purpose,” Gissin said. “It will only give him (Saddam) more of an opportunity to accelerate his program of weapons of mass destruction.”
    The United States has been considering a military campaign against Iraq to remove Saddam from power, listing him as one of the world’s main terrorist regimes. However, there is considerable world opposition to a U.S. strike.
    As evidence of Iraq’s weapons building activities, Israel points to an order Saddam gave to Iraq’s Atomic Energy Commission last week to speed up its work, Gissin said.
    “Saddam’s going to be able to reach a point where these weapons will be operational,” he said.
    Meanwhile, Iraq told the United Nations on Friday that it will continue to discuss the return of U.N. weapons inspectors, but it insisted on conditions that Secretary-General Kofi Annan has already rejected.
    In a 10-page letter to Annan, Iraqi Foreign Minister Naji Sabri reaffirmed an Iraqi offer to hold a round of technical negotiations but he insisted they focus on outstanding issues related to Iraq’s alleged weapons of mass destruction as well as “practical arrangements for the return of the inspection system in the future.”
    Sabri was replying to a letter from Annan that rejected Iraq’s proposal to have chief weapons inspector Hans Blix and Iraqi experts determine outstanding disarmament issues of mass destruction and figure out how to resolve them before inspectors return to the country.
    Also on Friday, President Bush said he knows there are “very intelligent people” who doubt the wisdom of attacking Iraq.
    But he says Saddam Hussein is “thumbing his nose at the world” — and must be ousted.
    Speaking to reporters near his Texas ranch, the president vowed to make his own decision — based on the best intelligence available.
    Gissin also said Israel was not seeking to dictate the timing of a U.S. military campaign but said that, faced with the threat of one, Saddam was fast developing weapons.
    While the Israeli government backs U.S. action against Iraq, there is also concern in Israel that in response, Iraq would launch missile attacks against Tel Aviv and other cities in Israel.
    During the 1991 Gulf War, in which U.S.-led forces pushed back an Iraqi invasion of neighboring Kuwait, Iraq hit Israel with 39 Scud missiles — none of them with chemical or biological warheads — causing few casualties but extensive damage.
    In an interview published Friday, Ben-Eliezer told the daily Yediot Ahronot that Israel would surely become a target during such a conflict and would consider retaliation in coordination with U.S. forces.
    “We will be one of the main targets,” he told the newspaper. “What I told the Americans, and I repeat it: ‘Don’t expect us to continue to live with the process of restraint. If they hit us, we reserve the right of response.'”
    Iraq has few chemical and biological weapons, Ben-Eliezer said. “We are taking this into account and we are prepared. But we are so far away from this right now that all this hysteria is simply unnecessary,” he said.

    Reply

  112. Pissed Off American says:

    Lest there be any doubt that Israel expects young American men and wonmen to die in pursuit of Israeli agendas, the following comments seem to be indictative of a foreign power that is confident it has great sway over american foreign policy, PARTICULARLY with the Democratic party. Note this general’s suggestion that Hillary Clinton is approachable by the AIPAC lobby. His comments are not coincidental to Hillary’s position as the current top recipient of AIPAC funds.
    Israeli general suggests to use Azerbaijan’s airbases in strike against Iran
    02 January 2007 [01:20] – Today.Az
    In a stark statement published on Saturday Brigadier General Oded Tira observed, “President Bush lacks the political power to attack Iran. As an American strike in Iran is essential for our existence, we must help him pave the way by lobbying the Democratic Party (which is conducting itself foolishly) and US newspaper editors. We need to do this in order to turn the Iranian issue to a bipartisan one and unrelated to the Iraq failure.”
    Because of the dramatic loss of political power of the Bush-Cheney administration, General Tira urges the Israel Lobby to, “turn to Hillary Clinton and other potential presidential candidates in the Democratic Party so that they support immediate action by Bush against Iran.”
    In another move designed to strengthen Bush politically, General Tira urges the Israel Lobby to exert its influence on European countries so that, “Bush will not be isolated in the international arena again.”
    As if all of that Israel-lobbying in America and Europe were not enough, General Tira proposes an even more aggressive political tactic, “We must clandestinely cooperate with Saudi Arabia so that it also persuades the US to strike Iran. For our part, we must prepare an independent military strike by coordinating flights in Iraqi airspace with the US. We should also coordinate with Azerbaijan the use of airbases in its territory and also enlist the support of the Azeri minority in Iran. In addition, we must immediately start preparing for an Iranian response to an attack.”
    Based on the urgency of General Tira’s extraordinary pleas, it is immediately apparent that he has been shocked by the turn of political events inside America. By this time, he has learned from official US sources that the long-anticipated attack against Iran has been shelved because of tectonic shifts in American politics.
    Apparently, General Tira did not realize that President Bush has become the most deeply unpopular president in American history and that it was his subservience to the dictates of the Israel Lobby and its demands for wars against Iraq and Iran that led him into the political prison where he now finds himself isolated and impotent.
    Neither does General Tira realize that the Republican Party is no longer unified in its support of President Bush’s deeply unpopular war in Iraq or his plans for expanding the war by a sustained bombing campaign against Iran.
    Since General Tira did not publish any remarks about the Iraq Study Group headed by former US Secretary of State, James Baker, he may be oblivious to the political facts now in place in 2007 America.
    Instead of the bipartisan commitment to broaden Bush’s unpopular war as General Tira proposes, there is now a broadening bipartisan movement to reign in the US losses in Iraq. No major American politician has voiced any enthusiasm for broadening Bush’s war into Iran as General Tira beseeches the US to do.
    General Tira’s outburst suggests that the official channels for news and the analysis of public affairs in Israel are not working as efficiently as they should in the 21st century.
    Perhaps, someone should provide the General with a subscription to Ha’aretz and the International Herald Tribune for starters.
    By Michael Carmichael, Global Research

    Reply

  113. Winnipeger says:

    Don’t lose any sleep over it. winnerpeger has done the same thing to everyone on here. And as far as being sued, one of the few cases brought about internet slander found the “slanderer”, and that would winnie in your case, gulity and ordered her to pay damages. It was a case involving two women who got into it over the internet, the slandered and offended one sued the other one and won. If anyone is in legal jepardy it would be winnie.
    Posted by: Carroll at January 6, 2007 01:35 PM
    er…jeopardy….I really should read my comments before I hit that post button..LOL
    Posted by: Carroll at January 6, 2007 01:49 PM
    now this takes the cake! legal jeapordy?! hint to all: never take legal advice from some lady living in georgia who has no college degree and spends all day surfing the internet!
    what are you going to sue me for, carroll, defaming the character of an idiot and anti-semite??

    Reply

  114. ET says:

    Negroponte + US + Israeli Neoconservatives = Club Terror?
    Negroponte’s nomination as first director of national intelligence overtly changed the ground rules. The 1980’s Central American wars are now salient, namely the period in which Negroponte played a key — if highly questionable –role as US ambassador to Honduras. Though reportedly he feigned amnesia when questioned, Negroponte implicitly participated in controversial events during the period 1981-1985, including:
    (1) bribes handed down from the embassy to high ranking military and government officials and (2) ties between Honduran death squads and the witnessed massacres of the Sandinistas in Nicaragua and dissidents in nearby El Salvador.
    I came to learn of Israel’s involvement in the support of the Apartheid government during my research in South Africa. Shocked as a young grad student, I subsequently delved into the “pariah club.” I did not publish what I learned, it would have been politically incorrect in academia. Moreover, given my hitherto unquestioned personal support for Israel as the homeland for the Jewish people — combined with the incongruity of what I had then learned (people of the Holocaust supporting fascism?) I elected at the time to kept mouth — and files –shut. Not that this discovery will be any surprise to historians today, but I will post on my blog some of the documentation and details I found out about the Israeli government’s support of the contra group FDN, based in Honduras at the time Negroponte served there.
    Those pieces notwithstanding, El Salvador, for neocons, was a significant model of success which they now want to emulate in Washington’s occupation of Iraq. The unearthing of the phrase “Salvador Option” last year likely recalled for ultra conservatives like Elliot Abrams and John Negroponte a marvelous era for them when Jimmy Carter (read human rights) was defeated by the Reagan-Bush ticket. In the wake of that victory, that new administration committed itself to establish freedom, democracy and free market economies throughout Central America. Some Pentagon and White House officials are reportedly now talking about resurrecting the “Salvador Option” in Iraq (think ME region). That would include creating “hit squads” composed of Kurdish and Shi’a paramilitaries to seek out and kill armed dissidents as well as non-violent sympathizers, in the same manner in which the US indirectly mobilized and financed death squads throughout Central America twenty years ago.
    El Salvador in the 1980’s was synonymous with the practice of state-sponsored terrorism directed against civilians considered to be threats by a military-dominated regime. Though never defeating the leftist FMLN guerrillas, the military and its associated paramilitaries managed to preside over the slaughter of nearly 75,000 of their countrymen. These included Archbishop Oscar Romero who was gunned down while celebrating mass. Other casualties of the right-wing hit squads included labor leaders, politicians, journalists, human rights activists, and healthcare personnel along with peasants and workers who were unwise enough to show deference to the guerrillas or unfortunate enough to live near them.
    By invoking the Salvadoran model, US officials give a “wink and nod” credence to this country’s co-conspiratorial murders of hundreds of thousands of Latin Americans since the 1970’s. In Guatemala, Nicaragua, Honduras, Uruguay, Chile and Argentina, waves of repression were tolerated, and even encouraged, by Washington’s Cold Warriors, in the name of democracy. This process is currently found in 21st century Colombia, which has experienced tens of thousands of politically-motivated killings since 1982. The majority of these were committed by paramilitary groups closely aligned with Bogotá’s US-funded and increasingly US-trained forces in the so-called war on terror in that country.
    W, the Decider, now complete with hat, ranch, death-squad foreign policy, presidential cover story entitled “freedom,” and now Negroponte at state, may be signaling his next foreign policy intentions about as subtly as a sledge hammer. Apparently, the goal of the “Salvador Option” would be to establish “freedom” in Iraq via a campaign of murder and repression against suspected, although not proven, “dis-loyalists” — the definition of which appears to officially change every time we speak. An important yet overlooked component of this possible plan is that, along with the violent insurgents, legitimate Sunni dissenters seeking a role in a validated political process could be (are being?) gunned down as targets of the “Option.”
    Those familiar with the history of Latin America’s “dirty wars” will point out that death squads rarely limit themselves to sorting out the “bad apples;” their usual forte is cutting down whole trees. As in El Salvador and other parts of Latin America, implementation of the “Option” in Iraq could easily lead to/has led to the disappearance of tens of thousands from their homes and communities and the marginalization of those too fearful to participate in their country’s political future.
    If the President is harkening back to that era when his father was Vice President and is now persuaded to invoke the Option of an El Salvador-style solution for pacifying Iraq, then his more candid advisors ought to demystify him (oh, were it possible) about the horror of such a tactic. If the White House wants a vital, democratic culture built on healthy civic institutions for Iraq, it should begin by rejecting the pathological approach that once dominated the front pages throughout Latin America.

    Reply

  115. Carroll says:

    er…jeopardy….I really should read my comments before I hit that post button..LOL

    Reply

  116. Carroll says:

    Posted by JUDITH HANEY at January 6, 2007 11:41 AM
    >>>>>>>>>>>>
    Don’t lose any sleep over it. winnerpeger has done the same thing to everyone on here. And as far as being sued, one of the few cases brought about internet slander found the “slanderer”, and that would winnie in your case, gulity and ordered her to pay damages. It was a case involving two women who got into it over the internet, the slandered and offended one sued the other one and won. If anyone is in legal jepardy it would be winnie.

    Reply

  117. Den Valdron says:

    It does not seem to me unreasonable to question why a First World nation with a European economy and standard of living like Israel is the recipient of four billion dollars a year in aid from the United States. While no one ever turns down free money, it doesn’t seem to be an effective use of the United States resources, given more pressing needs both at home and elsewhere in the world. It is certainly not anti-semitic to challenge this.
    Nor is it anti-semitic to condemn the recent Lebanese War in which Israeli forces murdered extraordinary numbers of civilians and attacked civilian infrastructure, to no good end.
    It is not anti-semitic to recognize that the Palestinians exist as a population, both in Gaza and in Refugee camps, to be concerned about the plight of this population, and to be critical of Israel’s handling of the West Bank and Gaza. This is a legitimate subject for discussion and debate.
    It is not anti-semitic to consider or discuss various options for attempting to find a permanent resolution to the Palestinian/Israeli conflict, including the one state solution, two state solution, land for peace, territorial adjustments, compensation to palestinians etc.
    Finally, it is certainly not anti-semitic to be concerned about the prominence and aggressive tactics of the pro-Israel AIPAC lobby and its activities. Activities which, I note, would not be sanctioned or tolerated within Israel or by Israeli’s.
    Nevertheless, I remain skeptical that the sole explanation for Bush’s middle east policy is simply to cater to the Israeli rights perception of Israel’s security needs. This is undoubtedly a factor, but the picture is substantially larger and more complex than that, and includes America’s geopolitical ambitions, efforts to preserve America’s declining position by controlling key resources, twisted imperial adventures and the psychopathology of George W. Bush.
    I would suggest that the Israeli extreme right wing has ties and connections to the American extreme right wing, to the point that it may be hard to see a distinction. But frankly, a look at other western countries and their extremist right wings suggest a certain amount of internationalism. Basically, all of these people are dipping from the same extremist ideological well, they feed off each other, borrow ideas, share views, and form a sort of international lunatic class. Israel’s right is a part of this, but by no means the whole, and not necessarily dominant.
    Oh, and Winnepeger: Fuck off.

    Reply

  118. rich says:

    >>>>>>>Posted by Winnipeger at January 6, 2007 11:12 AM
    Per Wikipedia, AEI funders are as follows: The Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation, Inc., Castle Rock Foundation, Coors, Earhart Foundation, JM Foundation, Microsoft Corporation, Philip M. McKenna Foundation, Inc., John M. Olin Foundation, Inc., Sarah Scaife Foundation, Scaife Family Foundation, Smith Richardson Foundation.
    . . . . Former board members include Dick Cheney, then at Halliburton, and Kenneth Lay of Enron.
    Posted by: John at January 6, 2007 11:04 AM
    but where are all the jooooos?
    Posted by Winnipeger at January 6, 2007 11:12 AM <<<<<<<<
    Poor Winnepeger. Bradley, Olin, Coors, Scaife–these are all extreme right-wingers–and their confluence with extreme right-wing Israeli figures and policies should come as no surprise.
    Rejection of extreme right-wing practices & polices by the vast majority of Americans must really get under your skin.
    But NEVER never pretend it’s about anti-Semitism.
    FURTHER, AIPAC’s indirect methods indicates they’re not gonna staff every think-tank doing the heavy lifting.
    Plain facts, babe. Learn to deal with reality before you go screaming about anti-Semitism.
    The Holocaust doesn’t justify every action taken today. Failure to understand the political consequences has radically undermined the national security of Israel and the US, not to mention the integrity of both.

    Reply

  119. Winnipeger says:

    poa:
    based on the inordinate amount of time you spend on the internet, i can only assume that your carpentry “business” aint exactly thriving.
    maybe you can drum up some work and build den a doghouse. after all, he’s a self-described “junkyard dog.”
    …or you can use your “free” time to finally go and get a passport. maybe you can take a trip to some exotic, foreign locale like winnipeg!
    we know that you hate israel, but can you even find it on a map?

    Reply

  120. Pissed Off American says:

    Judith, I would strongly suggest to you that you do not use your real name, even on a blog such as Steve’s, where one would hope such an exercise could be safely engaged in. If you note winnipeger’s comments about my proffession, and the rabid manner in which he attacks any confidence he may recieve, you may have an inkling of the kind of harrassment that you are opening yourself up to by revealing your identity to these pieces of shit like winnipeger. Reading his posts, do you really doubt that he is capable of taking his harrassment offline? Your desire to post without the veil of anonymity is understandable, and, in a perfect world, a safe thing to do. But, unfortunately, these sick bastards like winnipeger are a fact of life, and my advice to you is not to open your doors to them.

    Reply

  121. Winnipeger says:

    fuck off
    Posted by: Den Valdron at January 6, 2007 11:33 AM
    is this the best that you can do, den?
    i thought you were a tough guy? remember the warning you issued to me about “taking pleasure in inflicting pain?”
    just a middle-aged, over-weight blowhard, huh?

    Reply

  122. Winnipeger says:

    judith wrote:
    “Careless words can be costly. I doubt that Winnipeger/MP can afford to hire counsel and defend himself else he would post his malicious defamation and lies about me and others under his real name.”
    but i AM counsel, baby!

    Reply

  123. Pissed Off American says:

    Heres a bit about McCollum, and her refusal to bow to AIPAC pressure on a key vote. I post it here because of the ongoing comments about AEI, and the dispute about whether or not it is pro-Israel to a point of possibly advancing policy directions that consider Israel’s interests above our own. Note the references to Ledeen. I have believed all along that the forged Niger documents, should they actually be investigated, will lead back to Israel.
    http://www.tcdailyplanet.net/node/1222
    McCollum stands up to the AIPAC bully
    Leave a comment
    By Stephen B. Young , Special to the Daily Planet
    Betty McCollum deserves our thanks for standing up to a bully.
    In April, a lobbyist for the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) tried to put the hammer to McCollum because of her refusal to vote in the House International Relations Committee for H.R. 4681, aka, the Palestinian Anti-Terrorism Act of 2006, a bill so extreme that even the Bush Administration, no friend of the new Hamas-led Palestinian government, opposes it; in the end, McCollum cast one of only two votes against the measure, which passed out of the committee on a tally of 36 to 2.
    In response to this show of audacity on the part of McCollum, herself a staunch supporter of Israel, the AIPAC lobbyist in question castigated the St. Paul Congresswoman and threatened that her “support for terrorists will not be tolerated.” Adding insult to injury, the lobbyist claimed to be speaking in the name, among others, of McCollum’s Fourth District constituents, even though the lobbyist does not reside in the district.
    In most instances, government officials subjected to this kind of abuse would probably try to sweep the whole incident under the rug. In this case, however, McCollum added to her earlier display of political courage by firing off a tough letter to AIPAC’s head letting him know that AIPAC representatives are not welcome in her office until she receives a formal written apology. As of this writing, none has been forthcoming.
    This incident is instructive in several ways. The first, and most important one, is that a tactic routinely used by today’s special interest groups to get their way is intimidation, not reason. Whether working for the NRA, the AARP or AIPAC, many Washington lobbyists play hardball: “See it our way, or face the consequences.” AIPAC, in effect, gave McCollum only two choices: line up with the rightwing Israeli point of view (AIPAC invariably takes the hardline Likud side of issues) or line up with “terrorists,” the latter choice presumably suicidal politically and so not a real choice at all.
    Second, this incident fits within a pattern of coercion effectively limiting American foreign policy choices in the Middle East to those which most align with conservative Israeli interests.
    John Mearsheimer of the University of Chicago and Stephen M. Walt of the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University have recently brought into the open the pervasive influence of what they call “the Israel Lobby” over U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East. In an essay published in the London Times Literary Supplement , Mearsheimer and Walt make a strong case that the role of AIPAC and like-minded organizations needs to be examined dispassionately from the perspective of American national interest. The essay, incidentally, was orginally commissioned, but then rejected on specious grounds by The Atlantic Monthly .
    In making their case with regard to the formidable influence exercised in Washington by the Israel Lobby, Mearsheimer and Walt point out that the lobby does not at all reflect the wishes or the views of most Jewish Americans. Mearsheimer and Walt say flatly that “The bulk of U.S. Jewry, on the other hand, is more favorably disposed to making concessions to the Palestinians, and a few groups – such as Jewish Voices for Peace – strongly advocate such steps.” Other groups out of step with the Israel Lobby are Americans for Peace Now, Brit Tzedek and the Israel Policy Forum.
    In focusing on the political clout of the Israel Lobby, Mearsheimer and Walt note first of all the impressive level of support the United States has given Israel – some $140 billion in 2003 dollars – making Israel the largest recipient of U.S. aid since the end of World War II. Each year the United States provides Israel with aid equivalent to $500 per-person when Israel has become as wealthy as Spain or South Korea.
    Meanwhile, Israel gets its aid in a lump sum payment at the start of each year in order to earn interest on unspent amounts and, unlike other aid recipients, does not have to account for how it spends our money.
    The United States has protected Israel at the United Nations, Mearsheimer and Walt note, vetoing 32 Security Council resolutions since 1982 on behalf of Israel – more vetoes than all the other Security Council members combined have issued during that time. Furthermore, the United States has blocked efforts to put Israel’s nuclear arsenal on the agenda of the International Atomic Energy Agency – the agency used to investigate Iraqi, Iranian and North Korean nuclear ambitions.
    In return for this protection and generosity, Mearsheimer and Walt argue that Israel has become a strategic burden for the United States. Israeli bases could not be used to assist American forces in either the Gulf War or the current war in Iraq for fear of compromising our relations with Arab states. They also question the assertion that American and Israeli strategic interests are aligned in the fight against terrorism. They point out that U.S. support for Israel draws out Arab anger towards the United States. Extremists like Osama Bin Laden seek to punish Americans for their support of Israel.
    And Mearsheimer and Walt note that the rogue states in the Middle East—Iraq, Syria, and Iran—are not direct threats to vital US interests other than to our commitment to the well-being of Israel. They conclude: “In short, treating Israel as America’s most important ally in the campaign against terrorism and assorted Middle East dictatorships both exaggerates Israel’s ability to help on these issues and ignores the ways that Israel’s policies make US efforts more difficult.”
    Why then does the United States so obediently allow itself to follow where Israel leads?
    Mearsheimer and Walt point to the extraordinary skills and success of what they call the “Israel Lobby” in domestic American politics, even though the majority of American Jews are more flexible and tolerant in their opinions than the lobby would like.
    AIPAC is rated second behind the AARP and ahead of the AFL-CIO and the NRA in a list of the most powerful Washington lobbies. The Israel Lobby has also recruited Christian Evangelicals like Gary Bauer, Jerry Falwell, Ralph Reed, Pat Robertson, Dick Armey and Tom DeLay who think that pressuring Israel is contrary to God’s will.
    The Israel Lobby, according to Mearsheimer and Walt, employs two tactics in its efforts to secure support for Israel: first, to make supporting Israel the “smart” choice for both Republican and Democratic politicians; and, second, to ensure that public discussion about Israel always portrays the country in a positive light.
    As to the first tactic, Mearsheimer and Walt conclude that “The bottom line is that AIPAC, which is a de facto agent for a foreign government, has a stranglehold on the U.S. Congress.”
    As to the second tactic, journalist Eric Alterman has found 61 noted American columnists and commentators who can be counted on to support Israel reflexively and only five who consistently advocate pro-Arab positions. Noted publications like The Wall Street Journal and The New York Times have a pronounced editorial bias when Israeli interests are under consideration. Key Washington think tanks like AEI and Brookings are considered to be stridently pro-Israel in their thinking.
    In academia, AIPAC has tripled its budget for monitoring University activities and to train young advocates for Israel in order to “vastly expand the number of students involved on campus … in the national pro-Israel effort.”
    Mearsheimer and Walt point out that a powerful rhetorical tactic used against critics of Israel’s policies is accusation of anti-semitism.
    The objective of the Israel Lobby, according to Mearsheimer and Walt, has been to “convince American leaders to back Israel’s continued repression of the Palestinians and to take aim at Israel’s primary regional adversaries: Iran, Iraq and Syria.”
    It is widely recognized now that the neo-conservatives who made the case for war against Saddam Hussein—his possession of weapons of mass destruction and the democratic forces in Iraq just waiting to be liberated by the Americans—were friends, allies or members of the Israel Lobby. From Michael Ledeen (he of the Iran-Contra scandal) to Richard Perle to William Kristol to Ahmed Chalabi, from Douglas Feith and Paul Wolfowitz in the Pentagon to Scooter Libby in the White House, the arguments for pre-emptive war came from those closest to Israel.
    It is also worth noting that the same links between Israel and American policy over a war of choice to take out Saddam Hussein had previously appeared in the Iran-Contra scandal of the second Reagan Administration. In Iran-Contra, the plan to weaken Saddam Hussein by selling Israeli Hawk missiles to the Iranians was suggested to Oliver North by Ledeen, now of the AEI. Israeli connections put North in touch with allegedly friendly Iranians. The old Hawks sold to Iran were replaced in Israel with more modern versions.
    Ledeen, by the way, was “hanging out” in Rome at the very time the forged documents supposedly proving that Saddam Hussein sought to buy uranium in Africa surfaced and were given to American intelligence.
    As we look into the future, what would AIPAC have us do next in the Middle East? The drumbeat for military strikes, perhaps even war, against Iran is already audible. For example, Ledeen is at this moment an important force in the Coalition for Democracy in Iran, an organization which advocates overthrowing the Iranian government. But while the advantages to Israel of having the United States subdue Iran with militarily force are self-evident, the strategic advantages for the United States are less obvious.
    In retrospect, the war to overthrow Saddam Hussein and its messy aftermath have not been our finest hour, though we have removed an intractable enemy of Israel from power. What might be the long-term consequences of an American pre-emptive war against another Muslim nation? The question deserves study and reflection and wise judgment.
    There may indeed be many good reasons for the United States to go out of its way in support of Israel, but the decisions as to how we should spend our money and where to sacrifice our soldiers should be made with a view to protecting American national interests at home and around the entire world and not as the result of shrill, fear-based, one-policy-option-only lobbying efforts.
    In standing up for free and open debate, Betty McCollum deserves thanks from all those who love America. Her actions do not in any constitute support for terrorism. In fact, a better name for them is democracy. In the days and years ahead, we’re going to need more of the kind of courage she has demonstrated if we are to find our way out of the quagmire we have stumbled into in the Middle East.

    Reply

  124. JUDITH HANEY says:

    Malicious Defamation: When Careless Words Can Be Costly
    Since I am one of only a few who have revealed their true identity on this blog, I believe it is in my best interest to restrain myself when it comes to calling names and assigning psychological labels to people who express their opinions here and elsewhere on the Internet. I am not interested in being sued as a result of someone’s perception that I have wronged them.
    With respect to Winnipeger, I am respectfully asking him to cease and desist calling me anti-Semitic. I am not anti-Semitic; I am against the Jewish/Zionist invasion/occupation of native Middle Eastern lands. And, I am against the United States funding of Israel.
    Anti-Semitism means “hating Jews” or “discrimination on the basis of race of religion”.
    I do not hate Jews nor do I discriminate against Jews in my day-to-day life. And to broaden my statement, I do not hate anyone and I do not discriminate against anyone. Inside of my 62-years of life, I never have and I never will.
    When I decided to post here under my real name it was with careful consideration of the consequences.
    Based upon the above, it is my hope that Winnipeger/MP will henceforth employ the same caution when and if he decides to maliciously defame or lie about me here or elsewhere on the Internet by calling me a bigot or anti-Semitic.
    Careless words can be costly. I doubt that Winnipeger/MP can afford to hire counsel and defend himself else he would post his malicious defamation and lies about me and others under his real name.
    I will not address this message, or any similar message, again to the individual calling himself Winnipeger/MP, however, I will monitor his comments and proceed according to my own best interests.
    Judith Haney

    Reply

  125. Jack Ballard says:

    Folks,
    I come here looking for intellegent thought not childish bickering.
    But intellegence and the internet is a bit of an oxymoron most days. I guess basic laws of nature can’t be over come in the long run and in the last week Sturgeons law has been in full force. It make me wish for a good filter and kill file.
    One thing that might help is for everybody to at least remember this,
    Trolls only stay where they are fed.
    *PEASE DON’T FEED THE TROLLS*
    Jack

    Reply

  126. Den Valdron says:

    fuck off

    Reply

  127. Winnipeger says:

    Per Wikipedia, AEI funders are as follows: The Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation, Inc., Castle Rock Foundation, Coors, Earhart Foundation, JM Foundation, Microsoft Corporation, Philip M. McKenna Foundation, Inc., John M. Olin Foundation, Inc., Sarah Scaife Foundation, Scaife Family Foundation, Smith Richardson Foundation.
    Exxon’s former CEO Lee Raymond is Vice President of the Board of Trustees.
    The membership of AEI’s board of trustees points to the institute’s strong ties to Corporate America, including: Bruce Kovner (Caxton Associates), John Faraci (International Paper), Morton Fleischer (Spirit Finance), Raymond Gilmartin (Merck), Roger Hertog (Alliance Capital Management), Kevin Rollins (Dell), William Stavropoulos (Dow Chemical), and Wilson Taylor (CIGNA), among many others. Over the past several decades, AEI’s board of trustees has included representatives of scores of the nation’s top corporations, including Rockwell, Amoco, Hewlett Packard, Exxon Mobil, Texas Instruments, Eli Lilly, and Citicorp. Former board members include Dick Cheney, then at Halliburton, and Kenneth Lay of Enron.
    Posted by: John at January 6, 2007 11:04 AM
    but where are all the jooooos?

    Reply

  128. John says:

    Boh H–
    Per Wikipedia, AEI funders are as follows: The Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation, Inc., Castle Rock Foundation, Coors, Earhart Foundation, JM Foundation, Microsoft Corporation, Philip M. McKenna Foundation, Inc., John M. Olin Foundation, Inc., Sarah Scaife Foundation, Scaife Family Foundation, Smith Richardson Foundation.
    Exxon’s former CEO Lee Raymond is Vice President of the Board of Trustees.
    The membership of AEI’s board of trustees points to the institute’s strong ties to Corporate America, including: Bruce Kovner (Caxton Associates), John Faraci (International Paper), Morton Fleischer (Spirit Finance), Raymond Gilmartin (Merck), Roger Hertog (Alliance Capital Management), Kevin Rollins (Dell), William Stavropoulos (Dow Chemical), and Wilson Taylor (CIGNA), among many others. Over the past several decades, AEI’s board of trustees has included representatives of scores of the nation’s top corporations, including Rockwell, Amoco, Hewlett Packard, Exxon Mobil, Texas Instruments, Eli Lilly, and Citicorp. Former board members include Dick Cheney, then at Halliburton, and Kenneth Lay of Enron.

    Reply

  129. rich says:

    Re The Bush Personnel Shuffle:
    via Digby
    The news that has everyone a bit agog is that the head of Central Command, General John Abizaid, will be relieved by Admiral William J. Fallon.
    ABC reports that “Fallon, who is in the Navy, is currently head of Pacific Command; he will be overseeing two ground wars, so the appointment is highly unusual.”
    I think ABC is missing the point.
    It seems highly unusual for a navy admiral to take charge of CENTCOM until you consider two interrelated things. First is that Bush needs a senior four-star in the CENTCOM job who hasn’t gone on record as opposing additional troops in Iraq. Second is that Fallon’s CENTCOM area of responsibility will include Iran.
    A conflict with Iran would be a naval and air operation. Fallon is a naval flight officer. He flew combat missions in Vietnam, commanded an A-6 Intruder squadron, a carrier air wing and an aircraft carrier. As a three-star, he commanded Second Fleet and Strike Force Atlantic. He presently heads U.S. Pacific Command. His resume also includes duty in numerous joint and Navy staff billets, including Deputy Director for Operations with Joint Task Force Southwest Asia in Riyahd, Saudi Arabia.
    If anybody knows how to run a maritime and air operation against Iran, it’s “Fox” Fallon.

    Reply

  130. Winnipeger says:

    easy e:
    i suggest that you contact a local mental health professional asap. write down the following term to discuss with him/her: narcisistic paranoia
    do you really believe that any political interest, including aipac, would bother to monitor and rebut a bunch of dim-witted, idiots like carroll, pauline, judith, the unemployed carpenter (poa), and yourself?
    trust me, these interests have MUCH bigger fish to fry than assigning agents to read this little blog and correspond with non-players like yourself.
    some might say that your paranoid accusation speaks to a delusion of grandeur on your part.

    Reply

  131. Den Valdron says:

    Indeed, the inclusion of people like John Lott suggests that their standards are well, well, well below the academic world when it comes to integrity. Groups like AEI have become toxic, rather than being ‘think tanks’ they simply dress up advocacy and pollute real science and academic studies.

    Reply

  132. bob h says:

    Since unelected AEI seems to be calling the shots on Iraq, I would like to know who funds these people,-where do their paychecks come from? Presumably from Exxon-Mobil, Richard Mellon Scaife, et. al. ? There is talk of “chairs” at AEI, but in reality there is no one there who could make it in the academic world, with the exception of Norman Orenstein.

    Reply

  133. Marky says:

    When will we find out which major media figures were getting payola to promote the war? This is the missing piece of the puzzle, IMO.
    Or were they just so stupid they would swallow anything? I don’t think so.

    Reply

  134. Easy E says:

    one more time:
    winnipeger, what’s your agenda and/or who’s payroll are you on? you don’t smell right.

    Reply

  135. ..... says:

    ET, love your nick, your blog and your pix.
    Wherever you came from, glad you landed.
    Keep up Impeachment Watch.
    Tom

    Reply

  136. Winnipeger says:

    “poa, when dealing with a juvenile it is best to ignore them…they add nothing to this thread except there prized immaturity which they revel in!”
    first of all, poa CAN’T ignore me. he’s sworn he would, he tried… and he can’t.
    secondly, the possesive is “their” not “there”

    Reply

  137. Den Valdron says:

    Managed Chaos, I’m not endorsing Bush’s thinking, merely trying to sort it out. His conversation, speeches and interviews prior to 9/11 and prior to becoming President do not mention Afghanistan at all. He’s not interested in Afghanistan, or the opium trade, nor most tellingly is he interested in international terrorism. He’s interested in Iraq.
    I’m simply pointing out that his focus and his interest was Iraq. To Bush’s mind it was the sexier target. It was the wealthier and more world shaking target. It was the singular piece of unfinished business. It was the mistake his father made.
    A sane or sensible policy might have been to have kept the pressure on Al Quaeda and take it apart before 9/11. Instead, he chose to lay off Al Quaeda so as not to provoke further action (Condoleeza Rice’s testimony at the 9/11 Commission). He ignored international terrorism as inconsequential, or derived from the actions of rogue states, and the rogue states he focused on never changed.
    A sane or sensible policy would have been to leave well enough alone and concentrate on reforming and improving Afghanistan, destroying Bin Laden and Al Quaeda at Tora Bora, quashing the heroin trade before it could re-establish itself, managing Pakistan, opening relations with Iran, etc.
    Sorry, it wasn’t bright or flashy enough for him. His father hadn’t had his great triumph and biggest blunder in Afghanistan. Most Americans couldn’t find Afghanistan on a map. The war on drugs was old news. There was no crucial geopolitical nexus in Afghanistan. In the end, Afghanistan would have been a ‘Clinton-type’ war, meddling in a corner of the world that didn’t amount to much.
    Nope, this evil little megalomaniac wanted the big score. Simple as that.

    Reply

  138. ... says:

    Bush was literally surrounded by, and advised by, the likes of Feith, Wolfowitz, Perle, Kagan, Zakhiem, Cambone, Kristol, Chertoff, etc.<< you could add tenet who held an important position in the admin, to the list as well..
    poa, when dealing with a juvenile it is best to ignore them…they add nothing to this thread except there prized immaturity which they revel in!

    Reply

  139. ManagedChaos says:

    Posted by Den Valdron at January 5, 2007 10:22 PM
    “In the end, beating up on Afghanistan was not world changing. It was just a nowhere pesthole. He wanted to make a mark.”
    Umm, does anyone else see something wrong with statement? This guy is a retarded quote machine.
    Explain to me again how invading a WMD-free Iraq with a tin horn dictator based on false intelligence is a more noble cause or more of a benefit to the American people, than following through with Afghanistan, keeping pressure on Pakistan and al queda, killing the opium trade, and making sure that place you call a pesthole allows women to show their faces and children to go school in peace. So, Bush wanted to make a mark, huh? How fucking convenient for him. What’s a few thousand Amurkan lives to have the “opportunity” to make a mark. Of course I’m talking about 9/11.

    Reply

  140. Winnipeger says:

    fuck off
    Posted by: Den Valdron at January 5, 2007 10:52 PM
    now den, c’mon buddy. just ’cause you can’t see your pale, little willy any more since its been hidden under rolls of fat, don’t take it out on me.
    oh and fuck you too.

    Reply

  141. Winnipeger says:

    BUT, poa takes the “holy shit this person needs to get a life prize” with this doozy:
    “All this after afflicting us with his presence through about three or four different screen names that had numerous signature characteristics of winnipeger’s obnoxious manner of posting”
    signature characteristics?! can anyone spell clozapine? poa is down right scary. don’t you have some cabinets to build, buddy. unplug your computer and don’t worry, the voices aren’t out to get you.

    Reply

  142. Den Valdron says:

    fuck off

    Reply

  143. Winnipeger says:

    this crew wouldn’t be so funny if they weren’t so serious! there’s some truly priceless stuff here… please, please go on with the talk about me being a sociopath, an aipac operative and a traitor. it’s much more entertaining than the briefs i’m reading!
    i especially love the conjecture about my citizenship and my screen name.

    Reply

  144. Den Valdron says:

    POA, a simple ‘fuck off’ for winnipegger is sufficient. Anything more is simply catering to his trolling.

    Reply

  145. Winnipeger says:

    “Actually, winnipeger, it was YOU that started it, on the fourteenth post on this thread.”
    folks, it seems that poa is actually an *8 year-old* carpenter.
    is your chisel plastic too, poa?
    play nice or it’s ‘time out’ for you, kiddo.

    Reply

  146. Den Valdron says:

    True, Pissed Off American, its difficult to separate the key players in PNAC from the interests of extremist right wing factions, but then again, at that kind of flaky extreme, a lot of lunatics find common cause. At a certain level, the lunatic right becomes international. David Frum is a Canadian. Rupert Murdoch is an Australian. Conrad Black is British.
    As for Afghanistan, I think its pretty clear that wasn’t the war he really wanted. Afghanistan was nowhere, Bush wasn’t really interested and I think that’s obvious.
    In the end, beating up on Afghanistan was not world changing. It was just a nowhere pesthole. He wanted to make a mark.

    Reply

  147. Pissed Off American says:

    let the record show:
    1. poa is the most foul-mouthed, verbally abusive poster in this forum. hands down. no contest.
    2. den started the whole bro-ha-ha in this thread when he responded to a simple, innocuous (and complimentary) comment of mine with two words, “fuck you” well as i’ve already said a couple of times, “fuck you too!”
    Posted by Winnipeger
    Actually, winnipeger, it was YOU that started it, on the fourteenth post on this thread. And once again, you hypocritical piece of shit, you have hung your character out for public viewing.
    Tell us, winnipeger, what DO you contribute here?

    Reply

  148. Hyperion says:

    Bismarck may have been right when he warned, “Preventive war is like committing suicide out of fear of death.”
    good one!

    Reply

  149. DonS says:

    . . .Conscience . . . .
    And, yes, they come in all sorts of social packages. Question still exists as to whether sociopaths are more a result of nature or nurture. But they are hopeless.
    As to those surrounding Bush, I think there are serious delusional types. I mean, to face even a semblance of current concensus reality and continue to go to work every day? I’d be on some heavy meds if I weren’t delusional. Looking for someone else to blame. I was just following orders, serving my president, my country, etc. Pretty thin in the wee hours of the morning, I’d say.

    Reply

  150. Winnipeger says:

    let the record show:
    1. poa is the most foul-mouthed, verbally abusive poster in this forum. hands down. no contest.
    2. den started the whole bro-ha-ha in this thread when he responded to a simple, innocuous (and complimentary) comment of mine with two words, “fuck you” well as i’ve already said a couple of times, “fuck you too!”
    3. carrol is not the sharpest knife in the drawer and she is absolutely anti-semitic.
    4. not only is judith anti-semitic, she does not think that israel should exist at all and she has predected that it won’t much longer, God willing, of course. all this AND she is a “native born american” just what are you getting at their, judith?

    Reply

  151. Pissed Off American says:

    Ah, but Den, you forget, Bush HAD his war, in Afghanistan. He had popular support for his swaggering pursuit of the “evil doers”, and hero status was being heaped on him with each ignorant cowboy threat he uttered.
    But it was the neo-con camp that convinced him that 9/11 could be worked into the rationale for the invasion of Iraq. It was the neo-con camp, the PNAC, that interpreted, (or worse), 9/11 as the requisite “modern Pearl Harbor” that would set the stage for public acceptance of an invasion of Iraq.
    And, Den, you cannot realistically separate the key players in the PNAC from the interests of the right wing Israeli factions. They are joined at the hip.

    Reply

  152. winnipeger says:

    the previous 4 comments may be my *all time favorite*.
    i haven’t had this much fun in a while.
    i’m a sociopath, i tell ya! mwahahahaha.

    Reply

  153. ET says:

    He’s Got Mail: New Postal Law Lets Bush Snoop into Yours
    Just when I thought my list itemizing the rationale for impeachment was complete and up-to-date, I discovered this new presidential incursion into our privacy:
    “Washington – President Bush has quietly claimed sweeping new powers to open Americans’ mail without a judge’s warrant…”
    http://tinyurl.com/y6j6um
    Paperless, anyone?

    Reply

  154. Carroll says:

    He is a sociopath and so are those he surrounds himself with.
    Posted by JUDITH HANEY at January 5, 2007 07:57 PM
    >>>>>>>>>>>
    You may actully be clinicaly right. I did some research into sociopaths when some commenters began to label Bush and Cheney as such.
    According to the APA 6% of the population are actual sociopaths, the definition of a sociopath being people who do not have a conscious. The experts say more people would be diagnoised as sociopaths if it wern’t for the fact that ordinary people fail to recongize them as actual sociopaths because the normal person can’t conceive of another person having no conscious. Many are not criminal and are in normal occupations but operate their lives totally without ethics or compassion or guilt.

    Reply

  155. Den Valdron says:

    Well to be fair, Pissed Off American, I was the one who started with ‘fuck off.’ But then, I’ve had previous experience of him and his condescending immature behaviour. He’s a one note johnny, a game player, and frankly, there’s no point in even bothering to try and have a discussion with him. So a ‘fuck off’ is all he’s worth. My recommendation is that you confine your comments to him to those two words.

    Reply

  156. Den Valdron says:

    Pissed Off American, I beg to disagree. First, we have to consider that Bush’s psychosis was well formed well before he became President.
    In candid interviews well prior to his ascension to President, he frequently voiced the view that a truly successful President must be successful in war. War made the man. In interviews, he was also fixating on Iraq.
    Frankly, the man was a loaded gun looking for an excuse to go off. The odds were that at some point during his term, he was going to start a war (given the history of American Presidents, that’s not even controversial. Was there a President in the 20th century that did not deploy American forces overseas). This was a guy who was going to attack someone… Cuba, Nicaragua, Somalia, Iraq, Iran, etc. etc. I’m sorry, but the reality was that bombs were going to be dropped, troops deployed, and he was going to do it in a big conclusive showy way.
    No half-hearted wars like Grenada, Nicaragua, Somalia or Bosnia for Bush. He wanted bodies, he wanted clear and incontrovertible success on a timetable. He wanted to be the War President who’d wipe away Vietnam and transcend and triumph over both Reagan and his father’s record.
    Iraq was the obvious target. It was unfinished business from his fathers time, it was just about as defenseless and helpless as you could get and still tout as a threat, and it was sitting on a sea of oil.
    Other candidates? Cuba was too tough. Nicaragua was old business. Haiti was a joke. Venezuala, tried that, covertly. Somalia had a bad smell, but he’s trying it covertly. Iraq was the perfect fit. The first, the obvious, the easy target.
    After that was Iran, bete noir of four Presidents. But a bit too big, a bit too nasty for a bite. Also there was North Korea, but too nasty to attack. China was the big nemesis, but too big.
    On the other side of the coin, the Persian Gulf/Middle East had been America’s core strategic area for 50 years. But the trouble was that America didn’t have a reliable ally or outpost there. That used to be Iran under the Shah. For a while it had been Iraq under Saddam. It had only ever been unreliably Saudi Arabia.
    The reality was that in this crucial area, America had no secure base of power, no real puppet, no representative.
    So it came down to Iraq. The Neocons, the Likuds, the Zionists merely climbed on the band wagon and contributed their lies and cheerleading.
    Would it be good for Israel? Well, that was the thinking. But frankly, there were plenty of reasons Bush was going to go for it with or without them.
    Perhaps if the Likuds and Israeli lobby perceived the war as disastrous to Israel and did everything they could to stop it, it might not have happened. I’m skeptical though. This boulder was on the way to rolling down the hill no matter what.
    It was going to happen with them, it was going to happen without them, it was going to happen irregardless of them. Your country had elected an idiot boy king with pathological sadism and a megalomaniac streak, and it handed him unlimited authority after 9/11. That’s the end of the story.
    In any event, indications are that the proceedings in Iraq are both incompetent and corrupt. This is probably not the rule for Israeli society and politics. I’m unable to believe that the same parties could be diabolically supernatural masterminds and incompetent blunderers by turns. More likely that they were simply corrupt incompetent loudmouths who grabbed onto a horse going their direction and then tried to take credit for steering it.
    Now as the whole matter heads into disaster, they begin to shut up and make excuses. Too late.
    Ultimately, this ill minded venture will be a disaster for Israel’s security, and for American support of Israel.

    Reply

  157. ET says:

    He’s Got Mail: New Postal Law Lets Bush Snoop into Yours
    Just when I thought my list itemizing the rationale for impeachment was complete and up-to-date, I discovered this new presidential incursion into our privacy:
    “Washington – President Bush has quietly claimed sweeping new powers to open Americans’ mail without a judge’s warrant…”
    http://tinyurl.com/y6j6um
    Paperless anyone?
    http://americaabroad.tpmcafe.com/user/ticia

    Reply

  158. Pissed Off American says:

    Its obvious I made a mistake honestly stating my proffession here, as winnipeger’s frequent comments illustrate. I discourage anyone here from making the same mistake, as apparently winnipeger feels one’s proffession is fodder for insult and derision.
    He repays honesty with insult. However, those that will remember, when he first came here under this ‘winnipeger” screen name, he claimed he had found just Steve’s blog through an article in a “local newspaper”, (The Globe and Mail). A Canadian paper. Later, when caught making a comment in which he attested to living in the states, he then claimed to be a Canadian living in the states. All this after afflicting us with his presence through about three or four different screen names that had numerous signature characteristics of winnipeger’s obnoxious manner of posting one accusation of “anti-semitic” after another.
    But hey, the remarkably dishonest piece of shit wants to attack MY proffession? My age? He wants to insult Carroll, drool “fuck you” at Den?
    His presence ruins this blog.
    And, “Ahem”, shove it. You do not see the obvious conclusion to be drawn by your comments at Carroll and I, while you IGNORE winnipeger’s purposeful destruction of entire threads? (And that goes for you too, MP.)

    Reply

  159. ET says:

    Just when I thought my list itemizing the rationale for impeachment was complete and up-to-date, I discovered this new presidential incursion into our privacy:
    “Washington – President Bush has quietly claimed sweeping new powers to open Americans’ mail without a judge’s warrant…”
    http://tinyurl.com/y6j6um
    Paperless anyone?

    Reply

  160. Pissed Off American says:

    “Lastly, the notion that dual citizens (American/Israeli) should expect to be labeled traitors is abhorrent. There are MANY dual citizens in America who hold passports to all kinds of countries. Countries have their own laws as to whether they accept the status of dual citizen. To single out American/Israelis is, well, I won’t say it. If America wants to eliminate ALL dual citizenships, then fine (I guess). There may also be good reasons to keep this option open, I don’t know. But to single out American/Israelis is simply wrong.”
    MP is off on one of his divergent drives of purposefully misrepresented argument again. He would want you to believe that all us nasty ‘ol “anti-semites” are against all them poor misunderstood Jewish Americans that hold dual citizenship. What he ignores, with his hopelessly cowardly manner of avoiding the point, is that the problem is in having people within our government, holding key positions, whose dual citizenship represents a blatant conflict of interest.
    I personally wish MP would stop creating these straw arguments to rebut. It is an extremely slimey and dishonest manner of debate.

    Reply

  161. Winnipeger says:

    poa wrote:
    “Den, you seem to have discounted the role that Bush’s maleability played in the Israeli loyalist’s ability to pull Bush’s strings post 9/11, and in the lead up to the Iraq invasion. Bush was literally surrounded by, and advised by, the likes of Feith, Wolfowitz, Perle, Kagan, Zakhiem, Cambone, Kristol, Chertoff, etc.”
    AND, they are ALL jews! devlish, corrupt, blood thirsty, blood drinking jews!
    p.s. hey poa, remember when you swore that you would never respond to me again? i guess your word is about as good as your grasp of reality. but what else should we expect from some backcountry, journeyman carpenter who doesn’t have a passport.

    Reply

  162. John says:

    I agree with Den Valdron that we would still be pursuing Operation Iraqi Liberation (OIL) with or without Israel. Besides helping fuel the conflict, I think that PNAC and neo-cons picked up something significant from Sharon and the Likuddites: attitude.
    “We’ll hear no more of that nonsense about the unique Jewish morality, the moral lessons of the holocaust or about the Jews who were supposed to have emerged from the gas chambers pure and virtuous. No more of that..the healthy bombardment of Beirut and that tiny massacre (can you call 500 Arabs a massacre?) in their camps which we should have committed with our own delicate hands rather than let the Phalangists do it, all these good deeds finally killed the bullshit talk about a unique people and of being a light upon the nations. No more uniqueness and no more sweetness and light. Good riddance.”
    — Ariel Sharon – Interview with Amos Oz, 1982
    No more American morality, no more BuSh about being a light unto nations. Instead, the US like the Likuddites engages in preemptive war, views negotiation as weakness, and has no qualms about collective punishment.

    Reply

  163. winnipeger says:

    you’re such a fucking joke, poa, and so is this tripe you keep pushing.
    but i’ve always secretly believed that maybe the “dancing israelis” were behind the bombing of pearl harbor too. surely, they orchestrated the marine barracks bombing in lebanon, right. perhaps the mossad was behind the kidnapping of our embassy personnel in iran, in fact, i bet they fomented the revolution itself. i also once read somewhere on the internet (perhaps pauline posted the link) that timothy mcveigh was really a zionist/dual citizen, or was he a mossad operative? i forget. and oh yeah, pol pot, stalin, and augusto pinochet were all zionists too.
    it’s going to be 70 fucking degrees in new york city tomorrow and i have absolutely no doubt that this global warming is really an aipac/zionist plot for world domination, right carroll?

    Reply

  164. Pissed Off American says:

    If Israel did not exist, American policy under Bush probably would not be much different.
    Posted by Den Valdron
    Den, you seem to have discounted the role that Bush’s maleability played in the Israeli loyalist’s ability to pull Bush’s strings post 9/11, and in the lead up to the Iraq invasion. Bush was literally surrounded by, and advised by, the likes of Feith, Wolfowitz, Perle, Kagan, Zakhiem, Cambone, Kristol, Chertoff, etc.
    To believe that American policy would not have been different, had these jokers not have been in the picture, is a departure from reality.

    Reply

  165. Pissed Off American says:

    “why don’t you regale us with more tales of dancing israelis on 9-11, poa. of course this doesn’t paint you as an anti-semite, right?”
    Posted by winnipeger
    Hey, ask and you shall recieve, you obnoxious piece of shit……..
    http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/fiveisraelis.html
    “Evidence linking these Israelis to 9/11 is classified. I cannot tell you about evidence that has been gathered. It’s classified information.”
    US official quoted in Carl Cameron’s Fox News report on the Israeli spy ring.

    Reply

  166. campbell says:

    Campbell
    TVNL Editor’s Comments: How Long Do We Continue the Farce of George W. Inspector Clouseau Bush?
    From the moment George W. Bush seized office after the electoral coup of 2000, his puppet masters, you know, the ones who spent the prior two years teaching him the difference between a country and a continent, did everything in their power to make him look like a real president. They even went as far as to reverse the 1986 the Goldwater-Nichols Defense Reorganization Act that added a new level of commander-in-chief to our military ranking system. These regional commanders-in-chief were created to bring a local supreme commander directly to a military conflict. The most well-known commander in chief was the head of CENTCOM during the first invasion of Iraq, Norman Schwarzkopf. In order to make the once AWOL from military duty George W. Bush look more presidential Donald Rumsfeld decided to reserve that special important sounding title for the little boy who was “in charge” of every single decision on Earth, George W. Bush, the sage leader of the free world! The same sage leader who could not find China on a map (of China!)
    Reference: On October 24, 2002, Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld announced that the title of “Commander-in-Chief” would thereafter be reserved for the President, consistent with the terms of Article II of the United States Constitution. Armed forces CINCs in specified regions would thereafter be known as “combatant commanders,” heading the Unified Combatant Commands.
    Could you imagine someone taking Schwarzkopf’s title from him for no other reason that to make George W. Ignoramus Bush stand out from the other big kids in the playground! Could you imagine Clinton getting away with this? Well you ditto heads…what would you say if Clinton had done that? While your at it ask yourself what you would have said if Clinton was “in charge”, and on vacation, again, when the alleged 9/11 warnings were pouring in? Maybe then you would actually do your duty as an American citizen and start looking at the 9/11 related evidence and you would all of a sudden understand that 9/11 could indeed possibly be an inside job and it is not blaspheme to explore the evidence!
    So who actually came up with this initiative? Rumsfeld? Wasn’t he busy with real work? What was the point? There is only one reason to do something like this; insecurity. How childish. Then again we are talking about a child. An intellectual child. George W. Bush; the American president who can’t complete a sentence. The embarrassment of a human being who if not for his fortunate blood line may have problems meeting the qualifications to secure a job handing out free passes to strip joints on a New York City street corner.
    We are living in the most surreal period in human history. Having George W. Bush continue in his illegally assumed role as a US president has got to be the closest thing to having the Peter Sellers character, Inspector Jacques Clouseau (from the Pink Panther movies) actually come to life and get promoted to Chief Inspector! Did you ever see the Pink Panther movies? Do you remember how the intelligent people around Clouseau behaved? Could you sense their bewilderment at how such a buffoon could become a police officer, let alone rise to the rank of Chief Inspector, as did the Sellers character eventually? Don’t you feel like those people? Is there even a singe person reading this who feels that they are intellectually inferior to George W. Bush? Is there anyone who can read who is intellectually inferior to George W. Bush?
    Well my friends, this is not a funny movie. Our planet, democracy, freedom, health, welfare and way of life hinge on decisions being made by this real life Clouseau! How long are we going to play along? How much irreversible harm can we take before we say enough is enough? This stopped being funny the moment it started. Now it is becoming progressively deadly!
    We are told by the people who sell this surrealistic existence to us as the real deal, the US criminal corporate media, that George W. Bush is actually the person who is making decisions about things like war. We are told that this jackass is the actual person who has reserved the right for our government to read our personal mail and declare us to be an enemy of the United States, based on his sole judgment! Our freedom hinges on that imbecile’s judgment! How are we sitting still for all of this? I have to hand it to the media because if they were any less diligent in hiding reality from the American people we would have had a revolution and tossed out every single human being that is participating in this farce! And we would have hanged every member of the media, a la Saddam, because they deserve it for allowing this to go on!
    Holy cow, what world am I living in? Am I really awake? Am I on a bad acid trip? Am I in the middle of the longest nightmare in human history? Who is going to believe this crazy dream I am having! Somebody please wake me up! For Pete’s sake, somebody please wake me up! Think about it!

    Reply

  167. ManagedChaos says:

    “Iraq may represent a convergence of Israeli and American interests, but American foreign policy there is driven by PNAC fantasies of eternal American hegemony.”
    Is this a typo? Or is this the cognitive dissonance seen all too often these days. You are aware of who PNAC is, right?

    Reply

  168. JUDITH HANEY says:

    “Bush probably wouldn’t know the difference, the pentagon could just feed him fake death reports as a sign of progress.”
    I believe Bush knows the difference and chooses to conduct the business of the U.S. in a manner consistent with his promises to the petroleum industry. He doesn’t care about lost lives, or their families, or those maimed Americans. He is a sociopath and so are those he surrounds himself with.

    Reply

  169. Carroll says:

    CBS’s David Martin, reported that military commanders have told Bush they are prepared to execute a troop escalation of just 9,000 soldiers and Marines into Iraq, “with another 10,000 on alert in Kuwait and the U.S.”
    7500 Army and 1500 Marines
    One enterprising soul has sugested we send cardboard cutouts of soldiers to Iraq and station them around Iraq like those empty police cars so many towns use to scare drivers into slowing down.
    Bush probably wouldn’t know the difference, the pentagon could just feed him fake death reports as a sign of progress.

    Reply

  170. JUDITH HANEY says:

    “Senate Regrets the Vote to Enter Iraq:
    ABC News Survey Shows That Knowing Then What It Knows Now, 2002 Senate Would Vote Against Giving President War Powers”
    http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/Politics/story?id=2771519&page=1
    So? If they were lied to, as twenty-eight of them say they were, what are they going to do about it?
    Are they going to ignore it, or are they going to perform their constitutional duty to prosecute the criminal offenders?
    It’s their choice. And whatever they choose, I can absolutely guarantee that a bright illuminating light will be on them for the rest of their miserable lives no matter where they go or what they do. That’s what the Internet is all about, information.

    Reply

  171. Den Valdron says:

    I second that Karenk, this discussion has gotten immensely off track.

    Reply

  172. karenk says:

    Steve’s post was about GWB’s proposed(soon to be proposed)troop surge in Iraq. It’s a bad idea. The man is like a teenager, acting impulsively without thinking everything through and considering all possible outcomes. He thinks only of the outcome he desires, just like a teenager. Also, he seems to want to do the opposite of what the elders(Iraq Study Group) say he should do, again like a rebellious teen.
    More troops-but still no real plan. George and his buddies apparently are part of the Iraq Didn’t Study Group.(wish I could say I thought of that one but I read it somewhere)
    Send the twins George, boost the numbers by 2 at least. And keep em out of trouble at the same time.

    Reply

  173. Den Valdron says:

    Certainly American policy as it applies to Israel is largely dictated by the pro-Israel lobby. Which means a free hand in Lebanon, an unlimited credit card of funding, endless protection for just about every excess. I’m entirely prepared to concede that.
    But the AIPAC/Likud bunch do not dictate the entire middle east policy. They merely get on board for America’s baser impulses. Iraq may represent a convergence of Israeli and American interests, but American foreign policy there is driven by PNAC fantasies of eternal American hegemony.
    I’ll agree that the Israeli lobby has undue influence. But then this is a symptom of the corruption and irrationality of the American political process, not a cause.
    Let’s keep it polite.

    Reply

  174. Den Valdron says:

    Certainly American policy as it applies to Israel is largely dictated by the pro-Israel lobby. Which means a free hand in Lebanon, an unlimited credit card of funding, endless protection for just about every excess. I’m entirely prepared to concede that.
    But the AIPAC/Likud bunch do not dictate the entire middle east policy. They merely get on board for America’s baser impulses. Iraq may represent a convergence of Israeli and American interests, but American foreign policy there is driven by PNAC fantasies of eternal American hegemony.
    I’ll agree that the Israeli lobby has undue influence. But then this is a symptom of the corruption and irrationality of the American political process, not a cause.
    Let’s keep it polite.

    Reply

  175. selise says:

    steve – did you see that chicago dyke of correntewire made it into aei today? her blog posting of her excellent notes (including pictures) is here: http://tinyurl.com/yzkb2x

    Reply

  176. ahem says:

    Carroll:
    Get your own damn blog.

    Reply

  177. MP says:

    Managed Chaos writes: “Being anti-Zionist has absolutely nothing to do with being anti-Israel or not wanting the country Israel to exist. It’s like saying I’m anti-Republican therefore I’m anti-American. Zionism in its current form is a political idealogy and the Neo-Conservative movement has been co-opted by these Zionists as evidenced by Francis Fukuyama and his falling out with them.
    Bottom line: If you don’t want to be called a dual-loyalist or traitor, then don’t advocate for policies that are against the USA’s interests, don’t associate with Israeli spies in the Pentagon trying to feed us false intelligence and certainly don’t hold a dual-citizenship with Israel.”
    While I agree with much of your post, I’m not sure I can stay with you here. Perhaps I’m mis-reading you or you aren’t writing clearly. Zionism “in its current form” isn’t necessarily Likudnik. It isn’t necessarily right-wing. As the definition I posted shows, Zionism has a specific meaning that does, in fact, relate very directly to the existence of Israel. It is a nationalist movement.
    Within that, there are many different political stripes. Jabotinsky (modern Likud). Labor. And the like. Right wing. Left wing. Just as you wouldn’t say you were anti-American if you meant you were anti-Republican…you wouldn’t say you were anti-Zionist if you actually meant you were anti-Likud. Because, if you did, you would actually be lumped in with a lot of folks who ARE anti-Israel. Moreover, there are plenty of patriotic, leftwing Zionists.
    As to your bottom line, I, of course, agree that advocating policies that are against US interests and associating with spies are bad things. I’m wary of the “traitor” label, however, for a couple of reasons: 1) the word has specific legal meanings, and we ought to stick to them. The punishment for being a traitor at least was pretty serious: The Rosenbergs were put to death. It may still be death, I don’t know.
    But 2) deciding what US interests are is policy discussion that needs to be had without any chilling influences. (Isn’t that we continue to live through with the Bush establishment?) I certainly don’t want anyone executed (or even threatened with expulsion) for espousing the “wrong” opinion about what are or aren’t genuine US interests. The discussion is an important one and people will disagree–often violently. The losing side, which is often determined by a political contest, shouldn’t be labeled traitors and shouldn’t risk execution. And even if you’re on the winning side, you ought to keep in mind that you could be wrong–and many winners have been (certainly in retrospect).
    Lastly, the notion that dual citizens (American/Israeli) should expect to be labeled traitors is abhorrent. There are MANY dual citizens in America who hold passports to all kinds of countries. Countries have their own laws as to whether they accept the status of dual citizen. To single out American/Israelis is, well, I won’t say it. If America wants to eliminate ALL dual citizenships, then fine (I guess). There may also be good reasons to keep this option open, I don’t know. But to single out American/Israelis is simply wrong.
    I could see (maybe) not allowing dual citizens from any country to hold sensitive government posts, but this would need to be hashed out.

    Reply

  178. Carroll says:

    The Israeli lobby didn’t do more than add fuel to the fire.
    Now its likely that in the absence of Israel, the hands off thing to the Lebanon war wouldn’t have happened. But then again, the Lebanon war wouldn’t have happened. In any event, the US maintains a hands off policy to wars that don’t matter to it.
    But thats it. American policy is shaped by a variety of irrational factors. It’s not dictated by Israel likuds.
    Posted by Den Valdron at January 5, 2007 04:29 PM
    >>>>>>>>>>
    Are you deliberately missing the point and being obtuse today or just so fixated lately on insulting the US that you are daft?
    Everone agrees that the neo’s and the Israeli firster were equally in bad together on Iraq.
    Your…”The Israeli lobby didn’t do more than add fuel to the fire.”… misses completely that without the stranglehold AIPAC has on our congress there would be more, would have been more, and would be now more.. opposition to the very likud AIPAC and Israelis.
    You think the house and senate ALL cheered and seconded the Israeli bombing of Lebanon civilians and infascture while the rest of the ENTIRE WORLD condemned it because of what?…becuase it made America look sooooo good to the civilized world…Huh?…was that it? Get real…they were posturing for AIPAC’s right wing jews without regard for American principles.

    Reply

  179. TonyForesta says:

    You make many solid points Den Valdron. We are in total agreement that the US cannot win anything Iraq because, in my opinion the entire fetid horrorshow is crime scene. All the other points you make are valid as well.
    The only place we divide is in the reality of what say influence the Iraqi’s (whatever or whomever emerges as governments or leaderships) will have on the American presense. The exact rhetoric may be and unknown, unknown, but it is my opinion that America will maintain some kind of military presence in Iraq, no what Iraqi’s want. I am not supporting this imperialist policy which is rooted on control of oil access and distribution, I am only saying, – that this is the likely reality I see based on all available evidence.

    Reply

  180. Carroll says:

    Posted by Den Valdron at January 5, 2007 03:43 PM
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    “AIPAC and the Zionist lobby are merely players in a corrupt and corrosive environment. It seems irrational to single them out, and irrational to expect them not to play the cards they’ve got.”
    * Don’t agree, I would say that it is totally rational to point out this particular element or lobby when talking about Iraq and the ME. If we were discusssing drug cost in the US it would be irrational not to point out the drug maker’s Lobbies…
    “As to what and how much influence they have on overall American policy, I tend to see a perception of convergent interests operating.
    The United States is committed to domination of the middle east as a key source of strategic resources – oil. Its as simple as that.”
    * As I said, it’s a fifty-fifty deal.
    “If Israel did not exist, American policy under Bush probably would not be much different.”
    * Bush isn’t a good support for you argument to my arguement. Our problem with the Israeli fetish in congress that creates an underhanded and uneven policy in the ME in favor of Israel, even when they break every international law, predates Bush and has been around a long time.
    Posted by Den Valdron at January 5, 2007 03:43 PM
    >>>>>>>>
    The purpose of my comment was to focus on the “foreign interest lobbying” and ‘special interest” as related to our current ME disaster and up and coming Iran.
    We can talk about corruption in general in this goverment and how ‘everybody does it” whenever you want. But I am not going down the slippery slope of “everybody does it” on any of them…particulary where it concerns war and death.
    If you want to illustrate “your” particular point I would love to see some current info on exactly WHO and WHAT is happening oil wise in both Afaghan and Iraq…I haven’t kept up with that lately.

    Reply

  181. FREE SAMIR AL KANTAR says:

    “House Speaker Nancy Pelosi had a blunt message today for President Bush — it’s time for him to realize his policy on the Iraq war is over.” SF Chronicle, 01/05/2007
    I have a blunt message for Nancy Pelosi: You lost all credibility when you announced to the world that impeachment of Bush is off the table. After that descent into denial nothing you will ever say again will carry any weight with Democrats.
    Bush & Co. are laughing at her “blunt message” over a drink while they manage their petroleum stocks and plan their retirement from politics.

    Reply

  182. Den Valdron says:

    Let’s be serious Frank. If Israel didn’t exist, what would the United States be doing, and what would its situation be?
    It would still be on the outs with Iran, thanks to the Shah and the Iranian revolution and all that stuff.
    It would still be involved in Afghanistan. It would still have its diffident, kiss me-kill me relationship with Afghanistan.
    The United States would still be importing the majority of its oil. A proportion of that oil would still be coming from the Persian Gulf.
    The Persian Gulf would still be the major oil producer for the world, and the key centre for the one, immense, critical strategic resource.
    Saudi Arabia would still be what it is now.
    Syria as a former soviet client with no significant oil reserves would still be on the outs with the United States.
    The Iran-Iraq war would have happened on schedule. The Gulf War would have happened. The subsequent sanctions would have happened.
    Bush’s insane bid for world domination through control of Iraq/domination of the regions key strategic resources would have still gone into play.
    So without Israel, you still have the United States gunning for Iran, hostile to Syria, ambiguously allied to Saudi Arabia and invading Iraq.
    All the policy elements and drivers were already there.
    The Israeli lobby didn’t do more than add fuel to the fire.
    Now its likely that in the absence of Israel, the hands off thing to the Lebanon war wouldn’t have happened. But then again, the Lebanon war wouldn’t have happened. In any event, the US maintains a hands off policy to wars that don’t matter to it.
    But thats it. American policy is shaped by a variety of irrational factors. It’s not dictated by Israel likuds.

    Reply

  183. Frank says:

    If Israel did not exist, American policy under Bush probably would not be much different.
    Posted by Den Valdron at January 5, 2007 03:43 PM
    Gotta be kidding.

    Reply

  184. Den Valdron says:

    Carroll, that’s an extremely detailed post. But to some extent I think its overstated.
    Historically, immigrant or minority groups have maintained ties to their homelands and have tried to influence policy, sometimes more or less successfully. Prior to Israel, the best example was Ireland and the Irish. Indeed, through the 19th and 20th centuries, the United States was the principle base for Irish terrorism and Irish communities in America provided the bulk of the funding for Sinn Fein and the IRA.
    This also translated into political support up to and including congressional levels, up to the point where Sinn Fein/IRA officials met with White House officials as late as the Bush II administration and were given formal standing.
    We also have the example of immigrant german communities pre-WWI, who were influential enough to dissuade the United States from entering the Great War for a period of time. For a large part of that war, the United States popular opinion was strongly divided as between Germany and England, and was only turned by Heart corporation anglophile/germanophobe propaganda.
    Anglophone pressure and propaganda also was heavily instrumental in America’s entry into WWII. I don’t recall anyone, except perhaps Prescott Bush complaining about the treasonous influence of anglophiles upon the United States government.
    In more modern times, one of the most overt examples of an expatriate group influencing homeland policy is the Cuban Exiles of Florida, who have been very successful in maintaining a failed policy of sanctions against Cuba for over 45 years. The Cuban Exiles have also received support for terrorist activities against Cuba, and have been extremely active and influential in extremist right wing hispanic politics, in both the United States and in American actions in Latin America. Would the United States conduct with respect to Chile in 1973 have developed the same way without the influence of Cuban exiles? The dirty wars of central America in the 1980’s.
    There are other examples, less prominent, of expatriates or ethnic group members influencing homeland policies. Mexican-American politics is complicated for this reason. Iranian expatriates have influence over Iranian policy. Iraqi expatriates helped to fuel the war on Iraq. American positions on Indochina may be influenced by the waves of Vietnamese refugees.
    In this historical context, the divided loyalties, and the effort to influence a more pro-homeland policy seen in AIPAC activists is not all that unusual or atypical. The American Jewish community is substantially larger, richer and better positioned, and consequently more influential.
    But they are hardly atypical. It’s just another thread in the irrational process of US foreign policy, which is often driven by arbitrary and subjective internal political whims and loyalties.
    While there are elements of the AIPAC and Zionist lobbying process that are toxic and potentially derogatory to American security, this should be considered in the context of the entire American lobbying system.
    Seriously, which lobbying effort poses greater hazards to America’s security interests? Halliburton or AIPAC? If Walmart uses its lobbying influence to pressure trading terms with China which suit Walmart but are bad for the US, how does that compare? A lobbying effort that loosens rules on technology transfer to China?
    The problem is not AIPAC or Zionist lobbies, but rather a corrupt political system where international economic, social and military policies are driven by whichever lobbyist coughs up the most money, has the best rolodex, the richest clients, the most aggressive agenda.
    AIPAC and the Zionist lobby are merely players in a corrupt and corrosive environment. It seems irrational to single them out, and irrational to expect them not to play the cards they’ve got.
    As to what and how much influence they have on overall American policy, I tend to see a perception of convergent interests operating.
    The United States is committed to domination of the middle east as a key source of strategic resources – oil. Its as simple as that.
    If Israel did not exist, American policy under Bush probably would not be much different.

    Reply

  185. Frank says:

    Just saw on Cspan the dog and pony show, or the McCain/Lieberman “surge support “chorus performance at the Israeli Enterprise Institute…Oops, I meant the American Enterprise Institute.
    Before it was the Wolfowitz tune the braindead politicians danced to ….Now its the Kagan tune, with the first dancers to that tune, the properly matched pair of Israel’s national treasures McCain and Lieberman. What a pair, and what prescience of mind the Connecticut dem party had when kicking little Joe out of the state dem party..

    Reply

  186. Carroll says:

    Since the ME is going to become our appointment in Samarra if we continue the Israeli-Neo program and attack Iran..we need to call spades, spades about every aspect of the influences. Jews will not be spared anymore more than gentiles in the blame for our condition. This is a fifty-fifty deal..we heap scorn on the US neos and we heap scorn on the jewish-Israeli neos. One thing that is not going to happen, is we are not going to cease our criticizm of either. Whoever takes offense, jew or gentile and just can’t live with this…you know where the airport is.
    “Israeli firster” is a legitimate term for some jews and evangelicals. “AIPAC firster” is a legitimate term for some gentile politicans who depend on their campaign contributions thru 63 AIPAC related PACs.
    Some examples of the problem..which reflect a total disregard for the actual interest of America and a majority of it’s citizens by some ..and an obession in using their office primilary for jews and Israel by others:
    http://democraticwhip.house.gov/media/articles.cfm?pressReleaseID=644
    Dem Steyn Hoyer feature news from Israel on his official web site
    Congressmen to AIPAC: We’ll legislate Bush’s promises
    by Nathan Guttman
    Haaretz Israel News
    May 17, 2004
    WASHINGTON – Leading Democratic and Republican Congressmen told the American Israel Public Affairs Committee annual conference Monday that they plan to work toward formalizing in American law the contents of the letter U.S. President George W. Bush gave Prime Minister Ariel Sharon last month.
    In the letter, Bush rejected the Palestinians’ claim of a right of return of refugees to Israel and said it was unrealistic to expect a full Israeli withdrawal from the West Bank.
    Officials in the Jewish community elaborated on remarks made by House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Texas) and House Democratic Whip Steny Hoyer (D-Maryland), saying they intend to begin gathering signatures in the coming days for a bill proposing legislation of Bush’s promises elaborated upon in his letter to Sharon.
    http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/rosnerGuest.jhtml?itemNo=695955
    Elliot Engle in Haaretz:
    The reader asks: If you take the following information into account, do you not feel as though your policy decisions are considered questionable? How do you justify your stance on AIPAC dictating policy when you have received so much money from them?
    My strong support of the state of Israel has its roots in my childhood when I first learned about the then-young Jewish state, and, since then, I have never wavered in my belief in a strong and vital U.S.-Israel relationship. I can only say that my support for Israel today in the United States Congress began long before I was elected and will continue long after I leave office. This is a basic, bedrock principle in which I believe.
    http://www.jerrynadler.com/node/67
    Jerry Nadler expresses his committment to Israel
    On Support for Israel, and Fighting Anti-Semitism, Jerry:
    Is a lifelong activist on issues of concern to the Jewish community through leadership in such organizations as the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), the Anti-Defamation League, the American Jewish Congress, B’nai Zion, and the United States Holocaust Memorial Council.
    Was a leading critic of the anti-Semitic slander that occurred at the UN Conference on Racism in Durban. Following reports that some of the Ford Foundation’s money went to groups that engaged in inappropriate behavior in Durban, Jerry led a successful effort that led to Ford increasing its oversight of its grantees and changing its grant agreements to prohibit funding of groups that are openly hostile to Israel and Jews. Jerry’s efforts were supported by a wide array of Jewish organizations, including the Anti-Defamation League, the American Jewish Committee, Jewish Council on Public Affairs, Hadassah, and B’nai Brith International.
    Is one of the most active members of Congress in writing legislation that addresses issues of concern to the Jewish community and Israel:
    Authored the High-Risk Non-Profit Security Enhancement Act, which would authorize the Homeland Security Department to provide structural protection to non-profit, likely targets of terrorism, such as synagogues and schools.
    Wrote the Holocaust Survivors’ Tax Fairness Act of 2001, to ensure that settlements paid to survivors of the Holocaust and their heirs are exempt from Federal income taxes. Jerry also took the lead in urging the Eastern District of New York to distribute $10 million of the Swiss bank claims settlement with Holocaust survivors to construct an assisted living facility for Holocaust survivors in Boro Park, Brooklyn.
    Drafted a resolution calling on the United Nations to recognize the 850,000 Jewish refugees from Arab countries. The resolution also calls on the United States to offer language to insure that any United Nations resolution discussing restitution to Palestinian refugees also provides for identical restitution to Jewish refugees.
    Offered an amendment that would limit funding for the United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNWRA) until it begins to resettle the Palestinian refugees (instead of keeping them cooped up in refugee camps that have become breeding grounds for terrorism against Israel), and until it eliminates school texts that promote anti-Semitism and hatred of Israel and the U.S. The amendment was supported by the World Jewish Congress.
    Led a Congressional sign-on letter to President Bush urging the United States to continue its presence in the Sinai desert. Due to Jerry’s efforts, the United States continues to keep a small, but vital, military presence in the Sinai to deter any military action by Egypt should the situation in the Middle East deteriorate.
    Is an active and vocal supporter of both the Syria Accountability Act, and an amendment that would prohibit Saudi Arabia from obtaining any aid from the United States, as long as Saudi Arabia continues to harbor and fund terrorists that threaten Israel and the United States.
    Led an effort to urge the Bush Administration to withhold all military funding from Egypt until it would guarantee that a series based on the blatantly anti-Semitic “Protocols of the Elders of Zion” would not be aired by government-sponsored television.
    Filed a lawsuit, Nadler v. Reno, in conjunction with Holocaust Survivors and Friends in Pursuit of Justice, which sought an order prohibiting the U.S. Attorney General from allowing re-entry into the country of John Demjanjuk, a convicted Nazi war criminal.
    Is an outspoken and longtime critic and fighter against the Arab boycott of Israel and of US companies that participated in the boycott.
    Did extensive work with the families of Gidone Busch and Yankel Rosenbaum to help ensure appropriate action on the part of the US Justice Department and local law enforcement.
    Called on New York State to examine its compulsory education laws to mandate tolerance training following reports of anti-Semitic indoctrination in some Muslim schools in Brooklyn.
    Consistently and strongly supports foreign aid for Israel. He has continuously worked with the Foreign Affairs appropriators to ensure that Israel receives the necessary support from the United States.
    Visited Israel many times, and has met with Prime Ministers Sharon, Barak, Netanyahu, Peres, Rabin, and with key government ministers and members of the Knesset.
    http://democraticwhip.house.gov/media/statements.cfm?pressReleaseID=406
    House Democratic Whip Steny Hoyer addressed the AIPAC Political Leadership Conference on December 15, 2003 (as prepared for delivery):
    “There are some who believe that we must demonstrate more even-handedness in the Israeli-Palestinian crisis.
    I do not.”
    Let me say very clearly: as a member of the Democratic leadership and a long-time supporter of Israel, it is absolutely imperative that Members of Congress – especially our new members and those who have few Jews in their Congressional Districts – recognize the moral and strategic significance of the U.S.-Israel partnership.
    Furthermore, it is imperative that Israel’s circle of friends in Congress include non-Jews, too. I am confident in saying that two new Democratic members who have a better appreciation of that are Denise Majette of Georgia and Artur Davis of Alabama. Both were part of our delegation. Both are articulate, engaging African-Americans from the south. And both are committed supporters of Israel
    http://www.dallasjewishweek.com/dallas-jewish-week-8935.html
    AIPAC stalwarts hold plenary
    Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) and Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle (D-S.D.) both promised at the conference banquet Monday evening Senate passage of $10 billion in aid and loan guarantees for Israel by the end of next week.
    http://cosmos.ucc.ie/cs1064/jabowen/IPSC/articles/article0019430.html
    Nancy Pelosi
    Address to AIPAC Conference
    May 24, 2005
    “There are those who contend that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is all about Israel’s occupation of the West Bank and Gaza. This is absolute nonsense. In truth, the history of the conflict is not over occupation, and never has been: it is over the fundamental right of Israel to exist.
    “The greatest threat to Israel’s right to exist, with the prospect of devastating violence, now comes from Iran. For too long, leaders of both political parties in the United States have not done nearly enough to confront the Russians and the Chinese, who have supplied Iran as it has plowed ahead with its nuclear and missile technology.”
    http://www.metimes.com/storyview.php?StoryID=20041210-084724-2219r
    FBI steps up AIPAC probe
    Richard Sale
    UPI Intelligence Correspondent
    December 9, 2004
    In 2001 the FBI discovered new, “massive” Israeli spying operations in the East Coast, including New York and New Jersey, said one former senior US government official.
    The FBI began intensive surveillance on certain Israeli diplomats and other suspects and was videotaping Naor Gilon, chief of political affairs at the Israeli embassy in Washington, who was having lunch at a Washington hotel with two lobbyists from the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) lobby group. Federal law enforcement officials said they were floored when Franklin came up to their table and sat down
    All are suspected of having acted as “cut outs” or intermediaries who passed highly-sensitive US data from high-level Pentagon and administration officials to Israel, said one former federal law enforcement official.
    One current FBI consultant said Rosen’s name had first been given to the FBI in 1986 along with 70 possible incidents of Israeli espionage against the United States.
    A former very senior CIA counterintelligence official told UPI that in 1998 to 1999, the CIA discovered an Israeli couple, who were subcontracted to a US phone company, were working for Mossad, the Israeli intelligence service.
    “They did incredible damage – they got incredibly sensitive data, including key words identifying individuals or projects,” the source said, adding he himself gave the case to the FBI.
    http://wexler.house.gov/news.php?ID=84
    Wexler Urges Bush to Investigate AIPAC Probe
    FBI Official Leading Case Has Alleged Ties to Anti-Semitism
    (Washington, D.C.) – Today Congressman Robert Wexler (D-FL) sent the following letter to President Bush calling on him to investigate David Szady, a senior FBI counterintelligence official leading the bureau’s investigation of an alleged espionage case involving the American Israeli Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC). Wexler asks Bush to determine whether or not Mr. Szady has a record of unfairly targeting Jews, and if so, urges the President to remove Mr. Szady from the AIPAC case and dismiss him from his post. Wexler also asks President Bush to re-examine the AIPAC probe and consider whether it may have been instigated by anti-Jewish sentiment within the CIA and the FBI.
    Wexler raises the possibility that Szady may have led the charge against AIPAC due to his personal bias against Jews.”
    http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/bayefsky200410210837.asp
    Who Is For Israel
    So the question for American Jews deciding whether to vote for a Republican president, in Hillel’s words, is, “If not now when?” If the answer for most American Jews is never, then make no mistake about it: No Democratic president will ever feel that protecting the state of Israel is necessary to win Jewish votes — and no future Republican president will ever take the heat as President Bush has done.
    — Anne Bayefsky is an international lawyer and a senior fellow at the Hudson Institute.
    >>>>>>>>>>
    That some jews will betray their US citizenship to benefit Israel and that a majority of politicans will betray American interest for political gain is no secret and is not disputed by anyone who knows the facts.
    And without going into a long winded explaination of how and why the jewish community is both minipulated by it’s jewish peers and leaders.. and in turn joins in the minipulation of US policy regarding Israel..nothing better illustrates the effects of the insidious propaganda of the right wing zionist, that is echoed thru the media and congress, on American policies than the “split personality” and illogic of the conflict in jewish values when it comes to Israel and the US than this survey.
    2006 Annual Survey of American Jewish Opinion
    http://www.ajc.org/site/apps/nl/content2.asp?c=ijITI2PHKoG&b=2174431&ct=3152883

    Reply

  187. Den Valdron says:

    I think, TonyForesta, that the problem is that the United States will be unable to stay in Iraq.
    The model you describe is one where America is/is not there.
    Any bases or permanent installations in Iraq will continue to exist only with the consent of the Iraqi state and population. If this consent is not forthcoming, or if in fact, the Iraqi’s are antithetical to American presence then these bases will not be sustainable.
    The notion which you argue is that America must reduce its footprint in Iraq so as to avoid inciting resistance. Well, that’s laudable, but its also a day late and a dollar short.
    You concede that the ongoing ‘civil war’ cannot be won militarily. How then can it be won? The answer is simply that it cannot be won by the United States at all.
    What you are left with is the hope that whoever somehow wins the civil war will be tolerant of or dependent upon the United States sufficient to embrace a continuing American presence.
    This seems insupportable to me. If Anti-American forces like Sadr or the Sunni insurgent movements are victorious, or successfully engineer a coalition, then the American presence will not be tolerated.
    The only American support in the federal government comes from the Kurds who pose political problems, and from the Shiites. The trouble is that the Shiites that America supports, SCIRI & Dawa, are more closely aligned to Iran then America. Assuming that America withdraws from providing security… what do any of these parties owe America? What bargaining chips do you have left? Your position is at best weak, and quite easily untenable.
    I suspect that when the governing of Iraq finally falls to Iraqi’s, the American presence will neither be welcome nor tolerated.

    Reply

  188. ManagedChaos says:

    I am Jewish; born and bred New Yorker…Most Jews in this country support the Democrats and think we should be an honest broker in the Middle East. AIPAC, the Israeli lobby, and Zionists claim to speak for and represent all Jews when they only represent a small minority of paranoid chickenhawks.
    This is not about Jews, as much as you would like it to be, in order to stifle debate and poison the well. The fact that some of these people are Jewish, is INCIDENTAL to their behaviors and actions. That is why, as a Jew, I have no problem calling them out for the scumbag traitors they are. Because I am an American first, I do not tolerate people in the higher eschelons of our government to lie, deceive and use the resources of this country for the benefit of a foreign nation and its interests.
    If Jerry Fallwell or Pat Robertson thinks that America’s interests and Israel’s interests run parallel and that we should support Israel unconditionally, then yes, you bet they are scumbag traitors. Equal opportunity hater here.
    Being anti-Zionist has absolutely nothing to do with being anti-Israel or not wanting the country Israel to exist. It’s like saying I’m anti-Republican therefore I’m anti-American. Zionism in its current form is a political idealogy and the Neo-Conservative movement has been co-opted by these Zionists as evidenced by Francis Fukuyama and his falling out with them.
    Bottom line: If you don’t want to be called a dual-loyalist or traitor, then don’t advocate for policies that are against the USA’s interests, don’t associate with Israeli spies in the Pentagon trying to feed us false intelligence and certainly don’t hold a dual-citizenship with Israel.

    Reply

  189. TonyForesta says:

    Well spoken Noziglia.
    The sad reality, that no-one including democrats have shown the courage to address, and that POA and others have mentioned in this thread is that – we are never leaving Iraq. Our pathological addiction to oil, demands for national security reasons that we provide enough stability to access the very large reserves in the land of the two rivers.
    Strategically, there are important reasons to maintain the ability to project force in the region specifically towards Iran if for some unholy reason, it becomes necessary. The are 14 enduring, or permanent bases in Iraq, we have a billion dollar embassy in the Green Zone, so in the future, the factbasedreality is that a certain contingent of US forces, hardware, and resources will remain in Iraq on an enduring basis.
    That said, having large numbers of US soldier patrolling the back alleys of Iraqi cities like legionaires, is a fruitless and reckless misallocation of our military. The ongoing civil war cannot be won militarily, surge, bumb, escalation or not.
    Our forces should redeploy to safe bases, defend our primary interests locally and regionally, help the emerging Iraqi government gain stability when requested with intel, airpower, and rapid reaction strikes against specific targets, provide humanitarian support if necessary – and discontinue the daily patrols of Iraqi streets, and the policing of Iraq’s ongoing civil war.
    Diplomatically, America must face and confront the grim factbasedreality, that the entire Iraq horrorshow is a crime scene, with no good options for America in the near term, and plenty of potential ugly ends. Our leaders should be working with the various emerging individuals and groups that will likely govern the divided Iraq that will form after the civil war is fought and settled.
    In the meantime, our leadership should be honest with the American people and Iraqi’s with regard to our long-term objectives, provide an estimate of real costs, budget for those costs, begin immediately an orderly redeployment of forces to safe bases, and significantly diminish the American footprint and face in Iraq.
    America must leave the governing of Iraq to Iraqi’s.

    Reply

  190. winnipeger says:

    hahahahahaha…
    how about if i fuck you instead?

    Reply

  191. Den Valdron says:

    fuck off

    Reply

  192. winnipeger says:

    that’s the best you can do, den?
    for someone who claims to be adept at, “inflicting pain,” on others, you sure are making me laugh 🙂
    the truth hurts, though, huh?

    Reply

  193. Den Valdron says:

    fuck off

    Reply

  194. winnipeger says:

    fuck you too, asshole.
    i’m still waiting for you to make good on your threats, pussy.
    i love internet tough guys, especially when the truth is that they are underemployed, overweight middle-aged punters.

    Reply

  195. Den Valdron says:

    fuck off

    Reply

  196. winnipeger says:

    easy e:
    are you drinking from poa’s putrid cup? i find the paranoia here hilarious 🙂 no, i’m not an “agent” of aipac or affiliated with them in any way. just a regular person reading twn like you.
    den:
    i agree with the first paragraph of your post above. it’s surreal… and disturbing.

    Reply

  197. Den Valdron says:

    It’s a mark as to how deranged people like Frum, Perle, Rumsfeld, and the Neocons have been that an avowed near marginal personality like Buchanan, who has been tarred with charges of racism, anti-semitism, and his own lunatic right wing ideology can actually be on the right side of the Iraq issue and can have worthwhile and cogent things to say.
    Perhaps its as simple as a broken watch being correct twice a day. Or perhaps its a degree of idiocy that even Buchanan can perceive. Or perhaps its merely the backbiting and infighting that often characterizes the ideological extremes.

    Reply

  198. Easy E says:

    wonder if winnipeger is an “agent” of aipac in monitoring twn posts?

    Reply

  199. MP says:

    ManagedChaos writes: “All Jews are not Zionists and all Zionists are not Jews. Therefore, when we talk about how Neo-Con Zionist Israeli firsters like Feith, Wolfowitz, Perle, Ledeen, Abrams, Kristol, Kruathammer, Zakheim are responsible in part for the clusterfuck in Iraq, their being Jewish is incidental to the FACT that they are traitors to the American people and to the constitution of the United States.”
    Perhaps, but only the Jews are really ever called traitors. And only the Jews are told to “go back to Israel.” And only the Jews are called “dualists.” Only the Jews are accused of not being “American.” Whatever else is said of Jerry Falwell, or Pat, or Tom, they are NEVER accused of not being Americans, no matter how many AIPAC meetings they attend or how much they support Israel.
    Zionism is often used as an epithet on these pages and is slurred with “neo-con” and, by anti-Semites, with “Jews.” This is an old and inaccurate use of the word and reflects the fact that today anti-Semitism often masquerades as anti-Zionism. It’s a more socially acceptable form of the old hatred.
    I mean, how can one, in principle, be in FAVOR of a Palestinian state and, in the same breath, OPPOSE a Jewish state? On what intellectually principled or morally principled basis does one do that? The Palestinians never had a state, but aspired to having one. The Jews hadn’t had a nation for quite a while, but aspired to having one. Both peoples for legitimate reasons in my view.
    Here is a pretty good definition of Zionism from Wikipedia: “Zionism is an international political movement that supports a homeland for the Jewish people in the Land of Israel. Formally organized in the late 19th century, the movement was successful in establishing the State of Israel in 1948, as the world’s first and only modern Jewish State. It continues primarily as support for Israel and its continuing status as a homeland for the Jewish people.[1] Described as a “diaspora nationalism”,[2] its proponents regard it as a national liberation movement whose aim is the self-determination of the Jewish people.[3]
    While Zionism is based in part upon religious tradition linking the Jewish people to the Land of Israel, where the concept of Jewish nationhood is thought to have first evolved somewhere between 1200 BCE and the late Second Temple era, [4][5] the modern movement was mainly secular, beginning largely as a response to rampant antisemitism.[6] At first one of several Jewish political movements offering alternative responses to the position of Jews in Europe, Zionism gradually gained more support, and the Holocaust accelerated Jewish immigration to the Land of Israel. On May 14, 1948, the Declaration of the Establishment of the State of Israel stated: “In the year 5657 (1897), at the summons of the spiritual father of the Jewish State, Theodore Herzl, the First Zionist Congress convened and proclaimed the right of the Jewish people to national rebirth in its own country.”[7]”
    To be sure, there are all stripes of zionists, including right wingers, just as there are all stripes of Palestinian nationlists.
    For an interesting ongoing dialogue between Israelis and Palestinians that pulls no punches and is easily digested, go to bitterlemons.org.

    Reply

  200. winnipeger says:

    what “lobby” are you referring too, pauline?
    pat buchanan?! and you think the “neocon’s” policies have been bad for this country? uggh.

    Reply

  201. PUBLIUS says:

    On expert international relations advisors and transparency in representative, liberal democracy:
    “The two great points of difference between a democracy and a republic are: first, the delegation of the government, in the latter, to a small number of citizens elected by the rest; secondly, the greater number of citizens, and greater sphere of country, over which the latter may be extended.
    The effect of the first difference is, on the one hand, to refine and enlarge the public views, by passing them through the medium of a chosen body of citizens, whose wisdom may best discern the true interest of their country, and whose patriotism and love of justice will be least likely to sacrifice it to temporary or partial considerations. Under such a regulation, it may well happen that the public voice, pronounced by the representatives of the people, will be more consonant to the public good than if pronounced by the people themselves, convened for the purpose. On the other hand, the effect may be inverted. Men of factious tempers, of local prejudices, or of sinister designs, may, by intrigue, by corruption, or by other means, first obtain the suffrages, and then betray the interests, of the people.”
    By Publius in Federalist No. 10

    Reply

  202. pauline says:

    This morning, Pat Buchanan is pointing out how screwed-up the Lobby’s biggest cheerleaders really are.
    **********************
    January 5, 2007
    Cakewalk Crowd Abandons Bush
    by Patrick J. Buchanan
    Victory has a thousand fathers, but defeat is an orphan, said a rueful John F. Kennedy after the Bay of Pigs. George W. Bush knows today whereof his predecessor spoke.
    For as he prepares to “surge” 20,000 more U.S. troops into a war even he concedes we “are not winning,” his erstwhile acolytes have begun to abandon him to salvage their own tattered reputations.
    Case in point, the neoconservatives. As the Iraq war heads into its fifth year, more than half a dozen have confessed to Vanity Fair’s David Rose their abject despair over how the Bushites mismanaged the war that they, the “Vulcans,” so brilliantly conceived.
    Surveying what appears an impending disaster for Iraq and U.S. foreign policy, the neocons have advanced a new theme. The idea of launching an unprovoked war of liberation, for which they had beaten the drums for half a decade before 9/11, remains a lovely concept. It was Bushite incompetence that fouled it up.
    “The policy can be absolutely right, and noble, beneficial, but if you can’t execute it, it’s useless, just useless,” wails Ken Adelman, who had famously predicted in The Washington Post that “liberating Iraq would be a cakewalk.”
    Bush’s team of Powell, Cheney, Rumsfeld and Rice, says Adelman, “turned out to be among the most incompetent teams in the postwar era. Not only did each of them, individually, have enormous flaws, but together they were deadly, dysfunctional.” Their incompetence, he adds, “means that most everything we ever stood for … lies in ruins.”
    Professor Eliot Cohen of Johns Hopkins, whose book on war leaders Bush used to carry about, says his mistake was in not knowing “how incredibly incompetent” the Bush team would be.
    Richard Perle is sickened by the consequences of the war he and his comrades so ardently championed. “The levels of brutality … are truly horrifying, and, I have to say, I underestimated the depravity.”
    Calling the Bush policy process a “disaster,” Perle blames Bush himself: “At the end of the day, you have to hold the president responsible. … I don’t think he realizes the extent of the opposition within his own administration, and the disloyalty.”
    This is the second fallback position of the War Party. Not only incompetence, but treachery made a nightmare of their vision.
    Uber-hawk Frank Gaffney also hits hard the theme of sabotage and disloyalty: “This president has tolerated, and the people around him have tolerated, active, ongoing, palpable insubordination and skullduggery that translates into subversion of his policies. … He doesn’t in fact seem to be a man of principle who’s steadfastly pursuing what he thinks is the right course.”
    David Frum, the cashiered White House speechwriter who co-authored the “axis-of-evil” phrase, faults the president. While he provided the words, says Frum, Bush “just did not absorb the ideas. And that is the root of maybe everything.”
    Where Frum, four years ago, accused antiwar conservatives of being “unpatriotic” haters of America and President Bush, he is now saying that that same president either lacked the I.Q. to realize what he was saying or lacked a belief and commitment to follow through.
    As Rose writes, this is “the most damning assessment of all.” Moreover, it is an indictment of Bush’s judgment that he could clasp so many such vipers to his bosom.
    Rose describes James Woolsey, the ex-CIA director who was ubiquitous on the op-ed pages and national TV making the case for war, as “aghast at what he sees as profound American errors that have ignored the lessons learned so painfully, 40 years ago” in Vietnam.
    Conspicuous by its absence from disparagements of the president by these deserters from his camp and cause is any sense that they were themselves wrong. That they, who accuse everyone else of cutting and running, are themselves cutting and running. That they are themselves but a typical cluster of think-tank incompetents.
    No neocon concedes that the very idea itself of launching an unprovoked war against a country in the heart of the Arab world — one that had not attacked us, did not threaten us and did not want war with us — might not be wildly welcomed by the “liberated.” No neocon has yet conceded that Bismarck may have been right when he warned, “Preventive war is like committing suicide out of fear of death.”
    “Huge mistakes were made,” says Perle, “and I want to be very clear on this: They were not made by neoconservatives. … I’m getting damn tired of being described as an architect of the war.”
    Almost all the neoconservatives have now departed the seats of power in the Bush administration and retreated to their sinecures at Washington think tanks, to plot the next war — on Iran.
    Meanwhile, brave young Americans, the true idealists and the casualties of the neocons’ war, come home in caskets, 20 a week, to Dover and, at Walter Reed, learn to walk again on steel legs.
    COPYRIGHT CREATORS SYNDICATE, INC.

    Reply

  203. winnipeger says:

    “In wonder, have these two fucking sons of bitches ever toured the Katrina damage?”
    have you, poa?
    further, have you ever been to israel or anywhere in the middle east for that matter? *PLEASE ANSWER THIS QUESTION* or are you too busy building cabinets and acting like a foreign policy know-it-all on this blog?

    Reply

  204. winnipeger says:

    “In Steve’s comments above, he advocates solutions to the Iraq mess that are the polar opposite of Israel’s, and Aipac’s position. Steve ties the Isr/Pal conflict into any solution, and also advocates bringing Syria and Iran into direct talks to attempt to solve this Iraq mess. Is it your contention that Steve’s position “blames the jews”, considering that his position, on these two key strategies, are opposite Israel’s position? So steve is an “anti-semite” now? Inquiring minds would like to know”
    i agree with steve’s take on the way forward in the ME, icluding the creation of a viable palestinian state, a secure israel, a syrain deal and negotiating with rather than bombing iran.
    what i disagree with is your characterization of the current imbroglio in iraq as exclusively a “zionist/neocon clusterfuck.” that’s bullshit, plain and simple.
    why don’t you regale us with more tales of dancing israelis on 9-11, poa. of course this doesn’t paint you as an anti-semite, right?

    Reply

  205. Pissed Off American says:

    Interesting too that it is McCain/Lieberman that were most recently galivanting about Israel, allegedly surveying the Kassam rocket damage, (making who knows what back room deals), and are perhaps the most vocal, besides the idiot in the White House, in advocating a troop surge.
    In wonder, have these two fucking sons of bitches ever toured the Katrina damage?

    Reply

  206. Reader says:

    Key excerpt:
    Netanyahu then said Israel “must immediately launch an intense, international, public relations front first and foremost on the U.S. The goal being to encourage President Bush to live up to specific pledges he would not allow Iran to arm itself with nuclear weapons. We must make clear to the government, the Congress and the American public that a nuclear Iran is a threat to the U.S. and the entire world, not only Israel.”
    […]
    There are signs this is already happening in Washington. Before the invasion of Iraq, the Bush-Cheney-Rumsfeld troika decided the ousting of Saddam Hussein had to become an integral part of the “war on terror.” Eventually 60 percent of Americans thought Saddam was behind 9/11, even though there was no link between the two. Today, the Bush-Cheney team faces the same spin scenario: how to weave the global war on terror and the Shiite powers that be in Iran. This one is relatively simple: Iran trains and funds Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas and Islamic Jihad in the Palestinian territories.
    Anticipating the new line, Sen. Joe Lieberman (Independent-CT) referred to “Iran and al-Qaida” on Wolf Blitzer’s Sunday program on CNN.
    […]
    “We need to turn the Iranian issue to a bipartisan one and unrelated to the Iraq failure. Hillary Clinton and other potential presidential candidates in the Democratic Party (must) publicly support immediate action by Bush again Iran.”

    Reply

  207. Reader says:

    Did someone mention Mearsheimer and AIPAC’s next step?
    Gen. Wesley Clark sees imminent danger.
    Iran and Bibi’s M.I.T. savvy:
    http://www.upi.com/InternationalIntelligence/view.php?StoryID=20070102-125318-7565r

    Reply

  208. Pissed Off American says:

    if you believe this, you’re delusional. further, i find the term “israeli-firster” to be inacurate and highly offensive.
    Posted by winnipeger
    Another fine rebuttal, winnipeger. It is truly amazing how much spew you offer with such a small amount of real substance.
    In Steve’s comments above, he advocates solutions to the Iraq mess that are the polar opposite of Israel’s, and Aipac’s position. Steve ties the Isr/Pal conflict into any solution, and also advocates bringing Syria and Iran into direct talks to attempt to solve this Iraq mess. Is it your contention that Steve’s position “blames the jews”, considering that his position, on these two key strategies, are opposite Israel’s position? So steve is an “anti-semite” now? Inquiring minds would like to know.

    Reply

  209. winnipeger says:

    … not to mention the connotation of the term “infested.”

    Reply

  210. dahreese says:

    Within the back rooms, the spineless democrats have already decided to “compromise”; meaning “more of the same”. Watch and see.
    What this staying and staying means is that the oil contracts haven’t been worked out yet to the satisfaction of the oil industry.
    You don’t have to be a blind conservative not to see it, just an ignorant one to deny it.

    Reply

  211. winnipeger says:

    “Without the Office of Special Plans(Israel provided them with false intelligence via Larry Franklin and Chalabi) and the White House Iraq Group(marketing apparatus via Judy Miller, Libby, Rove) both infested with Israeli firsters, there probably would be no Iraq war so let’s not be too naive.”
    if you believe this, you’re delusional. further, i find the term “israeli-firster” to be inacurate and highly offensive.

    Reply

  212. ManagedChaos says:

    All Jews are not Zionists and all Zionists are not Jews. Therefore, when we talk about how Neo-Con Zionist Israeli firsters like Feith, Wolfowitz, Perle, Ledeen, Abrams, Kristol, Kruathammer, Zakheim are responsible in part for the clusterfuck in Iraq, their being Jewish is incidental to the FACT that they are traitors to the American people and to the constitution of the United States.
    Without the Office of Special Plans(Israel provided them with false intelligence via Larry Franklin and Chalabi) and the White House Iraq Group(marketing apparatus via Judy Miller, Libby, Rove) both infested with Israeli firsters, there probably would be no Iraq war so let’s not be too naive.

    Reply

  213. Noziglia says:

    Steve has finally gotten partway off the rails, but is still concerned with maintaining access to power, and cannot criticize people, especially when there is a possibility one of them will be the president who has to clean up BushCo’s mess.
    Right from the beginning, there hasn’t been a single person in the public sector and media who has talked about the Iraq fiasco in rational terms, other than the book writers like Ricks who had to get their criticisms into books because the media had its hands over its ears, going “Nah, nah, nah, nah!”
    Any policy that talks purely in terms of numbers of troops is a policy that considers troops as cannon fodder (or IED fodder, if you will) only. Numbers don’t matter. Mission matters. While Shinsecki’s troop estimates should have been paid attention to, far more important was the failure by both the White House Delusionist-in-Chief and the Pentagon leadership to define the mission and the means for the Iraq occupation. In the months after the invasion began, there were thousands of troops sitting around doing nothing while the looting and chaos set the stage for today’s ongoing disaster.
    There are, at last, in a few isolated places of reason in the news media like “Countdown,” people making sensible statements. The most sensible idea is that Bush’s “surge” announcement should be described as what it is: “Stay the Course: 2007.”
    Thus, failure will be compounded by those who failed by more failure. Bush has never admitted to making any mistakes because he has never had to pay the price for any mistakes, and thus has never even had to face the concept of learning from his mistakes. The fact that this incompetant loser duped the country into letting him run it into the ground is just sad, if it weren’t also so disasterous.
    The reason the Democrats have to be so careful about their actions taken to try to rescue the country from Bush’s failures is the same one it always has. Major media takes its marching orders from Karl Rove. Not just Fox, but much of CNN, CBS, NBC, and the empty-headed gasbags on editorial pages and Sunday shout-shows will repeat RNC talking points about how the Democrats don’t “support the troops” (as if sending thousands to die for lies and ego is “supporting the troops”). Democrats know that they have to work ten times as hard as Republicans to break through the media barriers to get their message across, and that’s a simple fact.
    To test this thesis, let’s see how the major media cover the McCain-Lieberman speeches, and the protestors. Who will be described as congruent with the message voters sent out in November? Who will be allowed to state their message without an immediate rebuttal? Who will be allowed to lie?
    When will we ever get the truth from those who call themselves journalists?

    Reply

  214. Pissed Off American says:

    nah. let’s just blame it on the jews.
    Posted by winnipeger
    I don’t blame anything on the “jews”. However, I have a HUGE problem with AIPAC and Israel’s meddling in the affairs of our nation and its foreign policy. I see once again you have rebutted one of my comments with your usual destructive and divisive diversions, failing to rebut one single point I made, or opinion I advanced, about the allegiences of the neocon camp, and Israel’s current rhetoric about Iran.
    Tell me, winnipeger, what exactly is it that you contribute here?
    Neocons’ hand seen in ‘the surge’
    They push plan to boost troops in Iraq
    By Peter Spiegel
    Los Angeles Times
    ——————————————————————————–
    January 04. 2007 8:00AM
    Ever since Iraq began spiraling toward chaos, the war’s intellectual architects – the so-called neoconservatives – have found themselves under attack in Washington policy salons and, more important, within the Bush administration.
    Paul Wolfowitz, who was the Defense Department’s most senior neocon, was shipped off to the World Bank. His Pentagon colleague Douglas Feith departed for academia. John Bolton left the State Department for the United Nations.
    But other neocons have moved back into the mainstream of steering Iraq policy. A key part of the new Iraq plan that President Bush is expected to announce next week – a surge in U.S. troops coupled with a more focused counterinsurgency effort – has been one of the chief recommendations of these neocons since the fall of Saddam Hussein.
    This group – which includes William Kristol, editor of The Weekly Standard magazine, and Frederick Kagan, a military analyst at the American Enterprise Institute – was expressing concerns about the administration’s blueprint for Iraq even before the invasion almost four years ago. In these neoconservatives’ view, not enough troops were being set aside to stabilize the country. They also worried that the Pentagon had formulated a plan that concentrated too heavily on killing insurgents rather than securing law and order for Iraqi citizens.
    They have long advocated for a more classic counterinsurgency campaign: a manpower-heavy operation that would take U.S. soldiers out of their large bases dotted across the country and push them into small outposts in troubled towns and neighborhoods to interact with ordinary Iraqis.
    —ADVERTISEMENT—
    Until now, it was an argument that had fallen on deaf ears.
    “We have been pretty consistently in this direction from the outset,” said Kagan, whose December study detailing his strategy is influencing the administration’s current thinking. “I started making this argument even before the war began, because I watched in dismay as we messed up Afghanistan and then heard with dismay the rumors that we would apply some sort of Afghan model to Iraq.”
    If Bush goes ahead with the surge idea, along with a concomitant shift to a more aggressive counterinsurgency, it would in many ways represent a wholesale repudiation of the outgoing Pentagon leadership.
    These leaders – particularly former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and Army Gen. John Abizaid, the departing Middle East commander – strongly resisted more U.S. troops and a larger push into troubled neighborhoods out of fear it would prevent Iraqis from taking over the job themselves and exacerbate the image of the United States as an occupier.
    The plan the administration appears to be moving toward envisions an increase of 20,000 to 30,000 troops, the majority of whom would be sent to Baghdad. The increase would be achieved by delaying the departure of Marine units already in Iraq and speeding the deployment of Army brigades due this spring.
    The neoconservative group as a whole had been the driving force in Washington behind a move against Iraq, even before the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. They saw Saddam as a lingering threat to world security – a view bolstered within the administration after the attacks. They argued that transforming Iraq into a democracy could serve as a model with potential to remake the Middle East’s political dynamics.
    The war effort’s unraveling gradually undermined the clout they had wielded. But perhaps the more important hurdle – especially on military matters – was the White House’s refusal to see its Iraq policy as a failure.
    That changed this summer, when the spike in sectarian violence and the failure of an offensive to secure Baghdad created what one Pentagon adviser called a “psychological break” within the administration. Until then, neoconservatives argue, the administration saw little proof that Abizaid’s plan, backed by Army Gen. George Casey, the military commander in Iraq, was failing.
    The main reason for the new ascendancy of the neocon recommendations, said Kristol, is that “the Rumsfeld-Abizaid-Casey theory was tried and was found wanting. . . . Some of us challenged it very early on, but, of course, then we were just challenging it as a competing theory.”
    —— End of article
    By PETER SPIEGEL

    Reply

  215. winnipeger says:

    … or how about a british/big oil/saudi/military industrial complex/defense establishment/rovian created “clustefuck” in iraq?!
    nah. let’s just blame it on the jews.

    Reply

  216. winnipeger says:

    haha. here we go again, and again, and again…
    a “zionist/neocon clusterfuck in iraq”?
    fuck you, poa. how about a christian american/neocon created clusterfuck in iraq?!?!

    Reply

  217. Pissed Off American says:

    Some words aren’t needed, troll. Check the alliances of the key neocons that advocated the Iraq invasion, and lied the loudest about Al Qaeda connections and WMDs. Wolfowitz, Perle, Zakhiem, etc…all joined at the hip with Israel.
    And it marches on, with the repeat performance Israel is giving us with its rhetoric about Iran. Check out the AIPAC website, it is literally covered with anti-Iran war talk, and exagerations and misrepresentations of Iran’s nuclear capabilities and pursuits. (You might wanna check out thier UN resolution section there too. Interesting that they don’t list the myriad of UN resolutions that Israel is in violation of, eh?)
    And who knows what covert operations are currently engaged in by the Mossad in Iraq? Do you really expect us to believe Israel is staying on the sidelines while Iran is establishing a foothold in Iraq, and people such as Sadr are wielding so much power? Never happen.
    And look at Israel’s, and AIPAC’s, continued discouragement of any direct diplomatic talks or involvement with Syria or Iran in seeking a solution to this zionist/neocon created clusterfuck in Iraq.
    You bet Israel, and AIPAC, are culpable here to a degree. To deny it is to discard common sense.

    Reply

  218. winnipeger says:

    as if to herald better things to come, i agree with POA’s comment above! although, we will need to maintain a certain troop level in iraq to protect these (our) interests for many, many years to come.

    Reply

  219. winnipeger says:

    wow. 9 posts in and nobody has blamed aipac or israel alone for the morass in which we currently find ourselves in the ME? i’m amazed.
    of course our current predicament owes nothing to *our* small-minded, oil hungry leadership, right? not to say anything for the insecure, agrieved, failure of a son that we have for a president.
    shakespere wrote about this stuff — and the greeks before him. but, damn, truth is so much stranger than fiction.

    Reply

  220. Pissed Off American says:

    Watch the progress towards privatization of the Iraqi oil assets. When that mission becomes accomplished, our troops will begin to come home.

    Reply

  221. bAkho says:

    Bush does seem to be belatedly cleaning house. Petraeus is better at counteinsugency than the commanders he is replacing. Crocker has been around the block. Gates as former CIA probably has a better handle on intelligence overall. Negroponte move makes sense if he is going from a high profile paper shuffling position to a more active role at Foggy Bottom.
    Rice seems to be in over her head and unable to attract good talent on her own. Negroponte will shore up the brain drain at State and Khalilzad can hopefully undo some of the Bolton damage at the UN.
    I wonder if the Helms wing of the GOP will go ballistic over a Muslim UN ambassador?

    Reply

  222. Marky says:

    Ditto to Den’s comment.
    McCain is the only major Republican who would be a more out of touch warmonger than Bush as President.
    Glad he’s got the surge anvil attached to him now, though.

    Reply

  223. liz says:

    Yes Above Tony, deliver us from evil.. and please hurry is all I would like to add to that sentence.
    I am just down right appalled at a “surge” when the people have spoken. I don’t think people can speak any louder but actions often times speak louder than words.
    Why are neocons being allowed to coup America? That is exactly what has happened here. It’s more than the war. It’s the loss of health rights, the loss of privacy, the loss of borders and security.
    Do the guys in the military understand Bush is allowing an INVASION at home? Do they really think they are PROTECTING the American people?
    Will someone show em a paper with all the holiday DUI murders perpetrated by Illegal aliens, ie: people who BROKE THE LAW to get here…..
    Bush and Bill Kristol need to put a sock in it. People are sick to death of them and their bad bad horrendous ideas.
    Then on top of everything, the President decided to play scrabble with his staff. One can assume he is firing the good people in lieu of promoting the UnAmerican bad ones.

    Reply

  224. TonyForesta says:

    The fascist warmongers and profiteers in the Bush government, the fanaticus apologists and lockstep partisan defenders like Lieberman and McCain promoting the bump, or surge or escalation of US troops in the Iraq horrorshow are ignoring and dismissing the will of the American people, ISG, and our own military brass, and ghoulishly attempting heap even more openended and terrible costs in blood, treasure, loss of credibility, and humanity on our soldiers and the American people.
    This is selfishness and denial on a pathological order, and conduct wildly unbecoming.
    Obviously, the fascist warmongers and profiteers in the Bush government are working like feverish demons to find ways to extend the stay the course policies out until 2008, when they will cravenly discard the bloody, costly, noendinsight horrorshow on the next leadership.
    It is dispicable conduct; cruel, callous, careless, obdurate, and a rabidly selfcentered total lack of concern for the soldiers whose lives will be wasted, and the American people who must burden the terrible costs of the Iraq horrorshow.
    It will require courage, but democrats must refuse to fund any surge, or bump, or escalation of the horrorshow in Iraq.
    Delaying the inevitable outcome in Iraq until 2008 will certainly benefit and profit the fascist warmongers and profiteers in the Bush government exclusively and wantonly, – but any escalation, surge, or bumb in forces in Iraq will be a grotesque waste of blood and treasure for Americans, and our fine soldiers, and gain nothing positive in Iraq.
    Deliver us from evil.

    Reply

  225. Den Valdron says:

    Riiiiiiight. McCain and Lieberman aren’t really in favour of a troop surge, they just ‘feel they have to support’ one.
    Notwithstanding that McCain has been talking about a Surge since before the last election cycle, and Lieberman’s the biggest most delusional uberhawk.
    Can we stop running cover for those guys.

    Reply

  226. ahem says:

    There’s a real problem when you have senators such as Carl Levin saying that a short-term increase with a defined mission might be acceptable. That sounds reasonable, but once you concede the point, the warm bodies end up in Iraq and ‘circumstances’ kick in to prolong the mission. In short, once they go, they ain’t coming back on Congress’s timetable.
    Alfred Brooks’ law of project management applies here: adding manpower to a delayed project makes it later.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brooks'_law

    Reply

  227. Nell says:

    Steve, it’s great you’re promoting the demo, but please — “without the big deal and the other important parts of the ISG report”? The ISG recommendations aren’t any more the answer than escalation.

    Reply

  228. Carroll says:

    I also notice the dems are hedging on their pre campaign promises about Iraq…with the exception of Murtha and a few others. And the dem’s front men mouthpieces are trying very hard to downplay the dem’s power of the purse as a means to stop Bush..which sounds like an advance excuse for dems going along with the surge while decrying it it as Bush’s second failure all the way to 2008.

    Reply

  229. Carroll says:

    So..what happens after the surge?
    The Keane-Kagan surge plan that I read should be called the the Do-Over plan.
    Second invasion, same plan.

    Reply

Add your comment

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