The BBC and Andrew Sullivan Expose John Bolton’s Troubling Views on America’s Iraq Escapade

-

JohnBolton_01.jpg
Andrew Sullivan has highlighted a fascinating, yet troubling, YouTube capture of a BBC interview with John Bolton on the recess-appointed Ambassador’s views of the Iraq War and its aftermath.
As Sullivan writes:

The BBC’s interviewers are not as deferent as some in America. Paxman is among the most aggressive.
What staggers me about this clip is Bolton’s point-blank view that the US had no responsibility to impose order after the invasion, and no responsibility for security within the country. Bolton actually says that the only error Bush really made was not giving the Iraqis “a copy of the Federalist papers and saying, ‘Good luck.'” Yes, he says he’s exaggerating for effect, but he is conveying the gist of the policy.
The casual recklessness and arrogance of these people never cease to amaze. The world is theirs’ to play with — and the victims of a vortex of predictable and predicted violence are just left to help themselves.

I see no need to add to Andrew Sullivan’s cogent take on Bolton’s hyper-strain of hit-and-run pugnacious nationalism.
— Steve Clemons

Comments

79 comments on “The BBC and Andrew Sullivan Expose John Bolton’s Troubling Views on America’s Iraq Escapade

  1. jojo says:

    Is Bolton an Isrealie or an American ?
    What is it with our all zionist government representitives ?
    How could this zealot be assigned to the UN and represent USA ?
    Is this America or Israel II ?

    Reply

  2. parrot says:

    Forgive me for having to point this out but wouldn’t what Bolton is suggesting be a war crime under treaties that the U.S has signed and ratified? That is, what he is proposing would have been the best course was to ignore the United States international legal obligations…oh, wait…he was there.

    Reply

  3. Pissed Off American says:

    “The same kind of lazy journalism……..”
    It is a mistake to consider the mass media’s criminal complicity as “laziness” or some sort of journalistic incompetence. There is an undeniable effort on to suppress the truth, and mainstream media is purposelly aiding and abetting that effort. There is no denying that the Bush Administration has activelly sought to propagandize the news. Gannon/Guckert. The Armstrong fiasco. The list goes on and on. Do not confuse willfull complicity with incompetence. Fox News is as transparently propagandized as TASS was. The Washington Post equally so. And one need only look at the sheer volume of radio stations that Clear Channel owns to see the handwriting on the wall as far as talk radio goes. Consider Rather’s fate for seeking to expose the truth about Bush’s criminal desertion from his TANG duties. Or the media’s complicity in continuing to sell the “official story” about what actually occurred on 9/11. No, it is not “journalistic laziness”. It is the actual willfull subversion of the truth. If anyone doubts what deep shit we are in, they need only ponder the reasoning that would prompt a government to go to such great lengths to control the media. What is it they don’t want us to know?

    Reply

  4. Kathleen says:

    I wish people would read El Baradei’s words on Iran and their nuclear plans. Iran is nowhere near having nuclear weapons. That threat is as spurious as the alleged WMD’s in Iraq.
    The same kind of lazy journalism and lack of diligent leadership that got us to use force in Iraq is at work for more war on false premises.
    And if the alleged nuclear threat from Iran doesn’t hold water, we’ll stay in Iraq until Busholini can foment war with Iran on the grounds that they are fighting in Iraq.
    The only way to stop this wall to wall war is to impoeach Dopey and Darth, pronto. Otherwise pols who follow will do the same thing. Not that impeachment is any guarantee that idiot war mongers won’t indeed follow, but it will be a deterrant and set the record straight that we, the people, do not approve.

    Reply

  5. Pissed Off American says:

    POA writes: “No. MP, thats not at all what you said.”
    Okay, then do me the favor I did you…direct me to my words, thread, and date.
    Posted by MP
    No. It is a waste of my time to cater to what you KNOW are blatant dishonesties on your part. I am openly calling you a LIAR. You know my accusation is true. If you want to disprove it, or think you can, go for it. But I have wasted enough time with your deceptions, straw arguments, and out and out bullshit.
    And you didn’t do me a “favor”. Lying to me isn’t a “favor”.

    Reply

  6. Pissed Off American says:

    « Darfur to Get U.N. Support — We Hope | Washington Note | US-Cuba Day Today »
    Comments: The BBC and Andrew Sullivan Expose John Bolton’s Troubling Views on America’s Iraq Escapade
    As someone who worked on the inside of missile defense, I constantly wonder why the press and policy elites didn’t take PNAC at their word ten years ago.
    The answer is simple, if Bolton treats the world as a game, so does the DC cocktail circuit. It’s just that Bolton does it without grace.
    Posted by Pacific John at April 16, 2007 11:42 AM
    It really takes your breath away. What more can one say?
    Posted by MP at April 16, 2007 11:52 AM
    Amazing–he would rather live in a failed state than under a dictatorship. If that’s the case, he’s out of synch with the administration, which desperately needs stability to get Iraq to increase its oil production.
    He also said that there were too many post-invasion plans for Iraq. Sounds like too many cooks, including all the private contractors focused on looting, spoiled the broth.
    Posted by JohnH at April 16, 2007 12:16 PM
    Well, suppose that we had actually done what Bolton suggests, viz. decapitate the Ba’athist regime and then immediately withdraw. (I do not think he is being facetious about this, by the way; I predicted it in early 2003, James Fallows agreed with me at that time, and I still do not quite understand why it did not play out that way.)
    But what if it had? Where would Bush and the Republican Party be today? I don’t have an answer; I’d like to hear anyone’s.
    Posted by Frank Wilhoit at April 16, 2007 12:18 PM
    Frank Wilhoit: But what if it had?
    Sunnis and Shiites have been at each others’ necks for 1400 years.
    Within the last few decades, Shiite fundamentalists (Al-Dawa, Sadrists, SCIRI) have become extremely organized and active in order to transform Iraq into a Shiite fundamentalist republic.
    By deposing SH, the Bush admin basically provided **the** opportunity by which the Shiites could transform Iraq into a Shiite fundamentalist republic.
    So, if the US would have pulled out, it is quite probable that the very same pro-extremist-Iranian, pro-Hizbollah, anti-Israeli, anti-US Shiite fundamentalists would have seized the reins of power.
    The Bush admin’s **inadvertent** gift is one that will never stop giving.
    The US has been brought into a very very old fight, so people are palpably ignornat to think that after 1400 years the Sunnis and the Shiites are `ready to make nice’.
    Assholes like Bolton deserve to be renditioned to Iraq where we can see Darwin in action.
    [Keywords: John Bolton, George W. Bush, Al Maliki, Bayan Jabr, Moqtada Sadr, Al-Hakim, Al Dawa, Supreme Council of the Islamic Revolution in Iraq, Islamic fundamentalism]
    Posted by Homer at April 16, 2007 12:39 PM
    There are many more Bolton fellow travelers, they just aren’t quite so blunt.
    Posted by Carroll at April 16, 2007 12:39 PM
    It also appears that Bolton’s fellow traveler Wolfowitz isn’t going to go quietly from the WB.
    And if he doesn’t the WB is going down the tubes. Countries, especially the Europeans are dragging their feet on giving any money to the WB as long as the Wolf is there.
    http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/16/washington/16bank.html?ex=1334376000&en=7f0aca7627d0eaaf&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss
    Posted by Carroll at April 16, 2007 12:44 PM
    This is a case where abstract reasoning can lead one astray.
    In the abstract, a country posing a security threat to the United States could indeed be dealt with through military action to remove the threat, and thereafter be left to itself. Had the American army withdrawn from Iraq in, say, June of 2003, what would likely have happened is that Saddam Hussein and the Baathists would have immediately attempted to reassert their authority, directing their attention first to crushing a Shiite rebellion in the south and dealing with the Kurds in the north, or not, depending on how much effort decimating the Shiite south required. However, the threat Saddam’s regime represented to the United States would have been removed, and our purposes served.
    That’s only in the abstract, as we know now and should have suspected then. The WMD threat to America and other countries in Iraq did not actually exist, meaning that overthrowing Saddam’s government, withdrawing, and then watching as the Baathist regime reconstituted itself would not only have been literally pointless from the standpoint of American interests but would also have made us look ridiculous. In the abstract, Bolton’s position is arguable; in reality it is absurd.
    Having said that, it is only fair to point out that not disbanding the Iraqi army shortly after the invasion, not dismissing Baathists regardless of their record from government jobs, and in general not permitting the dissolution of much of the Iraqi state and the overhaul of the rest could have created a situation that would have allowed coalition forces to leave Iraq in the first part of 2004, in other words after Saddam’s sons had been killed and he captured. The result would very likely have been a regime authoritarian in nature and struggling with serious internal discord, but it would not have been Saddam’s regime and we would not be its chief support. We would still have been in the position of initiating a war to remove a nonexistent threat, and the whole “democracy in the Middle East” theme the Bush administration became so fond of could not have been used. But the widely despised Saddam would have been gone, and those Iraqis who still insisted on shooting each other would be shooting only at each other, not at coalition soldiers.
    Maybe this is what Bolton had in mind. Here again, though, reality intrudes. For this course to have been followed it would have had to be planned for, not improvised on the spur of the moment. It wasn’t, and neither was anything else, and so here we are.
    Posted by Zathras at April 16, 2007 12:59 PM
    I know what they would have done with Bolton at the Nuremburg trials. Some people really need a refresher course, don’t you think?
    Posted by Marky at April 16, 2007 01:39 PM
    Unlike my hero Ron Paul, I believe that the USA should be the world’s policeman. I sure don’t believe the United Nations should be. I would dissolve the UN.
    I like Bolton’s approach. He does not even claim that USA can or should fix everything in the world. But what we CAN do is make sure Iraq, Iran and North Korea don’t have nuclear weapons or are a future military threat to us. We don’t have a magic wand to make those places democracies, sure would be nice if we did.
    What the USA can do is kill any foreign leader who threatens us and we can dismantle their WMD capacity and delivery ability. We should focus on that. If it leaves a destabilized country in its wake … so what. I consider it extremely destablilzing for Iraq, Iran or North Korea to have WMD.
    And we are yapping here on these pages about the Sudan. The Sudan? The Sudan? They can’t kill us. But the North Koreans or the Iranians might some day.
    The USA’s role SHOULD be that of world policeman, but not within a UN structure, but with a coalition of the willing in each case. Because nobody ELECTED the United Nations’ madhouse. John Bolton’s logic makes perfect sense to me.
    Posted by Robert Morrow at April 16, 2007 01:56 PM
    Robert Morrow:
    Some time when you get a chance, ask a policeman–any policeman, chosen at random–what he would need in order to be able to do his job. Don’t be satisfied with a sound-bite answer; probe a little.
    Then again, perhaps I am being presumptuous. You may have your own perfectly valid reasons for avoiding policemen. As an alternative, you might ask someone in the New York City department of pest control what he would need to get rid of all the rats.
    Posted by Frank Wilhoit at April 16, 2007 02:06 PM
    I assume that if we actually had just “decapitated” the Iraqi regime – that is, killed or captured Saddam, his sons, and his top advisors and lieutenants, while leaving everything else alone – then the regime might well have quickly grown a new head, and Iraq would be ruled today by another Baathist regime very similar to the previous one.
    Of course, how one would accomplish this decapitation is a challenging question. It sounds like palace coup. My understanding is that several attempts had been made during the 90’s to assassinate Saddam and his sons, or get certain leading Baathists to depose him, and these attempts came to nought.
    There probably wouldn’t be much of a point in doing this anyway – from a substantive point of view. One could have accomplished much the same end by working out some sort of Qaddafi-like deal with Saddam, and bringing him in from the diplomatic cold. Maybe the only point of the decapitation route would have been to save US face. Having spent 12 years making no secret of the desire to get Saddam, and kill or depose him, US leaders would have faced a major humiliation if they had just kissed and made up in the end, without getting their man.
    On the other hand, perhaps the US could have gotten its bases in Iraq by making some sort of strategic deal with the new Baathist regime.
    The major problem would have been political. You had a bunch of wingnuts who were convinced that the Iraqi regime had a big, dangerous WMD program, that it was sponsoring and supporting al-Qaeda, and that it had a hand in 9/11 and also the earlier Trade Center attack. They wouldn’t have been satisfied with a minor change of regime, and would still be barking about the need to go into Iraq to get those WMDs and destroy the nefarious al-Qaeda training camps. They would probably be telling us that’s where Bin Laden in hiding too.
    And you had a bunch of liberal interventionists worked up about Saddamian toture chambers, and geared up to mount a transformative crusade to stamp out illiberal evildoers and carry the torch of American liberty to all corners of the globe. They wouldn’t have been satisfied with a new gang of Baathist toughs. Michael Ignatieff and Christopher Hitchins would still be out there in their full crusading glory.
    And you had a bunch of angry, grieving, ignorant, bigoted US masses of all kinds who just wanted to kill a bunch of Arabs – somewhere, anywhere. They also wouldn’t have been satisfied with the meagre tally in blood and destruction wrought by a clean decapitation operation.
    Posted by Dan Kervick at April 16, 2007 02:23 PM
    OMG. Did I hear him blame the mistake of WMD on the Brits? Do a google search on “forged niger” see what you come up with. I am amazed.
    Posted by steambomb at April 16, 2007 02:36 PM
    | Posted by Frank Wilhoit at April 16, 2007 12:18 PM — “But what if it had? Where would Bush and the Republican Party be today? I don’t have an answer; I’d like to hear anyone’s.” |
    I’m not sure where this president would be but “we’d” be mostly if not entirely out of Iraq.
    In the context of purely impure realpolitik, Bolton is absolutely right.
    No matter how deceitfully, treacherously, stuporously and perhaps illegally misled into an unnecessary war — had “we” the collective will to end this bloody charade with the ouster of Saddam Hussein, including the dismantling of all forward bases, thousands of U.S. lives would’ve been spared (and still might be) with billions of dollars better spent.
    We could still curtail this war *before* the current administration expires if Democrats and conscientious Republicans were willing to invest a little political capital for the greater, national good:
    Cost: Gloves on. Providing a cowardly dauphin with the face-saving (political) cover he craves to reverse position. What cover? “We’ve already won. Victory was achieved when Saddam Hussein was deposed. It’s up to Iraqis to forge a new Iraq. There is no immediate danger nor imminent threat from Iraq to the United States. The president declared “mission accomplished” in May 2003. It’s time to bring our troops home.”
    Good: Short memories. Whatever Congress “says” (gloves on) to compel executive reversal will be long forgotten by a grateful electorate. In other words, with all troops home, all gloves off.
    Posted by pantagruel at April 16, 2007 03:09 PM
    Robert Morrow: But the North Koreans or the Iranians might some day.
    Judging by the past few decades of intense co-operation, Al-Dawa and the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq are one in the same with Iran, Hizbollah, Hamas, et al.
    Why should we not be wary of the govt in Iraq which Bush **inadvertently** installed at the cost of several oceans of blood and treasure?
    Posted by Homer at April 16, 2007 03:18 PM
    All of the Bush governments hobgoblins (Bolton, Bush, Cheney, Gonzales, Freeh, Negroponte, Rice, et al.) fascist delusions, substantless prognositactions, partisan soothsaying, and hollow shapeshifting meaningless promises are irrelevent and moot.
    The critical point is that the fascist warmongers, profiteers, and pathological liars in Bush government intended to prosecute a war, regime change, an occupation or colonization, and a ruthless marauding of Iraq’s oil resources from the first day in office, long before 9/11. These fascists have succeeded in this endeavor, and are profiting exceedingly and wantonly from the perfidious machinations and operations.
    Bolton is exhibiting his true colors, and like Pearl, Wolfowitz, Cheney, and Bush this weekend these warmongers, profiteers, and pathological liars are all ruthlessly and shamelessly pimping the same festering pile of deceptions, exaggerations, distortions, and patent lies used prior to the war, to glean some last shred of support for continuing the war, colonization, marauding of Iraqs oil resources, and wanton profiteering.
    None of these fascists have any credibility, nor do any of them deserve one nanopartical of the peoples goodwill, goodfaith, or trust.
    Impeachment is the only just remedy to right the terrible bloody, costly, noendinsight, horrors, and wrongs of the fascist warmongers, profiteers, and pathological liars in the Bush government.
    “Deliver us from evil!”
    Posted by TonyForesta at April 16, 2007 05:48 PM
    When the point is made that the mistake was in not ‘giving the Iraqis “a copy of the Federalist papers and saying, ‘Good luck.'” ‘, the point is missed that this is exactly what those who were in charge of the occupation did!
    Bolton says there were plans for post-war Iraq. What he doesn’t say is that they were ignored. Instead, we depended on the Randian fantasies of Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld, and others that democracy and a perfect libertarian state would blossom all by itself. They didn’t NEED to know what they were doing!
    My own fantasy, which has as much chance of occuring as theirs, is that all of these morons will be shut away in abu Graib or Guantanamo, and we never have to see them again. At least get them off the airwaves, and out of the news and the Net! They had their chance, why should we waste more of our lives listening to their lies??!!
    At the least, my own plan is to simply not read anything they try to publish, now or for the rest of their lives. Though historians will have to wallow in their swill for professional purposes, I see no reason for the rest of us to support their crimes by buying, or even reading from the library, any of their books. Beginning with the war criminal George Tenet and his book trying to make the case that the war was everyone else’s fault but his own.
    Enough Bullshit!!
    I know they live in a coccoon, and it won’t make a difference to their delusions, but it will certainly make a difference to me when I can simply ignore anything and everything these psychopaths have to say.
    Final point: No, we can’t declare victory and go home. It’s too late for that. We have to face the fact that these clowns have lost. They failed to achieve anything in Iraq. They failed to get those responsible for 9/11 in Afghanistan. They have made us more vulnerable, weaker, and poorer. There is no prospect of this thing called “victory,” which is why it is so criminal that they are killing so many of our military men and women to feed their fantasies.
    Declare failure. Support the troops. Get them home. Then just start the multi-generational job of fixing the problems the Bush Putsch has created.
    Posted by David N at April 16, 2007 06:20 PM
    there is a great hesitation to say it outright, but this is the same world view of the Nazis as they attacked, destroyed and slaughtered “inferior” cultures.
    Posted by della Rovere at April 16, 2007 08:43 PM
    The parallels between the Nazis and the Bushies are many and frightening, and placed off limits by the captive media shills that put him in office and still protect him from proper scruteny.
    Posted by David N at April 16, 2007 09:48 PM
    You cannot debate any aspect about Iraq, past, present, or future, without starting with the naked truth. And the naked truth is that we were lied into this debacle. I watched Hayden on CNN last night, and the lying mother fucker is still claiming that it was intelligence failures that were to blame for the WMD premise proving to be so dead “wrong”. Listening to him was like listening to an adolescent child stumbling through an explanation of being caught lying.
    And these bastards did have a plan, and it is the same plan they are still pursuing, apparently with a possible success in sight. That plan was to privatize the Iraqi oil assets. Bremer fucked it up, and Sistani stepped in and said “no way”. Now that the privatization plan is back on track, Bush needs to buy some time to get the scam successfully implemented. As soon as corporate oil can move in, with their installations insulated from the civil mayhem by an army of Blackwater mercenaries, our troops will be brought home, (with the exception of a network of permanent bases of quick response special forces whose role will be reinforcing Blackwater’s role of protecting the oil facilities).
    The fact that Bolton is unfazed by the deaths of what is approaching three quarters of a million Iraqi non-combatants should suprise no one. An occassional poster here, Den Valdron, once commented that these bastards in the Bush Administration are in fact “monsters”. Truer words have never been spoken. I will forever be ashamed of my country for its actions of the last six years. Our redemption can only be realized by holding these monsters accountable. I have little faith that we will do so.
    Posted by Pissed Off American at April 16, 2007 10:50 PM
    As an aside, it is obvious that the Virginia tragedy will undoubtedly be the news issue of the month. So…..
    ….be aware that the Justice Department, as of 2:00 PM today, is in non-compliance of the subpoena that was issued by John Conyers, seeking further documents about the attorney firings. These bastards in this Administration have complete contempt for the law.
    Also, Rice has ignored Waxman’s demands for her testimony about the Niger documents. She may face a subpoena as well, unless Waxman backs down. Whats the point in issuing subpoenas if the targets of those subpoens simply ignore them? What the hell are we going to do, send marshalls over to the State Department? To the Justice Department? Never happen. These people are holding themselves above the law.
    You can stop saying “it can’t happen here”. It can. And it is.
    Posted by Pissed Off American at April 16, 2007 11:27 PM
    It appears that Giuliani is being “advised”, on foreign policy presumably, by neocon Bolton according to the NY Observer:
    “Mr. Giuliani has criticized some aspects of the American performance in Iraq, but has basically supported the President’s plan without addressing its specific shortcomings. Asked about his day-to-day Iraq advisor, his campaign would only say that he speaks with many individuals, including retired Gen. Jack Keane and former U.N. Ambassador John Bolton.”
    http://tinyurl.com/2g7era
    Posted by Dirk at April 17, 2007 04:01 AM
    we are the people living in a failed state right now. Most everyone working within the government is lying. The congress has approved rules and law ONLY for the working class people who are loosing all their jobs. Before long only corporate America will be able to pay their taxes and the little people will all be in concentration camps. And if you guys choose to say, that will never happen here… well, see ya there!Only the elected are elite
    Posted by liz at April 17, 2007 05:50 AM
    I also think that America, that great dream of freedom and prosperity, is in a state of extreme dysfunction. We have a government and a system of overriding rigidity government that does not reflect at all the changed desires and viewpoint of the electorate despite a congressional election in which the dominant party was ousted from both houses of Congress, unresponsive to the urgent desires of the population.
    Our press is in many ways worse than the official press of a dictatorship…we get somewhat better news coverage and somewhat broader variation, but the cost is that our semi-official news media gives the government more credibility than a fully controlled media would. Our courts are owned by adherents of our political oppressors.
    The great American experiment has really foundered on corporate-financed right-wing think-tanks, political organs, corporate media. The amount of money funnelled into the authoritarian right is staggering. I do not think we will ever have this country back again; to the extent we ever do have control we should spend some time thinking about how we must start over. With new institutions that can somehow be immunized from the right wing corporate money that dictate the policies of death and destruction and poverty and disease that are the policies of the minority (but dominant) Party in America today.
    Posted by della Rovere at April 17, 2007 08:43 AM
    Russia in Lenin Stalin’s time and Hitler’s Germany had the same types of Ashkenazies as Bolten . Sad part is America and England are controlled by the same zionist. Millions have died. Who said that the Zealot tribes had vanished—Balony– ! None of the so called 19 terrorists of 911 were Arabs but I bet–Bolten is one of them pukes.
    Posted by jojo at April 17, 2007 09:34 AM
    I hope Steve won’t mind my saying that the number of nutbars on this board seems to be trending upward rather steeply.
    Posted by Zathras at April 17, 2007 10:12 AM
    Since I don’t have anything else to do, I thought I’d take a small bow. . .
    Check out the Toles cartoon in today’s Post. It says what I posted last night, that even were we to recapture our government and media as viable institutions, the criminals whose “mistakes” have been actively destroying our country would move on to comfort and wealth, while those who simple do their jobs are ignored and denegrated.
    Again, none of the Bush moves are new or original. They don’t have the imagination for that. Everything has been done before, just not to the astounding extent we’ve seen these last six years.
    On blaming the “intelligence,” that’s an old playbook. Demand the bureaucracy do something, while complaining that the bureaucrats are obstructionist. Then, when the bureaucracy does what it’s told, and the crime becomes public, blame the bureaucracy for your own crimes.
    In the eighties, Reagan appointees in USIA started vetting the names of American professors going overseas as lecturers on policy, economics, history, etc. So the speakers bureau started keeping a list of those who had been rejected by the political appointees in Director Wick’s office, so that they wouldn’t send the same names upstairs.
    When it came out, surprise, Wick and his deputy blamed the “Blacklist” on “mindless gnomes” in the career bureaucracy, when the fault was not the list, but the vetting practice itself.
    The same thinking — and often the same people — have brought us to this pass we find ourselves in today, because the media doesn’t think, the people don’t pay attention, and the “conventional wisdom” rules in ignorance.
    della Rovere has it right, only I hope that — even if it takes a revolution — we can regain our country.
    Posted by David N at April 17, 2007 10:25 AM
    a. Bolton shouldn’t appear to be joking about such things.
    b. U.S. doesn’t have the capacity to be the world’s policeman.
    c. Disregarding the consequences of our international actions is unethical.
    Posted by Shalot at April 17, 2007 10:59 AM
    Zathras……..
    The true “nutballs” are the ones that discuss politics as if this nation still has a representative government. There was a time when the Justice Department, ignoring a subpoena from Congress, would have made front page news. That time was not so long ago. The utter contempt that these sons of bitches have for the law, and for the citizenry of the United States, is unprecedented. Their governance makes even the most incredible “conspiracy theory” seem within the bounds of credibility.
    I have seen your intelligent postings, that lack common sense and logic, and have enjoyed more than one chuckle at the expense of your inexplicable denial. Yes, there are nutballs here. Most of them think this nation will right itself by adhering to the same course of political corruption and malfeasance that has delivered us where we now find ourselves.
    Sometimes, Zathras, brains just get in the way, and you gotta trust what your eyes and ears are telling you. For the most part, you seem to be such a model of denial. Do yourself a favor, and open your eyes, and shut the intellectual bullshit off.
    Just my opinion. No offense intended.
    Posted by Pissed Off American at April 17, 2007 11:38 AM
    Someone call the White Supremicist camp in Idaho and tell them that “jojo” escaped.
    Posted by Matthew at April 17, 2007 12:48 PM
    BBC, SchmeeBC, everyone knows they lost their balls when greg dike was fired. since then they’ve been a bush/blair apologist
    Posted by benjoya at April 17, 2007 02:39 PM
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    I know what they would have done with Bolton at the Nuremburg trials. Some people really need a refresher course, don’t you think?
    Posted by: Marky at April 16, 2007 01:39 PM
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    Here’s at least a partial refresher:
    http://balkin.blogspot.com/2006/10/when-lawyers-are-war-criminals.html
    Posted by sdemetri at April 17, 2007 02:45 PM
    there is a great hesitation to say it outright, but this is the same world view of the Nazis as they attacked, destroyed and slaughtered “inferior” cultures.
    Posted by della Rovere at April 16, 2007 08:43 PM
    >>>>>>>>>>>>
    Well, it’s true, so let’s say it.
    The “mentality” of superiority is the same in many ways.
    As for those who think the US should be the world’s policeman..HAH!….the US can’t police the world by itself. The world has moved beyond total control by any one country. Add to that if we had been a good cop instead of a cop on the take we might not be where we are now.
    Posted by Carroll at April 17, 2007 03:05 PM
    POA, I believe Zathras’s comment was prompted by JoJo’s post:
    “Russia in Lenin Stalin’s time and Hitler’s Germany had the same types of Ashkenazies as Bolten . Sad part is America and England are controlled by the same zionist. Millions have died. Who said that the Zealot tribes had vanished—Balony– ! None of the so called 19 terrorists of 911 were Arabs but I bet–Bolten is one of them pukes.”
    Larry Johnson makes the apt point that the VT shooting is just a smidgen of what Iraqis have experienced every day for the past several years. The comparison was just another way of bringing it all home for Americans insulated from the bad news.
    Posted by MP at April 17, 2007 03:07 PM
    Might be interested in this:
    America’s plan for Baghdad
    http://news.independent.co.uk/world/fisk/article2439530.ece
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    I don’t see how this will work either…unless we “occupy” Iraq forever and ever..with a lot more troops than we have.
    Not even the Green zone is secure any longer so how are they going to “set up” secure “gated civilian communities”?
    Every step we take gets us in deeper and deeper with no good results.
    The reality is we screwed up Iraq and can’t fix it…and the reality is we have lost whatever we had in the ME altogether…our influence and power there is going, going, going every day.
    Posted by Carroll at April 17, 2007 04:49 PM
    POA said: I watched Hayden on CNN last night…
    yeah, i saw him on CSPAN’s Q&A and he was AWFUL.
    even the always unflappable Brian Lamb seemed taken aback by some of the “used car salesman” like things Hayden was saying.
    Posted by HyperIon at April 17, 2007 05:59 PM
    Shalot said:
    c. Disregarding the consequences of our international actions is unethical.
    and i add..it’s also just plain stupid.
    Posted by HyperIon at April 17, 2007 06:02 PM
    Neo-Nutzis, plain and simple.
    It’s time to apply Darth Cheney’s One Percent Doctrine to Bush, et al.
    John Bolton’s arrogance to think we have any moral right to police anyone is stupefying.
    Robert Morrow, you are wrong about the UN. At the end of WW2, the entire world placed it’s hopes for permanent worldwide peace in the fledgling world body. That is where this hope has the best chance of realization.
    Thank heaven, John Bolton was never confirmed and resigned. Thank you, Steve, for leading the fight against him.
    Posted by Kathleen at April 17, 2007 06:09 PM
    This guy is dangerous and should be kept as far away as possible from policy making. If Bolton has his way the US will be fighting concurrent wars with Iraq, Iran, Syria & North Korea.
    No wonder he couldn’t muster any support from Congress for confirmation, but he still gives interviews as if he decides policy
    Posted by Ajaz Haque at April 17, 2007 07:03 PM
    Kathleen, in terms of your response to Robert Morrow, this is a point that cannot be made too often. The UN is an international organization whose existence was paid for by millions in WWII and this institution imperfect as it is is and has been the best hope for lasting world peace. Look at how much better it performed on Iraq than the US government; if Robert Morrow really cared about such an issue as avoiding unnecessary and destructive war, then he would bedemanding wholesale changes in the US government…its dismantling?…and not the UN which got Iraq right and was infinitely wiser and smarter and more moral than the dismal moral degenerates posing as American politicians. I have heard some of the things Ron Paul has said; while they are a lot better than the bellicose bleatings of Cheney and Bush this is not such a high bar to get over.
    Posted by della Rovere at April 17, 2007 10:25 PM
    Actually, MP, my bet is that Zathras can explain himself without your assistance. If he chooses to do so, that is. But he applies the term “nutballs” in the plural, and honestly, I really don’t see that many “nutballs” here. Morrow definitely qualifies. And the schizoid poster that likes to foist his hypocricy on us with multiple screen names also definitely fits the bill. But he seems to have slithered off to browner pastures. To be honest, it seems to me that a number of regular posters are finally awakening to what deep shit this country is in, and how extremely dangerous the likes of Bush, Cheney, Bolton, etal, are to world stability in general, and especially to the security of the United States. It seems that the closer some of us get to accepting reality, the more apt we are to be called “nutballs”. Zathras has shown a propensity for minimizing the depth of corruption and dishonesty that is currently the status quo in DC. He seems to think the criminals are going to miraculously begin to police themselves by employing the very laws and protocols that they are now ignoring. It simply isn’t going to happen. Both sides of the aisle are corrupt beyond redemption, and have long since ceased to represent the citizenry of the United States. And in Steve’s world, or that of the likes of Zathras, such a reality based observation of our current situation immediately qualifies you as a “nutball”.
    We serve the interests of the elite in two ways. We pay taxes, and we spill our blood for their megalomaniacal global aspirations of power and wealth. And this so called “representative government”, under this Administration, has finally been shown, irrefutably, to be the tragic charade that we were warned it could become if we allowed the military industrial complex to achieve the power it now possesses. We truly have a government that taxes us without representing us.
    We’re toast.
    Just call me a “nutball”.
    Posted by Pissed Off American at April 17, 2007 10:30 PM
    “yeah, i saw him on CSPAN’s Q&A and he was AWFUL.”
    Thats what I meant, C-Span’s Q&A. Unbelievable, eh? Elmer Fudd as the head spook. Gads, that guy is what nightmares are made out of.
    Posted by Pissed Off American at April 17, 2007 10:34 PM
    ~~~~I hope Steve won’t mind my saying that the number of nutbars on this board seems to be trending upward rather steeply.
    Posted by Zathras at April 17, 2007 10:12 AM ~~~~
    Hey Nutbars founded this country and gave you the right to criticize them. They cant be all that bad.
    Posted by steambomb at April 18, 2007 12:47 AM
    Yo Mr. Clemens! I am suprised that you are not covering the US Attorneys scandal much. Seems like you would be the type to get some inside buzz on this issue. What gives?
    Posted by steambomb at April 18, 2007 12:52 AM
    i too am intereesting in the us attorneys scandal…
    Posted by … at April 18, 2007 03:19 AM
    interested…. better go to bed before i say something really stupid.
    Posted by … at April 18, 2007 03:21 AM
    2007 Anthony Rooney
    Lt’s brace ourselves for the ABC Foreign Correspondent interview with Ehud Olmert by predicting what will NOT be asked of the Israeli PM.
    You will not ask him about the Nuclear weapons of mass destruction that he has stockpiled and why they should be exempt from international inspection.
    You will not ask him why he has refused to work with Iran who have offered to halt their nuclear program if he also decommissions Israel’s WMD in a nuclear free middle east.
    You will not ask him why Israel consistently refuses to comply with international law and is in persistent violation of UN resolutions.
    You will not ask him about why he does not recognise the sovereign state of Palestine or recognise it’s “right to exist”. By deed and action Israel has “wiped it off the map” and members of the Knesset frequently call for the destruction of Iran. He will not be questioned on these points.
    You will not ask him about the advanced plans for war in Lebanon as reported so extensively by the LA times and others.
    You will not ask him why he fired so many cluster bombs into Lebanon in the last 72 hours in the recent war and what he was doing to clean them up.
    You WILL provide him a platform to further attack Iran and be party to promoting the proposed war expansion into that country with all the consequences for innocent Iranians.
    Let’s see how many of these points hold true and how transparent your propaganda has become.
    Note: This message was also sent to the ABC in advance of the broadcast
    Posted by Anthony Rooney at April 18, 2007 03:35 AM
    http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/dems-divided-over-webbs-proposal-requiring-approval-for-attacking-iran-2007-04-17.html
    Huumm….truth or consequences for the Dem neos is about to commence. Webb D-Va isn’t going to let AIPAC’s sleeping dogs lie on the removal of the Iran attack clause in the Iraq bill. Appears he has thrown down the gauntlet to the dem Israeli hawks on the issue.
    Posted by Carroll at April 18, 2007 04:13 AM
    Thank you Carroll, despite the extra long URL, for that article. This will be my litmus test for voting for any presidential candidate.
    I hope Nancy Pelosi puts a similar bill on the House calendar soon.
    Posted by Dirk at April 18, 2007 04:45 AM
    Occasionally, Bolton is incorrectly identified as a neocon. However, no neocon would advocate invading Iraq, toppling Saddam- then leaving. Perhaps Bolton is more of a paleocon.
    Posted by mainstreetliberal at April 18, 2007 07:20 AM
    if Tehran “gets” the bomb?, What is going on in Iraq? what … and much more from an insider in Tehran reporting live.
    livefromtehran.blogspot.com
    Posted by Insider at April 18, 2007 07:37 AM
    He reminds me of the person who causes the fight in the bar then sneaks out the back door. Than if someone is out there waiting for him he p**ses his pants.
    I’m holding my thumb and forefinger with his image in between. SQUISH!!
    Posted by MidwestLiberal at April 18, 2007 09:01 AM
    Capuano and Kucinich Come Clean About the Lobby
    Why is the Peace Movement Silent About AIPAC?
    By JOHN WALSH
    “AIPAC!” was the forceful one-word answer of Congressman Michael Capuano when we asked him, “Why was the Iran clause forbidding war on Iran without Congressional approval taken out of the recent supplemental for the Iraq war funding?” I nearly fell out of my chair at his reply – not because this was news but because of who had just said it. Capuano is a close ally of Nancy Pelosi, her fixer and enforcer. That was last Friday morning when a small delegation from Cambridge and Somerville, MA, were visiting the Congressman, known for his bluntness, as part of the nationwide UFPJ (United For Peace and Justice) home lobbying effort during the Congressional recess.
    Later that day, Dennis Kucinich made an appearance at Harvard, where he was asked the same question, the reason for removing the Iran provision. “AIPAC,” I volunteered out loud. Kucinich looked my way and said, “Exactly.” Again my chair almost failed to contain me.
    A few weeks earlier we had gone to the offices of Senators Kennedy and then Kerry to discuss the war. (My intention was to call their attention to http://www.FilibusterForPeace.org to which the Kennedy aide was sympathetic and the Kerry aide predictably hostile.) I raised the question of AIPAC directly with Kerry’s aide, inquiring about its hawkish influence on Kerry and other Senators. Suddenly the aide was quite engaged. Leaning forward, he said: “That will never be discussed publicly. That will never be discussed publicly.” Clearly even Kerry’s office is unhappy with the pressure that comes from AIPAC.
    It is widely acknowledged that the reps and senators are ticked at AIPAC, and their hostility seems to be growing these days. With upwards of 60% of their campaign contributions coming directly or indirectly from the Israel Lobby, the Democratic congressmen are not free to respond to their antiwar base. This opens them to an antiwar electoral challenge on the Left or Right from forces not subservient to AIPAC. And that could cost them their next election, a little thing which has them very worked up. Capuano’s cry of “AIPAC” was no simple outburst of candor but a cri de coeur for his career.
    So here we have even Congressmen and Senator’s aides complaining publicly about AIPAC. AIPAC is being outed all over the mainstream media, largely thanks to the door opening work of Mearsheimer and Walt. AIPAC is skewered routinely by Justin Raimondo on Antiwar.com and by Alex Cockburn and many others here on CounterPunch. But there remains no anti-AIPAC campaign within the mainstream antiwar organizations, like UFPJ or Peace Action. (Even one supposed Congressional ally of the peace movement was announced as a celebrity guest at the recent colossal AIPAC meeting in Washington, where half the Congress shows up and Dick Cheney is a regular speaker. What gives?)
    continues at…
    http://www.counterpunch.org/walsh04172007.html
    Posted by Pissed Off American at April 18, 2007 10:57 AM
    Sure, the same thing goes with all the big lobbies. Pharma writes bills and gets clauses and provisions inserted into bills all the time.
    If Dennis Kucinich isn’t afraid of AIPAC, speaks out against AIPAC, and still gets elected…if Betty McCollum protests rough treatment and still gets elected…then there really is no reason why others can’t as well.
    Posted by MP at April 18, 2007 02:01 PM
    MP wrote:
    “Sure, the same thing goes with all the big lobbies. Pharma writes bills. . .”
    How the heck is preventing war with Iran the same as getting special provisions with any new drug legislation?
    imo, your thinking here lacks civil and moral understanding.
    Posted by pauline at April 18, 2007 02:41 PM
    “How the heck is preventing war with Iran the same as getting special provisions with any new drug legislation?”
    It’s the same lobbying process and it works for the same reasons. Since you want to sit on the moral scale, it is an indisputable truth that Big Tobacco’s lobbying and other machinations have led to MILLIONS of ugly deaths and, perhaps, TRILLIONS of dollars in health care costs. Many millions more are dying now through exports. These deaths are directly attributable to the product this lobby has represented for many decades.
    Haven’t you heard about the high drug prices keeping life-sustaining drugs out of the hands of millions of poor? Haven’t you seen the full-page campaign AGAINST giving the MediCare the ability to negotiate lower prices?
    Moreover, it is also indisputable that the clause–which I was FOR–would NOT necessarily have prevented war. Congress OK’d the Iraq invasion (essentially). It still hasn’t cut off funds. So it’s not clear to me that Congress wouldn’t OK bombs over Iran, given the right mumbo jumbo.
    The focus on AIPAC boils the argument down to a single actor, AIPAC. This is a dangerous distortion of the truth. Even Chomsky has argued that it lets a lot of other actors off the hook. I oppose AIPAC, as I’ve said a thousand times on these comments, but if you simply blame AIPAC, you will be taking your eye off the ball.
    Posted by MP at April 18, 2007 03:19 PM
    MP wrote:
    “I oppose AIPAC, as I’ve said a thousand times on these comments, but if you simply blame AIPAC, you will be taking your eye off the ball.”
    If we concentrate on the activities of the Doug Feiths, the Dov Zakheims, the Richard Perles, the Henry Kissingers and the many other War Party members, are you saying they do not support AIPAC 110%?
    AIPAC, from my reading, would rather go to war with Iran much, much more so than the average person in Jerusalem. So what gives with AIPAC?
    Yes, it’s true if the alcohol/tobacco lobbyists threw money at the bottom of a pool filled with blood and guts, most politicans would dive in head first.
    I can teach a child not to smoke or drink. I can teach a child to live a healthy lifestyle and avoid most of Big Pharma. I cannot do much to change a group of wealthy warmongers whose only interest is power, control and (of course) more money.
    Posted by pauline at April 18, 2007 06:16 PM
    MP is back on this AIPAC is like any other lobby schtick again? It has to be one of the most deceptive and asinine arguments I have yet seen bandied here.
    Posted by Pissed Off American at April 18, 2007 07:33 PM
    Yes MP…you are doing the “Johnny does it too Mommy” thing again…quit it.
    We all know AIPAC was/is not the only bad actor….but they are not exacly like other domestic lobbies since they represent a foreign interest…and one that is definitely trying to war monger the US into more conflict.
    Posted by Carroll at April 18, 2007 11:54 PM
    This is Israel. This is what every Jew and American not actively engaged in condeming it is actively supporting.
    List of restrictions imposed on Palestinians:
    “Standing prohibitions
    * Palestinians from the Gaza Strip are forbidden to stay in the West Bank.
    * Palestinians are forbidden to enter East Jerusalem.
    * West Bank Palestinians are forbidden to enter the Gaza Strip through the Erez crossing.
    * Palestinians are forbidden to enter the Jordan Valley.
    * Palestinians are forbidden to enter villages, lands, towns, and neighborhoods along the ‘seam line’ between the separation fence and the Green Line (some 10 percent of the West Bank).
    * Palestinians who are not residents of the villages Beit Furik and Beit Dajan in the Nablus area, and Ramadin, south of Hebron, are forbidden entry.
    * Palestinians are forbidden to enter the settlements’ area (even if their lands are inside the settlements’ built area).
    * Palestinians are forbidden to enter Nablus in a vehicle.
    * Palestinian residents of Jerusalem are forbidden to enter area A (Palestinian towns in the West Bank).
    * Gaza Strip residents are forbidden to enter the West Bank via the Allenby crossing.
    * Palestinians are forbidden to travel abroad via Ben-Gurion Airport.
    * Children under age 16 are forbidden to leave Nablus without an original birth certificate and parental escort.
    * Palestinians with permits to enter Israel are forbidden to enter through the crossings used by Israelis and tourists.
    * Gaza residents are forbidden to establish residency in the West Bank.
    * West Bank residents are forbidden to establish residency in the Jordan Valley, seam-line communities, or the villages of Beit Furik and Beit Dajan.
    * Palestinians are forbidden to transfer merchandise and cargo through internal West Bank checkpoints.
    Periodic prohibitions
    * Residents of certain parts of the West Bank are forbidden to travel to the rest of the West Bank.
    * People of a certain age group – mainly men from the age of 16 to 30, 35, or 40 – are forbidden to leave the areas where they reside (usually Nablus and other cities in the northern West Bank).
    * Private cars may not pass the Swahara-Abu Dis checkpoint (which separates the northern and southern West Bank). This was canceled for the first time two weeks ago under the easing of restrictions.
    Travel permits required
    * A magnetic card (intended for entrance to Israel, but eases the passage through checkpoints within the West Bank).
    * A work permit for Israel (the employer must come to the civil administration offices and apply for one).
    * A permit for medical treatment in Israel and Palestinian hospitals in East Jerusalem (The applicant must produce an invitation from the hospital, his complete medical background, and proof that the treatment he is seeking cannot be provided in the occupied territories).
    * A travel permit to pass through Jordan Valley checkpoints.
    * A merchant’s permit to transfer goods.
    * A permit to farm along the seam line requires a form from the land registry office, a title deed, and proof of first-degree relations to the registered property owner.
    * Entry permit for the seam line (for relatives, medical teams, construction workers, etc. Those with permits must enter and leave via the same crossing even if it is far away or closing early).
    * Permits to pass from Gaza, through Israel to the West Bank.
    * A birth certificate for children under 16.
    * A long-standing resident identity card for those who live in seam-line enclaves.
    Checkpoints and barriers
    * There were 75 manned checkpoints in the West Bank as of January 9, 2007.
    * There are on average 150 mobile checkpoints a week (as of September 2006).
    * There are 446 obstacles placed between roads and villages, including concrete cubes, earth ramparts, 88 iron gates, and 74 kilometers of fences along main roads.
    * There are 83 iron gates along the separation fence, dividing lands from their owners. Only 25 of the gates open occasionally.
    Main roads closed to Palestinians, officially or in practice
    * Road 90 (the Jordan Valley thoroughfare).
    * Road 60, in the North (from the Shavei Shomron military base, west of Nablus and northward).
    * Road 585 along the settlements Hermesh and Dotan.
    * Road 557 west from the Taibeh-Tul Karm junction (the Green Line) to Anabta (excluding the residents of Shufa), and east from south of Nablus (the Hawara checkpoint) to the settlement Elon Moreh.
    * Road 505, from Zatara (Nablus junction) to Ma’ale Efraim.
    * Road 5, from the Barkan junction to the Green Line.
    * Road 446, from Dir Balut junction to Road 5 (by the settlements Alei Zahav and Peduel).
    * Roads 445 and 463 around the settlement Talmon, Dolev, and Nahliel.
    * Road 443, from Maccabim-Reut to Givat Ze’ev.
    * Streets in the Old City of Hebron.
    * Road 60, from the settlement of Otniel southward.
    * Road 317, around the south Hebron Hills settlements.”
    Posted by Carroll at April 19, 2007 03:21 AM
    Carroll writes: “Yes MP…you are doing the “Johnny does it too Mommy” thing again…quit it. We all know AIPAC was/is not the only bad actor….but they are not exacly like other domestic lobbies since they represent a foreign interest…and one that is definitely trying to war monger the US into more conflict.”
    My point is this: AIPAC operates within a certain system. That is its sole source of power. Even if AIPAC were simply an espionage front for the Israeli government–something that is FAR from shown by anything posted here thus far–its power to influence Congress would not derive from this, but from its lobbying efforts and ability to direct money, and a relatively few votes, in certain directions. The same goes for Big Tobacco. The same goes for other, perhaps less successful, lobbying efforts by other national/ethnic groups.
    Read MJ Rosenberg, who once worked for AIPAC and now strongly opposes their positions, and actively works against them, and has done more than probably anyone on these comments to correct Israel’s treatment of the Palestinians–he will tell you. AIPAC doesn’t control elections. Congressmen who cave into AIPAC are the ones who have caved and who have the power NOT to cave. AIPAC represents its members, who are Americans.
    Bringing to light AIPAC’s positions, activities, and its effectiveness is useful and right. Saying that it “controls” Congress is a cop-out…for Congress.
    Posted by MP at April 19, 2007 11:16 AM
    Thanks for your comments, Pauline. Here’s what I’d say:
    YOU: If we concentrate on the activities of the Doug Feiths, the Dov Zakheims, the Richard Perles, the Henry Kissingers and the many other War Party members, are you saying they do not support AIPAC 110%?
    ME: I don’t know where all these people stand vis a vis AIPAC. But let’s say they are all in sync 110%. I oppose them. But opposing AIPAC doesn’t equate to opposing all these people and the many others in Congress who supported the Iraq invasion and might wish to bomb Iran. You don’t kill all the birds with one stone when you knock out AIPAC. To use their terms, you don’t decapitate the War Party when you knock out AIPAC.
    YOU: AIPAC, from my reading, would rather go to war with Iran much, much more so than the average person in Jerusalem. So what gives with AIPAC?
    ME: I think you’re right. That would suggest that AIPAC doesn’t represent “Israel.”
    Yes, it’s true if the alcohol/tobacco lobbyists threw money at the bottom of a pool filled with blood and guts, most politicans would dive in head first.
    YOU: I can teach a child not to smoke or drink. I can teach a child to live a healthy lifestyle and avoid most of Big Pharma. I cannot do much to change a group of wealthy warmongers whose only interest is power, control and (of course) more money.
    ME: Then why did they ban cigarette advertising and Joe Camel? Or put warnings on cigarette packaging? Why was there such a big ruckus about the bill, just defeated, that would have allowed the government to negotiate drug prices for Medicare folks?
    I agree, we can all do much in our personal lives to protect ourselves from disease. But there is no denying the pervasive influence of these other lobbies. They don’t control us; but they do influence the society at large. We can also work like hell to make sure the likes of Bush/Cheney and friends never enter the WH again. But Romney or Thompson or Guiliani do win in 2008, please don’t tell me that AIPAC put them there.
    Posted by MP at April 19, 2007 11:29 AM
    OK, MP, you tell us. Why was the Iran provision removed? Is it your contention that AIPAC was not the key propeling factor? Clue us in, MP. What other considerations, or lobby groups, were instrumental in having the provision removed? The tobacco lobby? Santa Claus? Bugs Bunny?
    Your argument is horseshit. Why do you keep offering an argument that runs completely polar to this crap you natter about being “against AIPAC”?
    The tobacco lobby does not have the luxury of drooling “anti-semite” at its detractors, does it? The tobacco lobby would look mighty silly assuming the position that smoking is good for Americans, wouldn’t it? The tobacco lobby doesn’t have key officers under indictment for espionage, does it? The tobacco lobby doesn’t demand, and recieve, lengthy briefings on political candidate’s opinions and beliefs in regards to American foreign policy in the Middle East, does it?
    And your assertion that AIPAC does not work in close alliance with the Israeli intelligence agencies, and the Knesset, defies all application of common sense. You make the contention under the assertion “that there is no proof”. Well, sometimes it pays to apply a bit of logic, MP. Something you seem to think we are incapable of doing. Just who the hell do you think the accused AIPAC officers were passing the stolen intelligence on to, the AARP?
    You aren’t addressing idiots, MP. I realize that you and your Israeli heroes and apologists think we are gullible asses here in the land of “lets send these poor abused Israelis a few more billion dollars”, but the times they are a changin’.
    Posted by Pissed Off American at April 19, 2007 11:51 AM
    Dear POA…thanks for your comments. Here’s what I’d say:
    YOU: OK, MP, you tell us. Why was the Iran provision removed? Is it your contention that AIPAC was not the key propeling factor? Clue us in, MP. What other considerations, or lobby groups, were instrumental in having the provision removed? The tobacco lobby? Santa Claus? Bugs Bunny?
    ME: As far as I know, AIPAC was instrumental. It was a lobbying win for them. That’s what they do…lobby. The fact that they’re successful and manage to get things passed I don’t approve of doesn’t change this essential fact.
    YOU: Your argument is horseshit. Why do you keep offering an argument that runs completely polar to this crap you natter about being “against AIPAC”?
    ME: I’m against AIPAC’s positions. I don’t believe that AIPAC is in “control.” They play hardball. They win, I’m sure, a lot (though I don’t know what their win rate is). But they aren’t all-powerful and can be opposed by Congresspeople and others. And some do.
    YOU: The tobacco lobby does not have the luxury of drooling “anti-semite” at its detractors, does it? The tobacco lobby would look mighty silly assuming the position that smoking is good for Americans, wouldn’t it?
    ME: Actually, for years, it used endorsements from doctors in the health claims in its advertising. It’s also employed iconic American symbols–the Marlboro Man–to equate smoking with being an all-American man to purvey POISON. The movies portrayed smoking as a sign of a “sophistication.” Tareyton endowed their customers with American pluck and independence because they would rather “fight than switch.” And of course Joe Camel. And on and on and on it went for DECADES.
    YOU: The tobacco lobby doesn’t have key officers under indictment for espionage, does it? The tobacco lobby doesn’t demand, and recieve, lengthy briefings on political candidate’s opinions and beliefs in regards to American foreign policy in the Middle East, does it?
    ME: The tobacoo industry was caught falsifying scientific evidence about the effects of smoking. I don’t know if anyone served jail time. We know that tobacco settlements have reached the hundreds of millions of dollars. I’m willing to bet that BT got briefings on candidates’ views with regard to smoking, its regulation, etc., especially recently when it was proposed that the FDA regulate tobacco as a controlled substance.
    YOU: And your assertion that AIPAC does not work in close alliance with the Israeli intelligence agencies, and the Knesset, defies all application of common sense. You make the contention under the assertion “that there is no proof”. Well, sometimes it pays to apply a bit of logic, MP. Something you seem to think we are incapable of doing. Just who the hell do you think the accused AIPAC officers were passing the stolen intelligence on to, the AARP?
    ME: My assertion was that AIPAC doesn’t represent Israel or the Israeli government in contrast to those who assert that AIPAC is a foreign agent. There is a close alliance. That’s identified in the organization’s name. There have also been strong disagreements: Rabin did NOT want the US embassy moved to Jerusalem, for example. Of course, if the proof shows that AIPAC IS a foreign agent, then it will have to–and should–register as such.
    YOU: You aren’t addressing idiots, MP. I realize that you and your Israeli heroes and apologists think we are gullible asses here in the land of “lets send these poor abused Israelis a few more billion dollars”, but the times they are a changin’.
    ME: I show the people on these comments a lot more respect than you do (most of the time). My view on aid to Israel is that the US should use this leverage to bring the Israelis to the table and negotiate a final settlement to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. I’m not as sanguine as some about the Palestinian leadership’s acceptance of a two-state solution–Hamas, for one, seems to rule it out in its charter and in some of what it says–but Israel has a moral obligation, especially as the stronger party, to keep trying and to try much more than it has to date.
    Posted by MP at April 19, 2007 01:34 PM
    ROFLMAO!!!!!!! You make that statement after you freely admit that AIPAC “controlled” the content of a foreign policy bill? Give it up, MP. AIPAC has bribed, intimidated, and blackmailed the vast majority of this country’s leadership into squandering billions of dollars on a country that is actively engaged in espionage against us, horrendous human rights abuses, defiance of UN resolutions, massive propaganda campaigns within the United States, and international war crimes.
    Posted by Pissed Off American at April 19, 2007 03:22 PM
    “I show the people on these comments a lot more respect than you do”
    By BSing us about the WP, or about Clinton’s stances, or about Cheney’s reception at the AIPAC conference? Or about the station of the people from AIPAC arrested for espionage? Or making idiotic comparisons between the Tobacco Lobby and AIPAC? Nah, I don’t think so, MP. I think you constantly insult our intelligence. Thats respect?
    Posted by Pissed Off American at April 19, 2007 03:44 PM
    Posted by MP at April 19, 2007 11:16 AM
    >>>>>>
    I do read Rosenberg frequently and agree with most of what he says.
    But my point on AIPAC and others like CANF is that they are groups of people who try to direct American foreign policy toward other countries and get us to take action, not for the benefit of America, but for their interest in another country.
    98% of America is not Jewish or Cuban and groups of Jews and Cubans, to use two examples, want to use the other 98% of American’s resources and the US goverment to make changes in or benefit their “other country”. That is something that cannot and should not be tolerated and has proven to be bad for America as a whole.
    They are able to do this thru the system and corrupt politicans but that doesn’t alter the fact that something is wrong with people who call themselves American and yet are willing to use and damage this country because of their ties or loyalty or whatever interest they have in a foreign country.
    It doesn’t work and we are seeing the blowback to this now. The “special relationship” between the US and Israel is due soley to the efforts of the Jewish lobby and other sympathizers, it is not shared by the majority of Americans who have no special affinity or active attachment to a country outside their own.
    Posted by Carroll at April 19, 2007 04:32 PM
    More power to you, Carroll, if you can go around the horn with MP again on this issue. Me? I’m burnt out on it. Its simply the same old horseshit he has been spewing now for months, with the added caveat of “although I am against AIPAC”. You aren’t going to get anywhere with him, it is a waste of time. If he can’t back his argument with facts, he’ll just BS ya with a bunch of straw, or worse, out and out crap, like his WaPo nonsense.
    Posted by Pissed Off American at April 19, 2007 05:47 PM
    Carroll writes: “But my point on AIPAC and others like CANF is that they are groups of people who try to direct American foreign policy toward other countries and get us to take action, not for the benefit of America, but for their interest in another country.”
    One serious discussion that needs to take place is…what are America’s proper interests. This would be a good debate. I’ve suggested to Steve that NAF sponsor such a debate. Without prejudging the conclusion, I’m pretty sure that “our interests” don’t stop at our borders–though it might be a good place to start. (Even if we wanted to, and had the moral acumen to do it, we don’t have the resources IMO to “govern the world.”)
    (In this regard, and this is merely an aside, I think you’d be surprised at how many Americans have an “affinity” for Israel and what she stands for in her best moments. You’d also be surprised at how many Americans sport astoundingly anti-Semitic views posing as anti-Zionism views regarding Israel.)
    One obvious deficiency in GW’s farewell address, in this regard, is that he lived in a much less inter-related world. America didn’t run on Saudi oil in the 1700s. Pearl Harbor and 9/11 hadn’t taken place. There weren’t the huge migrations of populations from one geographic area to another. The ability to destroy wasn’t nearly as potent. Economies weren’t as immediately intertwined as they are today.
    And there are moral issues as well…
    Is it really true that America should simply sit back and watch the Balkans, Rwanda, South Africa, Palestine, Darfur, Cambodia, and Auschwitz unfold and say…it isn’t happening in America…it has nothing to do with us…it’s not in “our interests” to do anything? Some Americans would say yes. Many wouldn’t.
    And here I’m talking only about one kind of event (where people are getting killed or living in bad circumstances) that may involve our national interest. It could easily be argued that there are many, many others.
    One fundamental mistake we made after the fall of the Soviet Union was this: We said we had gone from a bi-polar world to a uni-polar world…from two super powers to one super power. In fact, we were going from a bi-polar world to a multi- polar world, a world in which there were lots of centers of influence, not just one or two. This would have given us a much better framework for thinking things through. Nevertheless, the US pole would have had a special role to play, and the world would have looked to us to play it–and they still do.
    Posted by MP at April 20, 2007 11:25 AM
    POA writes: “You make that statement after you freely admit that AIPAC “controlled” the content of a foreign policy bill?”
    AIPAC no more controls the content of a bill than any other powerful lobby in the US controls the content of bills that are important to its constituency.
    Congress people always have the power and choice to resist. Unless you change the SYSTEM in which “money talks,” you will have this kind of “control.”
    Posted by MP at April 20, 2007 11:29 AM
    POA writes: “By BSing us about the WP, or about Clinton’s stances, or about Cheney’s reception at the AIPAC conference? Or about the station of the people from AIPAC arrested for espionage? Or making idiotic comparisons between the Tobacco Lobby and AIPAC? Nah, I don’t think so, MP. I think you constantly insult our intelligence. Thats respect?”
    Hmmm. Okay, we’ve argued most of these points before, so I’ll take just one. My assertion about Hillary as I recall was that she was generally against millitary action against Iran and would insist on Congressional approval before any such action took place. She was also in favor of talking with Iran. Here is one of her speeches from February 14, 2007, entitled: IRAN: No Military Action Without Congressional Authority. You can find it on her Web site. It certainly isn’t AIPAC’s position as far as I can tell:
    “President Bush must not be allowed to act without the authority and oversight of Congress. It would be a mistake of historical proportion if the Administration thought that the 2002 resolution authorizing force against Iraq was a blank check for the use of force against Iran without further Congressional authorization. Nor should the President think that the 2001 resolution authorizing force after the terrorist attacks of 9/11, in any way, authorizes force against Iran. If the Administration believes that any, any use of force against Iran is necessary, the President must come to Congress to seek that authority.
    I am deeply concerned by the recent statements coming out of the Bush Administration. The Administration has asserted evidence that the Iranian regime’s complicity, at the highest levels, for attacks within Iraq. Yet at the same time, General Peter Pace, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, questions these as assertions, in particular, the

    Reply

  7. MP says:

    POA writes: “No. MP, thats not at all what you said.”
    Okay, then do me the favor I did you…direct me to my words, thread, and date.

    Reply

  8. Pissed Off American says:

    “Hmmm. Okay, we’ve argued most of these points before, so I’ll take just one. My assertion about Hillary as I recall was that she was generally against millitary action against Iran and would insist on Congressional approval before any such action took place.”
    No. MP, thats not at all what you said. Frankly, I am sick of arguing against your horseshit. It is simply impossible, and much too agravating, to cross words with a liar and an equivicator. Forget it.

    Reply

  9. MP says:

    POA writes: “By BSing us about the WP, or about Clinton’s stances, or about Cheney’s reception at the AIPAC conference? Or about the station of the people from AIPAC arrested for espionage? Or making idiotic comparisons between the Tobacco Lobby and AIPAC? Nah, I don’t think so, MP. I think you constantly insult our intelligence. Thats respect?”
    Hmmm. Okay, we’ve argued most of these points before, so I’ll take just one. My assertion about Hillary as I recall was that she was generally against millitary action against Iran and would insist on Congressional approval before any such action took place. She was also in favor of talking with Iran. Here is one of her speeches from February 14, 2007, entitled: IRAN: No Military Action Without Congressional Authority. You can find it on her Web site. It certainly isn’t AIPAC’s position as far as I can tell:
    “President Bush must not be allowed to act without the authority and oversight of Congress. It would be a mistake of historical proportion if the Administration thought that the 2002 resolution authorizing force against Iraq was a blank check for the use of force against Iran without further Congressional authorization. Nor should the President think that the 2001 resolution authorizing force after the terrorist attacks of 9/11, in any way, authorizes force against Iran. If the Administration believes that any, any use of force against Iran is necessary, the President must come to Congress to seek that authority.
    I am deeply concerned by the recent statements coming out of the Bush Administration. The Administration has asserted evidence that the Iranian regime’s complicity, at the highest levels, for attacks within Iraq. Yet at the same time, General Peter Pace, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, questions these as assertions, in particular, the capability and intentions of the Iranian government. In this delicate situation, while making disturbing comments, [there are reports that the Administration] is sending a third aircraft carrier to the Gulf.
    The President owes an on-going consultation to this Congress and owes straight talk to the country. We have to get this right. The Congress should debate our current course, including the current silent-treatment policy toward our adversaries. I believe we can better understand how to deal with an adversary such as Iran if we have some direct contact with them. I think that can give us valuable information and better leverage to hold over the Iranian regime. And if we ever must, with Congressional agreement, take drastic action, we should make clear to the world that we have exhausted every other possibility.”

    Reply

  10. MP says:

    POA writes: “You make that statement after you freely admit that AIPAC “controlled” the content of a foreign policy bill?”
    AIPAC no more controls the content of a bill than any other powerful lobby in the US controls the content of bills that are important to its constituency.
    Congress people always have the power and choice to resist. Unless you change the SYSTEM in which “money talks,” you will have this kind of “control.”

    Reply

  11. MP says:

    Carroll writes: “But my point on AIPAC and others like CANF is that they are groups of people who try to direct American foreign policy toward other countries and get us to take action, not for the benefit of America, but for their interest in another country.”
    One serious discussion that needs to take place is…what are America’s proper interests. This would be a good debate. I’ve suggested to Steve that NAF sponsor such a debate. Without prejudging the conclusion, I’m pretty sure that “our interests” don’t stop at our borders–though it might be a good place to start. (Even if we wanted to, and had the moral acumen to do it, we don’t have the resources IMO to “govern the world.”)
    (In this regard, and this is merely an aside, I think you’d be surprised at how many Americans have an “affinity” for Israel and what she stands for in her best moments. You’d also be surprised at how many Americans sport astoundingly anti-Semitic views posing as anti-Zionism views regarding Israel.)
    One obvious deficiency in GW’s farewell address, in this regard, is that he lived in a much less inter-related world. America didn’t run on Saudi oil in the 1700s. Pearl Harbor and 9/11 hadn’t taken place. There weren’t the huge migrations of populations from one geographic area to another. The ability to destroy wasn’t nearly as potent. Economies weren’t as immediately intertwined as they are today.
    And there are moral issues as well…
    Is it really true that America should simply sit back and watch the Balkans, Rwanda, South Africa, Palestine, Darfur, Cambodia, and Auschwitz unfold and say…it isn’t happening in America…it has nothing to do with us…it’s not in “our interests” to do anything? Some Americans would say yes. Many wouldn’t.
    And here I’m talking only about one kind of event (where people are getting killed or living in bad circumstances) that may involve our national interest. It could easily be argued that there are many, many others.
    One fundamental mistake we made after the fall of the Soviet Union was this: We said we had gone from a bi-polar world to a uni-polar world…from two super powers to one super power. In fact, we were going from a bi-polar world to a multi- polar world, a world in which there were lots of centers of influence, not just one or two. This would have given us a much better framework for thinking things through. Nevertheless, the US pole would have had a special role to play, and the world would have looked to us to play it–and they still do.

    Reply

  12. Pissed Off American says:

    More power to you, Carroll, if you can go around the horn with MP again on this issue. Me? I’m burnt out on it. Its simply the same old horseshit he has been spewing now for months, with the added caveat of “although I am against AIPAC”. You aren’t going to get anywhere with him, it is a waste of time. If he can’t back his argument with facts, he’ll just BS ya with a bunch of straw, or worse, out and out crap, like his WaPo nonsense.

    Reply

  13. Carroll says:

    Posted by MP at April 19, 2007 11:16 AM
    >>>>>>
    I do read Rosenberg frequently and agree with most of what he says.
    But my point on AIPAC and others like CANF is that they are groups of people who try to direct American foreign policy toward other countries and get us to take action, not for the benefit of America, but for their interest in another country.
    98% of America is not Jewish or Cuban and groups of Jews and Cubans, to use two examples, want to use the other 98% of American’s resources and the US goverment to make changes in or benefit their “other country”. That is something that cannot and should not be tolerated and has proven to be bad for America as a whole.
    They are able to do this thru the system and corrupt politicans but that doesn’t alter the fact that something is wrong with people who call themselves American and yet are willing to use and damage this country because of their ties or loyalty or whatever interest they have in a foreign country.
    It doesn’t work and we are seeing the blowback to this now. The “special relationship” between the US and Israel is due soley to the efforts of the Jewish lobby and other sympathizers, it is not shared by the majority of Americans who have no special affinity or active attachment to a country outside their own.

    Reply

  14. Pissed Off American says:

    “I show the people on these comments a lot more respect than you do”
    By BSing us about the WP, or about Clinton’s stances, or about Cheney’s reception at the AIPAC conference? Or about the station of the people from AIPAC arrested for espionage? Or making idiotic comparisons between the Tobacco Lobby and AIPAC? Nah, I don’t think so, MP. I think you constantly insult our intelligence. Thats respect?

    Reply

  15. Pissed Off American says:

    ROFLMAO!!!!!!! You make that statement after you freely admit that AIPAC “controlled” the content of a foreign policy bill? Give it up, MP. AIPAC has bribed, intimidated, and blackmailed the vast majority of this country’s leadership into squandering billions of dollars on a country that is actively engaged in espionage against us, horrendous human rights abuses, defiance of UN resolutions, massive propaganda campaigns within the United States, and international war crimes.

    Reply

  16. MP says:

    Dear POA…thanks for your comments. Here’s what I’d say:
    YOU: OK, MP, you tell us. Why was the Iran provision removed? Is it your contention that AIPAC was not the key propeling factor? Clue us in, MP. What other considerations, or lobby groups, were instrumental in having the provision removed? The tobacco lobby? Santa Claus? Bugs Bunny?
    ME: As far as I know, AIPAC was instrumental. It was a lobbying win for them. That’s what they do…lobby. The fact that they’re successful and manage to get things passed I don’t approve of doesn’t change this essential fact.
    YOU: Your argument is horseshit. Why do you keep offering an argument that runs completely polar to this crap you natter about being “against AIPAC”?
    ME: I’m against AIPAC’s positions. I don’t believe that AIPAC is in “control.” They play hardball. They win, I’m sure, a lot (though I don’t know what their win rate is). But they aren’t all-powerful and can be opposed by Congresspeople and others. And some do.
    YOU: The tobacco lobby does not have the luxury of drooling “anti-semite” at its detractors, does it? The tobacco lobby would look mighty silly assuming the position that smoking is good for Americans, wouldn’t it?
    ME: Actually, for years, it used endorsements from doctors in the health claims in its advertising. It’s also employed iconic American symbols–the Marlboro Man–to equate smoking with being an all-American man to purvey POISON. The movies portrayed smoking as a sign of a “sophistication.” Tareyton endowed their customers with American pluck and independence because they would rather “fight than switch.” And of course Joe Camel. And on and on and on it went for DECADES.
    YOU: The tobacco lobby doesn’t have key officers under indictment for espionage, does it? The tobacco lobby doesn’t demand, and recieve, lengthy briefings on political candidate’s opinions and beliefs in regards to American foreign policy in the Middle East, does it?
    ME: The tobacoo industry was caught falsifying scientific evidence about the effects of smoking. I don’t know if anyone served jail time. We know that tobacco settlements have reached the hundreds of millions of dollars. I’m willing to bet that BT got briefings on candidates’ views with regard to smoking, its regulation, etc., especially recently when it was proposed that the FDA regulate tobacco as a controlled substance.
    YOU: And your assertion that AIPAC does not work in close alliance with the Israeli intelligence agencies, and the Knesset, defies all application of common sense. You make the contention under the assertion “that there is no proof”. Well, sometimes it pays to apply a bit of logic, MP. Something you seem to think we are incapable of doing. Just who the hell do you think the accused AIPAC officers were passing the stolen intelligence on to, the AARP?
    ME: My assertion was that AIPAC doesn’t represent Israel or the Israeli government in contrast to those who assert that AIPAC is a foreign agent. There is a close alliance. That’s identified in the organization’s name. There have also been strong disagreements: Rabin did NOT want the US embassy moved to Jerusalem, for example. Of course, if the proof shows that AIPAC IS a foreign agent, then it will have to–and should–register as such.
    YOU: You aren’t addressing idiots, MP. I realize that you and your Israeli heroes and apologists think we are gullible asses here in the land of “lets send these poor abused Israelis a few more billion dollars”, but the times they are a changin’.
    ME: I show the people on these comments a lot more respect than you do (most of the time). My view on aid to Israel is that the US should use this leverage to bring the Israelis to the table and negotiate a final settlement to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. I’m not as sanguine as some about the Palestinian leadership’s acceptance of a two-state solution–Hamas, for one, seems to rule it out in its charter and in some of what it says–but Israel has a moral obligation, especially as the stronger party, to keep trying and to try much more than it has to date.

    Reply

  17. Pissed Off American says:

    OK, MP, you tell us. Why was the Iran provision removed? Is it your contention that AIPAC was not the key propeling factor? Clue us in, MP. What other considerations, or lobby groups, were instrumental in having the provision removed? The tobacco lobby? Santa Claus? Bugs Bunny?
    Your argument is horseshit. Why do you keep offering an argument that runs completely polar to this crap you natter about being “against AIPAC”?
    The tobacco lobby does not have the luxury of drooling “anti-semite” at its detractors, does it? The tobacco lobby would look mighty silly assuming the position that smoking is good for Americans, wouldn’t it? The tobacco lobby doesn’t have key officers under indictment for espionage, does it? The tobacco lobby doesn’t demand, and recieve, lengthy briefings on political candidate’s opinions and beliefs in regards to American foreign policy in the Middle East, does it?
    And your assertion that AIPAC does not work in close alliance with the Israeli intelligence agencies, and the Knesset, defies all application of common sense. You make the contention under the assertion “that there is no proof”. Well, sometimes it pays to apply a bit of logic, MP. Something you seem to think we are incapable of doing. Just who the hell do you think the accused AIPAC officers were passing the stolen intelligence on to, the AARP?
    You aren’t addressing idiots, MP. I realize that you and your Israeli heroes and apologists think we are gullible asses here in the land of “lets send these poor abused Israelis a few more billion dollars”, but the times they are a changin’.

    Reply

  18. MP says:

    Thanks for your comments, Pauline. Here’s what I’d say:
    YOU: If we concentrate on the activities of the Doug Feiths, the Dov Zakheims, the Richard Perles, the Henry Kissingers and the many other War Party members, are you saying they do not support AIPAC 110%?
    ME: I don’t know where all these people stand vis a vis AIPAC. But let’s say they are all in sync 110%. I oppose them. But opposing AIPAC doesn’t equate to opposing all these people and the many others in Congress who supported the Iraq invasion and might wish to bomb Iran. You don’t kill all the birds with one stone when you knock out AIPAC. To use their terms, you don’t decapitate the War Party when you knock out AIPAC.
    YOU: AIPAC, from my reading, would rather go to war with Iran much, much more so than the average person in Jerusalem. So what gives with AIPAC?
    ME: I think you’re right. That would suggest that AIPAC doesn’t represent “Israel.”
    Yes, it’s true if the alcohol/tobacco lobbyists threw money at the bottom of a pool filled with blood and guts, most politicans would dive in head first.
    YOU: I can teach a child not to smoke or drink. I can teach a child to live a healthy lifestyle and avoid most of Big Pharma. I cannot do much to change a group of wealthy warmongers whose only interest is power, control and (of course) more money.
    ME: Then why did they ban cigarette advertising and Joe Camel? Or put warnings on cigarette packaging? Why was there such a big ruckus about the bill, just defeated, that would have allowed the government to negotiate drug prices for Medicare folks?
    I agree, we can all do much in our personal lives to protect ourselves from disease. But there is no denying the pervasive influence of these other lobbies. They don’t control us; but they do influence the society at large. We can also work like hell to make sure the likes of Bush/Cheney and friends never enter the WH again. But Romney or Thompson or Guiliani do win in 2008, please don’t tell me that AIPAC put them there.

    Reply

  19. MP says:

    Carroll writes: “Yes MP…you are doing the “Johnny does it too Mommy” thing again…quit it. We all know AIPAC was/is not the only bad actor….but they are not exacly like other domestic lobbies since they represent a foreign interest…and one that is definitely trying to war monger the US into more conflict.”
    My point is this: AIPAC operates within a certain system. That is its sole source of power. Even if AIPAC were simply an espionage front for the Israeli government–something that is FAR from shown by anything posted here thus far–its power to influence Congress would not derive from this, but from its lobbying efforts and ability to direct money, and a relatively few votes, in certain directions. The same goes for Big Tobacco. The same goes for other, perhaps less successful, lobbying efforts by other national/ethnic groups.
    Read MJ Rosenberg, who once worked for AIPAC and now strongly opposes their positions, and actively works against them, and has done more than probably anyone on these comments to correct Israel’s treatment of the Palestinians–he will tell you. AIPAC doesn’t control elections. Congressmen who cave into AIPAC are the ones who have caved and who have the power NOT to cave. AIPAC represents its members, who are Americans.
    Bringing to light AIPAC’s positions, activities, and its effectiveness is useful and right. Saying that it “controls” Congress is a cop-out…for Congress.

    Reply

  20. Carroll says:

    This is Israel. This is what every Jew and American not actively engaged in condeming it is actively supporting.
    List of restrictions imposed on Palestinians:
    “Standing prohibitions
    * Palestinians from the Gaza Strip are forbidden to stay in the West Bank.
    * Palestinians are forbidden to enter East Jerusalem.
    * West Bank Palestinians are forbidden to enter the Gaza Strip through the Erez crossing.
    * Palestinians are forbidden to enter the Jordan Valley.
    * Palestinians are forbidden to enter villages, lands, towns, and neighborhoods along the ‘seam line’ between the separation fence and the Green Line (some 10 percent of the West Bank).
    * Palestinians who are not residents of the villages Beit Furik and Beit Dajan in the Nablus area, and Ramadin, south of Hebron, are forbidden entry.
    * Palestinians are forbidden to enter the settlements’ area (even if their lands are inside the settlements’ built area).
    * Palestinians are forbidden to enter Nablus in a vehicle.
    * Palestinian residents of Jerusalem are forbidden to enter area A (Palestinian towns in the West Bank).
    * Gaza Strip residents are forbidden to enter the West Bank via the Allenby crossing.
    * Palestinians are forbidden to travel abroad via Ben-Gurion Airport.
    * Children under age 16 are forbidden to leave Nablus without an original birth certificate and parental escort.
    * Palestinians with permits to enter Israel are forbidden to enter through the crossings used by Israelis and tourists.
    * Gaza residents are forbidden to establish residency in the West Bank.
    * West Bank residents are forbidden to establish residency in the Jordan Valley, seam-line communities, or the villages of Beit Furik and Beit Dajan.
    * Palestinians are forbidden to transfer merchandise and cargo through internal West Bank checkpoints.
    Periodic prohibitions
    * Residents of certain parts of the West Bank are forbidden to travel to the rest of the West Bank.
    * People of a certain age group – mainly men from the age of 16 to 30, 35, or 40 – are forbidden to leave the areas where they reside (usually Nablus and other cities in the northern West Bank).
    * Private cars may not pass the Swahara-Abu Dis checkpoint (which separates the northern and southern West Bank). This was canceled for the first time two weeks ago under the easing of restrictions.
    Travel permits required
    * A magnetic card (intended for entrance to Israel, but eases the passage through checkpoints within the West Bank).
    * A work permit for Israel (the employer must come to the civil administration offices and apply for one).
    * A permit for medical treatment in Israel and Palestinian hospitals in East Jerusalem (The applicant must produce an invitation from the hospital, his complete medical background, and proof that the treatment he is seeking cannot be provided in the occupied territories).
    * A travel permit to pass through Jordan Valley checkpoints.
    * A merchant’s permit to transfer goods.
    * A permit to farm along the seam line requires a form from the land registry office, a title deed, and proof of first-degree relations to the registered property owner.
    * Entry permit for the seam line (for relatives, medical teams, construction workers, etc. Those with permits must enter and leave via the same crossing even if it is far away or closing early).
    * Permits to pass from Gaza, through Israel to the West Bank.
    * A birth certificate for children under 16.
    * A long-standing resident identity card for those who live in seam-line enclaves.
    Checkpoints and barriers
    * There were 75 manned checkpoints in the West Bank as of January 9, 2007.
    * There are on average 150 mobile checkpoints a week (as of September 2006).
    * There are 446 obstacles placed between roads and villages, including concrete cubes, earth ramparts, 88 iron gates, and 74 kilometers of fences along main roads.
    * There are 83 iron gates along the separation fence, dividing lands from their owners. Only 25 of the gates open occasionally.
    Main roads closed to Palestinians, officially or in practice
    * Road 90 (the Jordan Valley thoroughfare).
    * Road 60, in the North (from the Shavei Shomron military base, west of Nablus and northward).
    * Road 585 along the settlements Hermesh and Dotan.
    * Road 557 west from the Taibeh-Tul Karm junction (the Green Line) to Anabta (excluding the residents of Shufa), and east from south of Nablus (the Hawara checkpoint) to the settlement Elon Moreh.
    * Road 505, from Zatara (Nablus junction) to Ma’ale Efraim.
    * Road 5, from the Barkan junction to the Green Line.
    * Road 446, from Dir Balut junction to Road 5 (by the settlements Alei Zahav and Peduel).
    * Roads 445 and 463 around the settlement Talmon, Dolev, and Nahliel.
    * Road 443, from Maccabim-Reut to Givat Ze’ev.
    * Streets in the Old City of Hebron.
    * Road 60, from the settlement of Otniel southward.
    * Road 317, around the south Hebron Hills settlements.”

    Reply

  21. Carroll says:

    Yes MP…you are doing the “Johnny does it too Mommy” thing again…quit it.
    We all know AIPAC was/is not the only bad actor….but they are not exacly like other domestic lobbies since they represent a foreign interest…and one that is definitely trying to war monger the US into more conflict.

    Reply

  22. Pissed Off American says:

    MP is back on this AIPAC is like any other lobby schtick again? It has to be one of the most deceptive and asinine arguments I have yet seen bandied here.

    Reply

  23. pauline says:

    MP wrote:
    “I oppose AIPAC, as I’ve said a thousand times on these comments, but if you simply blame AIPAC, you will be taking your eye off the ball.”
    If we concentrate on the activities of the Doug Feiths, the Dov Zakheims, the Richard Perles, the Henry Kissingers and the many other War Party members, are you saying they do not support AIPAC 110%?
    AIPAC, from my reading, would rather go to war with Iran much, much more so than the average person in Jerusalem. So what gives with AIPAC?
    Yes, it’s true if the alcohol/tobacco lobbyists threw money at the bottom of a pool filled with blood and guts, most politicans would dive in head first.
    I can teach a child not to smoke or drink. I can teach a child to live a healthy lifestyle and avoid most of Big Pharma. I cannot do much to change a group of wealthy warmongers whose only interest is power, control and (of course) more money.

    Reply

  24. MP says:

    “How the heck is preventing war with Iran the same as getting special provisions with any new drug legislation?”
    It’s the same lobbying process and it works for the same reasons. Since you want to sit on the moral scale, it is an indisputable truth that Big Tobacco’s lobbying and other machinations have led to MILLIONS of ugly deaths and, perhaps, TRILLIONS of dollars in health care costs. Many millions more are dying now through exports. These deaths are directly attributable to the product this lobby has represented for many decades.
    Haven’t you heard about the high drug prices keeping life-sustaining drugs out of the hands of millions of poor? Haven’t you seen the full-page campaign AGAINST giving the MediCare the ability to negotiate lower prices?
    Moreover, it is also indisputable that the clause–which I was FOR–would NOT necessarily have prevented war. Congress OK’d the Iraq invasion (essentially). It still hasn’t cut off funds. So it’s not clear to me that Congress wouldn’t OK bombs over Iran, given the right mumbo jumbo.
    The focus on AIPAC boils the argument down to a single actor, AIPAC. This is a dangerous distortion of the truth. Even Chomsky has argued that it lets a lot of other actors off the hook. I oppose AIPAC, as I’ve said a thousand times on these comments, but if you simply blame AIPAC, you will be taking your eye off the ball.

    Reply

  25. pauline says:

    MP wrote:
    “Sure, the same thing goes with all the big lobbies. Pharma writes bills. . .”
    How the heck is preventing war with Iran the same as getting special provisions with any new drug legislation?
    imo, your thinking here lacks civil and moral understanding.

    Reply

  26. MP says:

    Sure, the same thing goes with all the big lobbies. Pharma writes bills and gets clauses and provisions inserted into bills all the time.
    If Dennis Kucinich isn’t afraid of AIPAC, speaks out against AIPAC, and still gets elected…if Betty McCollum protests rough treatment and still gets elected…then there really is no reason why others can’t as well.

    Reply

  27. Pissed Off American says:

    Capuano and Kucinich Come Clean About the Lobby
    Why is the Peace Movement Silent About AIPAC?
    By JOHN WALSH
    “AIPAC!” was the forceful one-word answer of Congressman Michael Capuano when we asked him, “Why was the Iran clause forbidding war on Iran without Congressional approval taken out of the recent supplemental for the Iraq war funding?” I nearly fell out of my chair at his reply – not because this was news but because of who had just said it. Capuano is a close ally of Nancy Pelosi, her fixer and enforcer. That was last Friday morning when a small delegation from Cambridge and Somerville, MA, were visiting the Congressman, known for his bluntness, as part of the nationwide UFPJ (United For Peace and Justice) home lobbying effort during the Congressional recess.
    Later that day, Dennis Kucinich made an appearance at Harvard, where he was asked the same question, the reason for removing the Iran provision. “AIPAC,” I volunteered out loud. Kucinich looked my way and said, “Exactly.” Again my chair almost failed to contain me.
    A few weeks earlier we had gone to the offices of Senators Kennedy and then Kerry to discuss the war. (My intention was to call their attention to http://www.FilibusterForPeace.org to which the Kennedy aide was sympathetic and the Kerry aide predictably hostile.) I raised the question of AIPAC directly with Kerry’s aide, inquiring about its hawkish influence on Kerry and other Senators. Suddenly the aide was quite engaged. Leaning forward, he said: “That will never be discussed publicly. That will never be discussed publicly.” Clearly even Kerry’s office is unhappy with the pressure that comes from AIPAC.
    It is widely acknowledged that the reps and senators are ticked at AIPAC, and their hostility seems to be growing these days. With upwards of 60% of their campaign contributions coming directly or indirectly from the Israel Lobby, the Democratic congressmen are not free to respond to their antiwar base. This opens them to an antiwar electoral challenge on the Left or Right from forces not subservient to AIPAC. And that could cost them their next election, a little thing which has them very worked up. Capuano’s cry of “AIPAC” was no simple outburst of candor but a cri de coeur for his career.
    So here we have even Congressmen and Senator’s aides complaining publicly about AIPAC. AIPAC is being outed all over the mainstream media, largely thanks to the door opening work of Mearsheimer and Walt. AIPAC is skewered routinely by Justin Raimondo on Antiwar.com and by Alex Cockburn and many others here on CounterPunch. But there remains no anti-AIPAC campaign within the mainstream antiwar organizations, like UFPJ or Peace Action. (Even one supposed Congressional ally of the peace movement was announced as a celebrity guest at the recent colossal AIPAC meeting in Washington, where half the Congress shows up and Dick Cheney is a regular speaker. What gives?)
    continues at…
    http://www.counterpunch.org/walsh04172007.html

    Reply

  28. MidwestLiberal says:

    He reminds me of the person who causes the fight in the bar then sneaks out the back door. Than if someone is out there waiting for him he p**ses his pants.
    I’m holding my thumb and forefinger with his image in between. SQUISH!!

    Reply

  29. Insider says:

    if Tehran “gets” the bomb?, What is going on in Iraq? what … and much more from an insider in Tehran reporting live.
    livefromtehran.blogspot.com

    Reply

  30. mainstreetliberal says:

    Occasionally, Bolton is incorrectly identified as a neocon. However, no neocon would advocate invading Iraq, toppling Saddam- then leaving. Perhaps Bolton is more of a paleocon.

    Reply

  31. Dirk says:

    Thank you Carroll, despite the extra long URL, for that article. This will be my litmus test for voting for any presidential candidate.
    I hope Nancy Pelosi puts a similar bill on the House calendar soon.

    Reply

  32. Carroll says:

    http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/dems-divided-over-webbs-proposal-requiring-approval-for-attacking-iran-2007-04-17.html
    Huumm….truth or consequences for the Dem neos is about to commence. Webb D-Va isn’t going to let AIPAC’s sleeping dogs lie on the removal of the Iran attack clause in the Iraq bill. Appears he has thrown down the gauntlet to the dem Israeli hawks on the issue.

    Reply

  33. Anthony Rooney says:

    2007 Anthony Rooney
    Lt’s brace ourselves for the ABC Foreign Correspondent interview with Ehud Olmert by predicting what will NOT be asked of the Israeli PM.
    You will not ask him about the Nuclear weapons of mass destruction that he has stockpiled and why they should be exempt from international inspection.
    You will not ask him why he has refused to work with Iran who have offered to halt their nuclear program if he also decommissions Israel’s WMD in a nuclear free middle east.
    You will not ask him why Israel consistently refuses to comply with international law and is in persistent violation of UN resolutions.
    You will not ask him about why he does not recognise the sovereign state of Palestine or recognise it’s “right to exist”. By deed and action Israel has “wiped it off the map” and members of the Knesset frequently call for the destruction of Iran. He will not be questioned on these points.
    You will not ask him about the advanced plans for war in Lebanon as reported so extensively by the LA times and others.
    You will not ask him why he fired so many cluster bombs into Lebanon in the last 72 hours in the recent war and what he was doing to clean them up.
    You WILL provide him a platform to further attack Iran and be party to promoting the proposed war expansion into that country with all the consequences for innocent Iranians.
    Let’s see how many of these points hold true and how transparent your propaganda has become.
    Note: This message was also sent to the ABC in advance of the broadcast

    Reply

  34. ... says:

    interested…. better go to bed before i say something really stupid.

    Reply

  35. ... says:

    i too am intereesting in the us attorneys scandal…

    Reply

  36. steambomb says:

    Yo Mr. Clemens! I am suprised that you are not covering the US Attorneys scandal much. Seems like you would be the type to get some inside buzz on this issue. What gives?

    Reply

  37. steambomb says:

    ~~~~I hope Steve won’t mind my saying that the number of nutbars on this board seems to be trending upward rather steeply.
    Posted by Zathras at April 17, 2007 10:12 AM ~~~~
    Hey Nutbars founded this country and gave you the right to criticize them. They cant be all that bad.

    Reply

  38. Pissed Off American says:

    “yeah, i saw him on CSPAN’s Q&A and he was AWFUL.”
    Thats what I meant, C-Span’s Q&A. Unbelievable, eh? Elmer Fudd as the head spook. Gads, that guy is what nightmares are made out of.

    Reply

  39. Pissed Off American says:

    Actually, MP, my bet is that Zathras can explain himself without your assistance. If he chooses to do so, that is. But he applies the term “nutballs” in the plural, and honestly, I really don’t see that many “nutballs” here. Morrow definitely qualifies. And the schizoid poster that likes to foist his hypocricy on us with multiple screen names also definitely fits the bill. But he seems to have slithered off to browner pastures. To be honest, it seems to me that a number of regular posters are finally awakening to what deep shit this country is in, and how extremely dangerous the likes of Bush, Cheney, Bolton, etal, are to world stability in general, and especially to the security of the United States. It seems that the closer some of us get to accepting reality, the more apt we are to be called “nutballs”. Zathras has shown a propensity for minimizing the depth of corruption and dishonesty that is currently the status quo in DC. He seems to think the criminals are going to miraculously begin to police themselves by employing the very laws and protocols that they are now ignoring. It simply isn’t going to happen. Both sides of the aisle are corrupt beyond redemption, and have long since ceased to represent the citizenry of the United States. And in Steve’s world, or that of the likes of Zathras, such a reality based observation of our current situation immediately qualifies you as a “nutball”.
    We serve the interests of the elite in two ways. We pay taxes, and we spill our blood for their megalomaniacal global aspirations of power and wealth. And this so called “representative government”, under this Administration, has finally been shown, irrefutably, to be the tragic charade that we were warned it could become if we allowed the military industrial complex to achieve the power it now possesses. We truly have a government that taxes us without representing us.
    We’re toast.
    Just call me a “nutball”.

    Reply

  40. della Rovere says:

    Kathleen, in terms of your response to Robert Morrow, this is a point that cannot be made too often. The UN is an international organization whose existence was paid for by millions in WWII and this institution imperfect as it is is and has been the best hope for lasting world peace. Look at how much better it performed on Iraq than the US government; if Robert Morrow really cared about such an issue as avoiding unnecessary and destructive war, then he would bedemanding wholesale changes in the US government…its dismantling?…and not the UN which got Iraq right and was infinitely wiser and smarter and more moral than the dismal moral degenerates posing as American politicians. I have heard some of the things Ron Paul has said; while they are a lot better than the bellicose bleatings of Cheney and Bush this is not such a high bar to get over.

    Reply

  41. Ajaz Haque says:

    This guy is dangerous and should be kept as far away as possible from policy making. If Bolton has his way the US will be fighting concurrent wars with Iraq, Iran, Syria & North Korea.
    No wonder he couldn’t muster any support from Congress for confirmation, but he still gives interviews as if he decides policy

    Reply

  42. Kathleen says:

    Neo-Nutzis, plain and simple.
    It’s time to apply Darth Cheney’s One Percent Doctrine to Bush, et al.
    John Bolton’s arrogance to think we have any moral right to police anyone is stupefying.
    Robert Morrow, you are wrong about the UN. At the end of WW2, the entire world placed it’s hopes for permanent worldwide peace in the fledgling world body. That is where this hope has the best chance of realization.
    Thank heaven, John Bolton was never confirmed and resigned. Thank you, Steve, for leading the fight against him.

    Reply

  43. HyperIon says:

    Shalot said:
    c. Disregarding the consequences of our international actions is unethical.
    and i add..it’s also just plain stupid.

    Reply

  44. HyperIon says:

    POA said: I watched Hayden on CNN last night…
    yeah, i saw him on CSPAN’s Q&A and he was AWFUL.
    even the always unflappable Brian Lamb seemed taken aback by some of the “used car salesman” like things Hayden was saying.

    Reply

  45. Carroll says:

    Might be interested in this:
    America’s plan for Baghdad
    http://news.independent.co.uk/world/fisk/article2439530.ece
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    I don’t see how this will work either…unless we “occupy” Iraq forever and ever..with a lot more troops than we have.
    Not even the Green zone is secure any longer so how are they going to “set up” secure “gated civilian communities”?
    Every step we take gets us in deeper and deeper with no good results.
    The reality is we screwed up Iraq and can’t fix it…and the reality is we have lost whatever we had in the ME altogether…our influence and power there is going, going, going every day.

    Reply

  46. MP says:

    POA, I believe Zathras’s comment was prompted by JoJo’s post:
    “Russia in Lenin Stalin’s time and Hitler’s Germany had the same types of Ashkenazies as Bolten . Sad part is America and England are controlled by the same zionist. Millions have died. Who said that the Zealot tribes had vanished—Balony– ! None of the so called 19 terrorists of 911 were Arabs but I bet–Bolten is one of them pukes.”
    Larry Johnson makes the apt point that the VT shooting is just a smidgen of what Iraqis have experienced every day for the past several years. The comparison was just another way of bringing it all home for Americans insulated from the bad news.

    Reply

  47. Carroll says:

    there is a great hesitation to say it outright, but this is the same world view of the Nazis as they attacked, destroyed and slaughtered “inferior” cultures.
    Posted by della Rovere at April 16, 2007 08:43 PM
    >>>>>>>>>>>>
    Well, it’s true, so let’s say it.
    The “mentality” of superiority is the same in many ways.
    As for those who think the US should be the world’s policeman..HAH!….the US can’t police the world by itself. The world has moved beyond total control by any one country. Add to that if we had been a good cop instead of a cop on the take we might not be where we are now.

    Reply

  48. sdemetri says:

    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    I know what they would have done with Bolton at the Nuremburg trials. Some people really need a refresher course, don’t you think?
    Posted by: Marky at April 16, 2007 01:39 PM
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    Here’s at least a partial refresher:
    http://balkin.blogspot.com/2006/10/when-lawyers-are-war-criminals.html

    Reply

  49. benjoya says:

    BBC, SchmeeBC, everyone knows they lost their balls when greg dike was fired. since then they’ve been a bush/blair apologist

    Reply

  50. Matthew says:

    Someone call the White Supremicist camp in Idaho and tell them that “jojo” escaped.

    Reply

  51. Pissed Off American says:

    Zathras……..
    The true “nutballs” are the ones that discuss politics as if this nation still has a representative government. There was a time when the Justice Department, ignoring a subpoena from Congress, would have made front page news. That time was not so long ago. The utter contempt that these sons of bitches have for the law, and for the citizenry of the United States, is unprecedented. Their governance makes even the most incredible “conspiracy theory” seem within the bounds of credibility.
    I have seen your intelligent postings, that lack common sense and logic, and have enjoyed more than one chuckle at the expense of your inexplicable denial. Yes, there are nutballs here. Most of them think this nation will right itself by adhering to the same course of political corruption and malfeasance that has delivered us where we now find ourselves.
    Sometimes, Zathras, brains just get in the way, and you gotta trust what your eyes and ears are telling you. For the most part, you seem to be such a model of denial. Do yourself a favor, and open your eyes, and shut the intellectual bullshit off.
    Just my opinion. No offense intended.

    Reply

  52. Shalot says:

    a. Bolton shouldn’t appear to be joking about such things.
    b. U.S. doesn’t have the capacity to be the world’s policeman.
    c. Disregarding the consequences of our international actions is unethical.

    Reply

  53. David N says:

    Since I don’t have anything else to do, I thought I’d take a small bow. . .
    Check out the Toles cartoon in today’s Post. It says what I posted last night, that even were we to recapture our government and media as viable institutions, the criminals whose “mistakes” have been actively destroying our country would move on to comfort and wealth, while those who simple do their jobs are ignored and denegrated.
    Again, none of the Bush moves are new or original. They don’t have the imagination for that. Everything has been done before, just not to the astounding extent we’ve seen these last six years.
    On blaming the “intelligence,” that’s an old playbook. Demand the bureaucracy do something, while complaining that the bureaucrats are obstructionist. Then, when the bureaucracy does what it’s told, and the crime becomes public, blame the bureaucracy for your own crimes.
    In the eighties, Reagan appointees in USIA started vetting the names of American professors going overseas as lecturers on policy, economics, history, etc. So the speakers bureau started keeping a list of those who had been rejected by the political appointees in Director Wick’s office, so that they wouldn’t send the same names upstairs.
    When it came out, surprise, Wick and his deputy blamed the “Blacklist” on “mindless gnomes” in the career bureaucracy, when the fault was not the list, but the vetting practice itself.
    The same thinking — and often the same people — have brought us to this pass we find ourselves in today, because the media doesn’t think, the people don’t pay attention, and the “conventional wisdom” rules in ignorance.
    della Rovere has it right, only I hope that — even if it takes a revolution — we can regain our country.

    Reply

  54. Zathras says:

    I hope Steve won’t mind my saying that the number of nutbars on this board seems to be trending upward rather steeply.

    Reply

  55. jojo says:

    Russia in Lenin Stalin’s time and Hitler’s Germany had the same types of Ashkenazies as Bolten . Sad part is America and England are controlled by the same zionist. Millions have died. Who said that the Zealot tribes had vanished—Balony– ! None of the so called 19 terrorists of 911 were Arabs but I bet–Bolten is one of them pukes.

    Reply

  56. della Rovere says:

    I also think that America, that great dream of freedom and prosperity, is in a state of extreme dysfunction. We have a government and a system of overriding rigidity government that does not reflect at all the changed desires and viewpoint of the electorate despite a congressional election in which the dominant party was ousted from both houses of Congress, unresponsive to the urgent desires of the population.
    Our press is in many ways worse than the official press of a dictatorship…we get somewhat better news coverage and somewhat broader variation, but the cost is that our semi-official news media gives the government more credibility than a fully controlled media would. Our courts are owned by adherents of our political oppressors.
    The great American experiment has really foundered on corporate-financed right-wing think-tanks, political organs, corporate media. The amount of money funnelled into the authoritarian right is staggering. I do not think we will ever have this country back again; to the extent we ever do have control we should spend some time thinking about how we must start over. With new institutions that can somehow be immunized from the right wing corporate money that dictate the policies of death and destruction and poverty and disease that are the policies of the minority (but dominant) Party in America today.

    Reply

  57. liz says:

    we are the people living in a failed state right now. Most everyone working within the government is lying. The congress has approved rules and law ONLY for the working class people who are loosing all their jobs. Before long only corporate America will be able to pay their taxes and the little people will all be in concentration camps. And if you guys choose to say, that will never happen here… well, see ya there!Only the elected are elite

    Reply

  58. Dirk says:

    It appears that Giuliani is being “advised”, on foreign policy presumably, by neocon Bolton according to the NY Observer:
    “Mr. Giuliani has criticized some aspects of the American performance in Iraq, but has basically supported the President’s plan without addressing its specific shortcomings. Asked about his day-to-day Iraq advisor, his campaign would only say that he speaks with many individuals, including retired Gen. Jack Keane and former U.N. Ambassador John Bolton.”
    http://tinyurl.com/2g7era

    Reply

  59. Pissed Off American says:

    As an aside, it is obvious that the Virginia tragedy will undoubtedly be the news issue of the month. So…..
    ….be aware that the Justice Department, as of 2:00 PM today, is in non-compliance of the subpoena that was issued by John Conyers, seeking further documents about the attorney firings. These bastards in this Administration have complete contempt for the law.
    Also, Rice has ignored Waxman’s demands for her testimony about the Niger documents. She may face a subpoena as well, unless Waxman backs down. Whats the point in issuing subpoenas if the targets of those subpoens simply ignore them? What the hell are we going to do, send marshalls over to the State Department? To the Justice Department? Never happen. These people are holding themselves above the law.
    You can stop saying “it can’t happen here”. It can. And it is.

    Reply

  60. Pissed Off American says:

    You cannot debate any aspect about Iraq, past, present, or future, without starting with the naked truth. And the naked truth is that we were lied into this debacle. I watched Hayden on CNN last night, and the lying mother fucker is still claiming that it was intelligence failures that were to blame for the WMD premise proving to be so dead “wrong”. Listening to him was like listening to an adolescent child stumbling through an explanation of being caught lying.
    And these bastards did have a plan, and it is the same plan they are still pursuing, apparently with a possible success in sight. That plan was to privatize the Iraqi oil assets. Bremer fucked it up, and Sistani stepped in and said “no way”. Now that the privatization plan is back on track, Bush needs to buy some time to get the scam successfully implemented. As soon as corporate oil can move in, with their installations insulated from the civil mayhem by an army of Blackwater mercenaries, our troops will be brought home, (with the exception of a network of permanent bases of quick response special forces whose role will be reinforcing Blackwater’s role of protecting the oil facilities).
    The fact that Bolton is unfazed by the deaths of what is approaching three quarters of a million Iraqi non-combatants should suprise no one. An occassional poster here, Den Valdron, once commented that these bastards in the Bush Administration are in fact “monsters”. Truer words have never been spoken. I will forever be ashamed of my country for its actions of the last six years. Our redemption can only be realized by holding these monsters accountable. I have little faith that we will do so.

    Reply

  61. David N says:

    The parallels between the Nazis and the Bushies are many and frightening, and placed off limits by the captive media shills that put him in office and still protect him from proper scruteny.

    Reply

  62. della Rovere says:

    there is a great hesitation to say it outright, but this is the same world view of the Nazis as they attacked, destroyed and slaughtered “inferior” cultures.

    Reply

  63. David N says:

    When the point is made that the mistake was in not ‘giving the Iraqis “a copy of the Federalist papers and saying, ‘Good luck.'” ‘, the point is missed that this is exactly what those who were in charge of the occupation did!
    Bolton says there were plans for post-war Iraq. What he doesn’t say is that they were ignored. Instead, we depended on the Randian fantasies of Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld, and others that democracy and a perfect libertarian state would blossom all by itself. They didn’t NEED to know what they were doing!
    My own fantasy, which has as much chance of occuring as theirs, is that all of these morons will be shut away in abu Graib or Guantanamo, and we never have to see them again. At least get them off the airwaves, and out of the news and the Net! They had their chance, why should we waste more of our lives listening to their lies??!!
    At the least, my own plan is to simply not read anything they try to publish, now or for the rest of their lives. Though historians will have to wallow in their swill for professional purposes, I see no reason for the rest of us to support their crimes by buying, or even reading from the library, any of their books. Beginning with the war criminal George Tenet and his book trying to make the case that the war was everyone else’s fault but his own.
    Enough Bullshit!!
    I know they live in a coccoon, and it won’t make a difference to their delusions, but it will certainly make a difference to me when I can simply ignore anything and everything these psychopaths have to say.
    Final point: No, we can’t declare victory and go home. It’s too late for that. We have to face the fact that these clowns have lost. They failed to achieve anything in Iraq. They failed to get those responsible for 9/11 in Afghanistan. They have made us more vulnerable, weaker, and poorer. There is no prospect of this thing called “victory,” which is why it is so criminal that they are killing so many of our military men and women to feed their fantasies.
    Declare failure. Support the troops. Get them home. Then just start the multi-generational job of fixing the problems the Bush Putsch has created.

    Reply

  64. TonyForesta says:

    All of the Bush governments hobgoblins (Bolton, Bush, Cheney, Gonzales, Freeh, Negroponte, Rice, et al.) fascist delusions, substantless prognositactions, partisan soothsaying, and hollow shapeshifting meaningless promises are irrelevent and moot.
    The critical point is that the fascist warmongers, profiteers, and pathological liars in Bush government intended to prosecute a war, regime change, an occupation or colonization, and a ruthless marauding of Iraq’s oil resources from the first day in office, long before 9/11. These fascists have succeeded in this endeavor, and are profiting exceedingly and wantonly from the perfidious machinations and operations.
    Bolton is exhibiting his true colors, and like Pearl, Wolfowitz, Cheney, and Bush this weekend these warmongers, profiteers, and pathological liars are all ruthlessly and shamelessly pimping the same festering pile of deceptions, exaggerations, distortions, and patent lies used prior to the war, to glean some last shred of support for continuing the war, colonization, marauding of Iraqs oil resources, and wanton profiteering.
    None of these fascists have any credibility, nor do any of them deserve one nanopartical of the peoples goodwill, goodfaith, or trust.
    Impeachment is the only just remedy to right the terrible bloody, costly, noendinsight, horrors, and wrongs of the fascist warmongers, profiteers, and pathological liars in the Bush government.
    “Deliver us from evil!”

    Reply

  65. Homer says:

    Robert Morrow: But the North Koreans or the Iranians might some day.
    Judging by the past few decades of intense co-operation, Al-Dawa and the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq are one in the same with Iran, Hizbollah, Hamas, et al.
    Why should we not be wary of the govt in Iraq which Bush **inadvertently** installed at the cost of several oceans of blood and treasure?

    Reply

  66. pantagruel says:

    | Posted by Frank Wilhoit at April 16, 2007 12:18 PM — “But what if it had? Where would Bush and the Republican Party be today? I don’t have an answer; I’d like to hear anyone’s.” |
    I’m not sure where this president would be but “we’d” be mostly if not entirely out of Iraq.
    In the context of purely impure realpolitik, Bolton is absolutely right.
    No matter how deceitfully, treacherously, stuporously and perhaps illegally misled into an unnecessary war — had “we” the collective will to end this bloody charade with the ouster of Saddam Hussein, including the dismantling of all forward bases, thousands of U.S. lives would’ve been spared (and still might be) with billions of dollars better spent.
    We could still curtail this war *before* the current administration expires if Democrats and conscientious Republicans were willing to invest a little political capital for the greater, national good:
    Cost: Gloves on. Providing a cowardly dauphin with the face-saving (political) cover he craves to reverse position. What cover? “We’ve already won. Victory was achieved when Saddam Hussein was deposed. It’s up to Iraqis to forge a new Iraq. There is no immediate danger nor imminent threat from Iraq to the United States. The president declared “mission accomplished” in May 2003. It’s time to bring our troops home.”
    Good: Short memories. Whatever Congress “says” (gloves on) to compel executive reversal will be long forgotten by a grateful electorate. In other words, with all troops home, all gloves off.

    Reply

  67. steambomb says:

    OMG. Did I hear him blame the mistake of WMD on the Brits? Do a google search on “forged niger” see what you come up with. I am amazed.

    Reply

  68. Dan Kervick says:

    I assume that if we actually had just “decapitated” the Iraqi regime – that is, killed or captured Saddam, his sons, and his top advisors and lieutenants, while leaving everything else alone – then the regime might well have quickly grown a new head, and Iraq would be ruled today by another Baathist regime very similar to the previous one.
    Of course, how one would accomplish this decapitation is a challenging question. It sounds like palace coup. My understanding is that several attempts had been made during the 90’s to assassinate Saddam and his sons, or get certain leading Baathists to depose him, and these attempts came to nought.
    There probably wouldn’t be much of a point in doing this anyway – from a substantive point of view. One could have accomplished much the same end by working out some sort of Qaddafi-like deal with Saddam, and bringing him in from the diplomatic cold. Maybe the only point of the decapitation route would have been to save US face. Having spent 12 years making no secret of the desire to get Saddam, and kill or depose him, US leaders would have faced a major humiliation if they had just kissed and made up in the end, without getting their man.
    On the other hand, perhaps the US could have gotten its bases in Iraq by making some sort of strategic deal with the new Baathist regime.
    The major problem would have been political. You had a bunch of wingnuts who were convinced that the Iraqi regime had a big, dangerous WMD program, that it was sponsoring and supporting al-Qaeda, and that it had a hand in 9/11 and also the earlier Trade Center attack. They wouldn’t have been satisfied with a minor change of regime, and would still be barking about the need to go into Iraq to get those WMDs and destroy the nefarious al-Qaeda training camps. They would probably be telling us that’s where Bin Laden in hiding too.
    And you had a bunch of liberal interventionists worked up about Saddamian toture chambers, and geared up to mount a transformative crusade to stamp out illiberal evildoers and carry the torch of American liberty to all corners of the globe. They wouldn’t have been satisfied with a new gang of Baathist toughs. Michael Ignatieff and Christopher Hitchins would still be out there in their full crusading glory.
    And you had a bunch of angry, grieving, ignorant, bigoted US masses of all kinds who just wanted to kill a bunch of Arabs – somewhere, anywhere. They also wouldn’t have been satisfied with the meagre tally in blood and destruction wrought by a clean decapitation operation.

    Reply

  69. Frank Wilhoit says:

    Robert Morrow:
    Some time when you get a chance, ask a policeman–any policeman, chosen at random–what he would need in order to be able to do his job. Don’t be satisfied with a sound-bite answer; probe a little.
    Then again, perhaps I am being presumptuous. You may have your own perfectly valid reasons for avoiding policemen. As an alternative, you might ask someone in the New York City department of pest control what he would need to get rid of all the rats.

    Reply

  70. Robert Morrow says:

    Unlike my hero Ron Paul, I believe that the USA should be the world’s policeman. I sure don’t believe the United Nations should be. I would dissolve the UN.
    I like Bolton’s approach. He does not even claim that USA can or should fix everything in the world. But what we CAN do is make sure Iraq, Iran and North Korea don’t have nuclear weapons or are a future military threat to us. We don’t have a magic wand to make those places democracies, sure would be nice if we did.
    What the USA can do is kill any foreign leader who threatens us and we can dismantle their WMD capacity and delivery ability. We should focus on that. If it leaves a destabilized country in its wake … so what. I consider it extremely destablilzing for Iraq, Iran or North Korea to have WMD.
    And we are yapping here on these pages about the Sudan. The Sudan? The Sudan? They can’t kill us. But the North Koreans or the Iranians might some day.
    The USA’s role SHOULD be that of world policeman, but not within a UN structure, but with a coalition of the willing in each case. Because nobody ELECTED the United Nations’ madhouse. John Bolton’s logic makes perfect sense to me.

    Reply

  71. Marky says:

    I know what they would have done with Bolton at the Nuremburg trials. Some people really need a refresher course, don’t you think?

    Reply

  72. Zathras says:

    This is a case where abstract reasoning can lead one astray.
    In the abstract, a country posing a security threat to the United States could indeed be dealt with through military action to remove the threat, and thereafter be left to itself. Had the American army withdrawn from Iraq in, say, June of 2003, what would likely have happened is that Saddam Hussein and the Baathists would have immediately attempted to reassert their authority, directing their attention first to crushing a Shiite rebellion in the south and dealing with the Kurds in the north, or not, depending on how much effort decimating the Shiite south required. However, the threat Saddam’s regime represented to the United States would have been removed, and our purposes served.
    That’s only in the abstract, as we know now and should have suspected then. The WMD threat to America and other countries in Iraq did not actually exist, meaning that overthrowing Saddam’s government, withdrawing, and then watching as the Baathist regime reconstituted itself would not only have been literally pointless from the standpoint of American interests but would also have made us look ridiculous. In the abstract, Bolton’s position is arguable; in reality it is absurd.
    Having said that, it is only fair to point out that not disbanding the Iraqi army shortly after the invasion, not dismissing Baathists regardless of their record from government jobs, and in general not permitting the dissolution of much of the Iraqi state and the overhaul of the rest could have created a situation that would have allowed coalition forces to leave Iraq in the first part of 2004, in other words after Saddam’s sons had been killed and he captured. The result would very likely have been a regime authoritarian in nature and struggling with serious internal discord, but it would not have been Saddam’s regime and we would not be its chief support. We would still have been in the position of initiating a war to remove a nonexistent threat, and the whole “democracy in the Middle East” theme the Bush administration became so fond of could not have been used. But the widely despised Saddam would have been gone, and those Iraqis who still insisted on shooting each other would be shooting only at each other, not at coalition soldiers.
    Maybe this is what Bolton had in mind. Here again, though, reality intrudes. For this course to have been followed it would have had to be planned for, not improvised on the spur of the moment. It wasn’t, and neither was anything else, and so here we are.

    Reply

  73. Carroll says:

    It also appears that Bolton’s fellow traveler Wolfowitz isn’t going to go quietly from the WB.
    And if he doesn’t the WB is going down the tubes. Countries, especially the Europeans are dragging their feet on giving any money to the WB as long as the Wolf is there.
    http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/16/washington/16bank.html?ex=1334376000&en=7f0aca7627d0eaaf&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss

    Reply

  74. Carroll says:

    There are many more Bolton fellow travelers, they just aren’t quite so blunt.

    Reply

  75. Homer says:

    Frank Wilhoit: But what if it had?
    Sunnis and Shiites have been at each others’ necks for 1400 years.
    Within the last few decades, Shiite fundamentalists (Al-Dawa, Sadrists, SCIRI) have become extremely organized and active in order to transform Iraq into a Shiite fundamentalist republic.
    By deposing SH, the Bush admin basically provided **the** opportunity by which the Shiites could transform Iraq into a Shiite fundamentalist republic.
    So, if the US would have pulled out, it is quite probable that the very same pro-extremist-Iranian, pro-Hizbollah, anti-Israeli, anti-US Shiite fundamentalists would have seized the reins of power.
    The Bush admin’s **inadvertent** gift is one that will never stop giving.
    The US has been brought into a very very old fight, so people are palpably ignornat to think that after 1400 years the Sunnis and the Shiites are `ready to make nice’.
    Assholes like Bolton deserve to be renditioned to Iraq where we can see Darwin in action.
    [Keywords: John Bolton, George W. Bush, Al Maliki, Bayan Jabr, Moqtada Sadr, Al-Hakim, Al Dawa, Supreme Council of the Islamic Revolution in Iraq, Islamic fundamentalism]

    Reply

  76. Frank Wilhoit says:

    Well, suppose that we had actually done what Bolton suggests, viz. decapitate the Ba’athist regime and then immediately withdraw. (I do not think he is being facetious about this, by the way; I predicted it in early 2003, James Fallows agreed with me at that time, and I still do not quite understand why it did not play out that way.)
    But what if it had? Where would Bush and the Republican Party be today? I don’t have an answer; I’d like to hear anyone’s.

    Reply

  77. JohnH says:

    Amazing–he would rather live in a failed state than under a dictatorship. If that’s the case, he’s out of synch with the administration, which desperately needs stability to get Iraq to increase its oil production.
    He also said that there were too many post-invasion plans for Iraq. Sounds like too many cooks, including all the private contractors focused on looting, spoiled the broth.

    Reply

  78. MP says:

    It really takes your breath away. What more can one say?

    Reply

  79. Pacific John says:

    As someone who worked on the inside of missile defense, I constantly wonder why the press and policy elites didn’t take PNAC at their word ten years ago.
    The answer is simple, if Bolton treats the world as a game, so does the DC cocktail circuit. It’s just that Bolton does it without grace.

    Reply

Add your comment

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