Washington Note Headlines — 2 November 2009

-

karzai finger.jpgKarzai Declared Winner. Abdullah Abdullah withdraws from runoff amid concerns about systemic fraud in election system — and Karzai is declared winner. Intrade never had much doubt in the outcome.
Clinton Schedules Then Retracts Meeting with Japan Foreign Minister Okada. Could still happen — but what a big change when Hillary Clinton’s first overseas visit was to Tokyo and Barack Obama’s first official foreign head of government was Japan Prime Minister Taro Aso. American and Japanese authorities are still bickering over a relocation deal for Futenma Air Station on Okinawa. Someone should remind Secretary of State Hillary Clinton that the reshuffled security arrangements between the US and Japan were triggered by the brutal rape of a 12-year old girl by three American servicemen.
Hillary Clinton Sides with Netanyahu on Settlements. In the marketplace of human emotion, Palestinian and Arab Muslim hopes skyrocketed after President Obama’s stirring Cairo speech, his appointment of the seemingly fair minded and tough Middle East envoy George Mitchell, and his tough call for an end to illegal Israeli settlement expansion. But now “natural growth” in the territories and structural expansion and destruction of Palestinian homes in East Jerusalem have Hillary Clinton’s stamp of approval. Humiliation is pretty much part of being a Palestinian it seems.
Honduras Sues Brazil in World Court. The defacto, coup-installed Honduras president Roberto Micheletti has taken Brazil to court for allowing ousted Honduras President Manuel Zelaya to sleep on its couch in its Tegucigalpa embassy.
plame wilson twn.jpgThe Valerie Plame-Joe Wilson Movie Fair Game Test Screened. Sean Penn not only has a brilliant Harvey Milk and Huey Long in him. Apparently, in the new film “Fair Game” about the Valerie Plame-Joe Wilson encounter with the Cheney-Libby-Rove cabal, Sean Penn brilliantly captures Joe Wilson — and Naomi Watts gets high scores as Valerie Plame. The film is in discreet test screenings around the country.
Corona Coming Attractions‘ inside man saw the screen test and writes:

“Fair Game is really a tremendous, thought provoking film. It’s based on the same titled memoir by former CIA Agent Valerie Plame, who of course worked for the agency as an undercover spy until her husband wrote an op-ed piece declaring that the Bush White House lied about Sadaam Hussein’s efforts to buy yellow-cake uranium from Niger. Naomi Watts plays Plame (and as shown at the ending, really looks a lot like her), and plays her wonderfully. The story is set up through a sequence at the beginning showing her in action in the field, and in the CIA headquarters being completely dedicated to her job. She loves what she does for her country even at the price the travel and the secrecy puts on her family life.
“She’s married to former Ambassador Joe Wilson, played by Sean Penn in what very easily could (and should) be his next Oscar nomination. Wilson is a man in turmoil almost from his opening scene, dining with friends who think they know everything about the world. They don’t, Wilson doesn’t, but he certainly knows more about the Iraq situation than they do and is glad to tell anybody about it who will listen. His expertise gets him looked at (through no suggestion of his wife) and requested of by the CIA to take a trip to Niger to investigate reports that Hussein was looking to buy uranium from that country, which Wilson was a leading expert on. He agreed, made the trip, found that there was no possible way that a purchase of yellowcake was made, and reported that back to the government. The administration, as we now know, chose to ignore this report, and used the incorrect intelligence as a key basis in its case for war.
“This destroys Wilson, who starts to speak up in the press, and the leak of his wife’s identity was made. We’re led to believe that the order of the leak was made by Karl Rove to Scooter Libby (played by a hilariously serious David Andrews), and the rest is history. Plame’s career is destroyed, her marriage (and life) nearly go along with it, and a major investigation into corruption in the Bush White House is launched, ultimately leading to the fall of Libby.
“The film clocked in at roughly 1:50, and paced tremendously well. There was a side-plot they spent a bit too much time on involving an Iraqi family and Plame’s valiant efforts to save them from the invasion, but that was really the only downfall of the film. Watts is excellent, at least as good as she was in Eastern Promises, and Penn is as good here as I’ve seen him. It’s directed by Doug Liman who did an excellent job of it, and I believe he also served as DP, so kudos to him as I often forgot the camera was even rolling. Truly a wonderful human drama with political suspense that should interest anybody no matter how they vote. 9/10.”

GOSSIP.
~~ Steve Clemons, proprietor of the Washington Note, will be backstage at the Bruce Springsteen concert tonight at the DC Verizon Center.
~~ Dennis Ross, tasked to be the Iran engagement envoy for the President and Secretary of State Clinton, has been lurking quietly behind the scenes moving from the Department of State to the National Security Council — and “amassing power” according to one source. Another well placed source reports: “Dennis is back.” Depending on how one looks at the Middle East peace process and the prospect of Nixon-like strategic leaps in world affairs, Dennis Ross could be bane or boon.
— Steve Clemons

Comments

116 comments on “Washington Note Headlines — 2 November 2009

  1. nadine says:

    The Israeli government refused to cooperate with Goldstone, very understandably considering the totally one-sided mandate and prejudiced statements of the UNHRC “judges”.
    However, there were plenty of Israeli public statements that Goldstone could have used – official Israeli investigations in allegations of misconduct, decisions by the Israeli judiciary, reports in Israeli newspapers, and interviews with Israelis, which Goldstone did do some of. He used none of it, and his report declares he he finds the testimony of “Gaza authorities” aka Hamas, more reliable than decisions of the Israeli judiciary. I can show you tape of a bitter Israeli victim of terror who asks why Goldstone interviewed her then never used her testimony in the report, and spent only 2 pages out of 570+ even mentioning Hamas rocket attacks or their Israeli victims?
    Like I said, the ONLY Israeli testimony Goldstone accepted was a Haaretz report where IDF soldiers reported IDF attacks on civilians (the ensuing IDF investigation found that the men were repeating hearsay). When the SAME soldiers reported seeing civilians booby-trapped in their own homes by Hamas, Goldstone didn’t report it.
    So POS, as usual you are totally full of it. Israeli government non-cooperation did not have to mean near 100% reliance on Hamas’ hand-picked witnesses; that was Goldstone’s choice entirely.
    Israel, unlike Hamas, is instantly subject to self-criticism from its own investigations, as well as scrutiny by a free press, an independent judiciary, and about 80 human rights organizations. Goldstone knows all that. But his job was to whitewash a kangaroo court decision for the UNHRC, and examining the Israeli evidence would only have got in the way. So he produced the result that had been determined beforehand.

    Reply

  2. PissedOffAmerican says:

    You’re a liar, Nadine. The Israelis refused to cooperate with Goldstone. Your last post is total unmittigated horseshit. Just like 99.9% of your spew.

    Reply

  3. nadine says:

    How one-sided was Goldstone? He refused to accept any Israeli evidence whatsoever except for one case where Israeli soldiers were quoted in Haaretz saying that Israelis had fired on civilians. This evidence they accepted. But the very same men also said they had seen civilian housing booby trapped with the families still inside. This evidence Goldstone refused to accept and said in the report that he had seen no evidence of Hamas booby trapping houses. Suddenly these witnesses whom he accepted when they said something against Israel, became no good. That’s how one-sided Goldstone was.

    Reply

  4. PissedOffAmerican says:

    Read, don’t just dismiss, Goldstone’s report on Gaza
    By REP. KEITH ELLISON | 11/3/09 5:11 AM EST
    Who is afraid of Richard Goldstone? No one should be. Not even the U.S. Congress — yet it is poised on Tuesday to condemn the United Nations Human Rights Council’s Goldstone report on violations of international law related to the Gaza war of late 2008.
    Why the fear? Judge Goldstone is no Israel basher. He is famous for apprehending Nazi criminals in Argentina, for serving as chief prosecutor for the U.N. International Criminal Tribunals and for chairing the Independent International Commission on Kosovo. He is motivated by his struggle against apartheid in South Africa. A self-described Zionist, he serves as a trustee of The Hebrew University of Jerusalem and has said that “bringing war criminals to justice stems from the lessons of the Holocaust.”
    At the outset, note that four sections of the Goldstone report deal with abuses by Hamas, including the launching of rockets into civilian towns in Israel. The report explicitly states that these rocket attacks are war crimes.
    Yet despite Goldstone’s stellar reputation, the veracity of the report — and his motives — has been challenged. The detailed Goldstone report concludes that “the Israeli military operation was directed at the people of Gaza as a whole, in furtherance of an overall and continuing policy aimed at punishing the Gaza population, and in a deliberate policy of disproportionate force aimed at the civilian population.”
    I agree with my congressional colleagues — and with Goldstone — that the initial U.N. resolution of Jan. 12, 2009, calling for an investigation of abuses committed during the Gaza crisis was one-sided, focusing exclusively on Israel. That resolution was used by some countries to criticize Israel without acknowledging the abuses by Hamas. Goldstone initially refused to lead the investigation because of the original flawed mandate.
    But Goldstone pushed back. He succeeded in expanding the scope of the mission to include an examination of the actions of both Hamas and Israel.
    Israel, however, refused to cooperate with the investigation because of the original “one-sided mandate.” What if Israel had participated from the beginning? It could have pointed out that the U.N. Human Rights Council has a history of unfairly singling out Israel for criticism. It could have described Hamas’s abuses, and it could have elaborated on the context of the Israeli invasion of Gaza, which includes a long history of attacks on civilians. Israel could have observed the difficulties of combat in urban areas. But instead, Israel condemned the effort and then attacked the final product.
    I visited Sderot in southern Israel and saw the havoc and trauma created by Hamas rocket fire. Israelis there live with fear. I have condemned these attacks as war crimes and will continue to do so.
    I also visited Gaza and witnessed the devastation wreaked by the recent war. I toured an American school and medical clinics devastated by Operation Cast Lead. A blockade keeps out items such as paper for textbooks and nutritious food. Gazans live in poverty, and most cannot drink their own water. These are cruel violations against the people of Gaza, 56 percent of whom are children.
    The Goldstone report does not assign blame. It lays out the facts, as best as Goldstone could ascertain them, and offers recommendations for the future. Congress should use this report as a resource to understand a critical part of the world and to grasp fully the devastating human costs of the status quo.
    Instead, Congress is poised to oppose the Goldstone report without holding a single hearing on a document that few members of Congress, if any, have read.
    This is a mistake. The stance of this Congress will erode U.S. credibility in the post-Obama world, and it will tarnish our commitment to the principle that all nations must be held to the same standards. Rather than undermine the report or Goldstone, we are at risk of undermining Congress’s and President Barack Obama’s reputation as honest brokers.
    Israel can still pursue its own investigation, and critics of the Goldstone report should recognize that Israel is strong enough to withstand inquiry. Self-reflection is one of the hallmarks of a strong democracy. In fact, Israel has investigated itself in the past in connection with the Sabra and Shatila incidents. When nations like the United States, Israel, South Africa and others have pursued the truth through investigations — however uncomfortable — their people and politics have emerged stronger.
    We stand for the values of democracy, truth and justice. There is no reason for Congress, Israel or any other party to fear an honest judge. Richard Goldstone is such a judge, and his report should be studied, not dismissed.
    Rep. Keith Ellison (D-Minn.) is a member of the House Committee on Foreign Affairs.
    http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1109/29030_Page2.html

    Reply

  5. nadine says:

    “Everyone who disagrees with you about Goldstone (including the 344 who voted for H Res 867) are dupes who vote like sheep and are too dumb or venal to do the right thing.”
    Of course, Wigwag. Just like it was a “sleazy semantic trick” on my part to support Hoyer by quoting the Mandate in the Goldstone Report, accurately and in full. POA seems to think that Hoyer was claiming the whole Goldstone report didn’t mention Hamas rockets (which it did, perfunctorily). The only question is whether POA misread Hoyer through carelessness or deliberate intent. But this is typical – alter the original quote to make it mean something it never said, so you can scream “liar, liar”.
    What they lack in evidence they make up in vituperation.

    Reply

  6. PissedOffAmerican says:

    Anyone reading this thread, that cares about the future of their children, and the security and values of the United States, should feel absolute loathing for Wigwag.

    Reply

  7. Outraged American says:

    Wig admits that Congress vote like sheep & are too dumb or
    venal to do the right thing (I would say all three)
    What I love about Wig is her ability to expose the true insanity
    that surrounds the US Congress’ votes on Israel, WITHOUT EVEN
    TRYING.
    Keep going Wig because you and your fellow Zionists are digging
    all our graves and it’s only a matter of time till the relatively sane
    will realize what a bunch of blood thirsty, cowardly, schmuks
    you are.
    Nothing like burying ones child before oneself to make people
    politically active, that or a DRAFT. Both of which will happen,
    and the Zionists will rue the day they stabbed their best hope,
    the US, in the back. Over and over again.

    Reply

  8. DonS says:

    Res ipsa loquitur

    Reply

  9. WigWag says:

    Thanks for explaining it to me DonS.
    Now I get it.
    Everyone who disagrees with you about Goldstone (including the 344 who voted for H Res 867) are dupes who vote like sheep and are too dumb or venal to do the right thing.
    It’s you and the 14 other Americans who agree with you who are smart, astute, honorable and decent.
    How lucky you are to be a member of the elect and how lucky the readers of the Washington Note are to benefit from your esoteric knowledge and deep understanding.

    Reply

  10. DonS says:

    ” . . . the simple reality is that only the smallest number of your fellow citizens agree with you. ”
    There is a difference between nodding one’s head like a sheep, and having an informed opinion. “Agreement” based on the former is mere response to propaganda, although I expect if the facts were laid out, to ordinary citizen and Joe congressman alike, they would run like hell from being a soldier in the radical Zionist fifth column.
    Depending on the issue, Congress is 1) uninformed and/or 2) crooked to the hilt. Don’t give me this crap about the wisdom of their decision making.

    Reply

  11. WigWag says:

    No one has ever elected you to anything, have they DonS?
    435 members of the House of Representatives were elected to represent almost 300 million Americans. Of these, 344 Representatives voted in a way that suggests they agree with me. And of the 36 who voted the other way, I doubt that many of them would admit to agreeing with your position on the loyalty of American Zionists. In fact, I doubt that even Goldstone would concur with your opinion; after all, he calls himself a Zionist.
    You are certainly entitled to your point of view, but the simple reality is that only the smallest number of your fellow citizens agree with you. The vote in the House last night was as much of a repudiation of your point of view as it was of the Goldstone Report.
    Even Jesse Jackson, Jr. and John Lewis disagree with you. You can’t get much more politically marginalized than that.

    Reply

  12. DonS says:

    Wig wag has always had a bottom line in Tel Aviv. Like many rabid Zionists she thinks its ok to reap the fruits of America while encouraging the American political system to default in favor of Israel, and applauds when the Zionist machine cracks the whip, produces the propaganda, delivers the check and reinforces the parasitic relationship.
    The issue of dual loyalties always gets the neocons stirred up in defense. It remains a live issue, and no amount of accusations of anti-semitic slandering can or will remove that thorn until, if ever, the US Congressmen quit hiding behind its corporate cover and selling out America based on a false rationale, and money.

    Reply

  13. Outraged American says:

    Two states are not going to work-how does Gaza connect w/
    the West Bank? Palestinian Only roads? *chortles*
    Pakistan & Bangladesh spring to mind. Bangladesh was “East
    Bengal” then “East Pakistan” but under Pakistani rule.
    Although there are differences — Bangladeshis were primarily
    Bengalis with no ties to the other Pakistani provinces beyond
    being predominantly Muslim, while Palestinians in the West Bank
    and the Gaza Strip have ancient genetic and linguistic ties to
    each other — it was again, divide and conquer.
    UsRael has been funding Fatah, including training troops, to
    take on Hamas in the Gaza Strip. Abbas is a quisling/ Vichy.
    I think the Palestinians are smart enough to figure out UsRael’s
    thuggery, but extreme malnutrition — well, beyond a daily
    ingestion of depleted uranium, combined with non stop diarrhea
    and a once a year Israeli invasion, do tend to muddy one’s
    thought processes a tad.
    Wig shows her true colors (Blue & White, there’s no Red in Wig
    Wag’s flag) when she types this, “He would be my choice for the
    next AIPAC target.”
    The chutzpah.
    Game’s up Wig. You want pogroms in this country? You will
    eventually get them once Mittle America figures out who is
    calling, LITERALLY, the SHOTS.
    But it appears you don’t care about your grandchildren’s future
    and you and they are too COWARDLY to move to Israel and fight
    for her from there, instead using our blood and treasure till you
    suck us dry and find a new host.

    Reply

  14. WigWag says:

    So the roll call is out and some very interesting facts emerged. Several Representatives who might have been expected to be uncomfortable voting to repudiate Goldstone, decided to support H Res 867 and side with AIPAC. Here are some of the more interesting votes (in no particular order).
    1) Jesse Jackson, Jr voted “yes.” Long known as sympathetic to the Palestinian cause and very close to President Obama you have to believe that Jackson conferred with the White House before voting to repudiate Goldstone. Or perhaps the vote can be explained by his desire to run for the Illinois Senate seat now held by the retiring Roland Burris. Two other possibilities come to mind; maybe Jackson Jr. is still trying to live down the “Hymietown” remark made by Jackson Sr. or maybe he just decided to do the right thing (doubtful but possible).
    2) Dan Boren voted “yes.” This isn’t particularly surprising except for the fact that his father was just appointed by Obama to co-chair the Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board with Chuck Hagel.
    3) Rush Holt voted “present.” Holt is Jewish and he represents a district (in and around Princeton, NJ) that is heavily Jewish and not that progressive (it includes white working class areas of Somerset County). Holt clearly voted his conscience by not voting “aye” or “nay.” By any account he is one of the most thoughtful and intelligent members of the House.
    4) John Lewis voted “aye.” Lewis is a civil rights hero, a man of tremendous personal integrity and one of the most respected House members highly thought of by members of both parties. His vote is a clarion call on the injustice of Goldstone’s report.
    5) David Obey voted “present.” Obey is no partisan of Israel and is of Arab decent himself. But he is a member of the House Leadership and the Chairman of the House Appropriations Committee. He was either informed or just understood that voting “yes” would have put his chairmanship in danger.
    6) Loretta Sanchez from California voted “yes.” Loretta Sanchez is one of the more prominent members of the House Hispanic Caucus and she created quite a stir last year when she accused several members of the caucus of sexist behavior. Interestingly, her sister, Linda Sanchez who represents an adjoining district didn’t vote.
    7) Joe Sestak voted “yes.” A darling of *progressives* and *faux progressives* for his vocal and eloquent opposition to the Iraq War (opposition that was all the more impressive because of his military career) Sestak is challenging Arlen Specter in the Democratic Primary for the Pennsylvania Senate seat. Sestak is a thoughtful guy who almost certainly regretted having to vote on this resolution. He voted *yes* because to do otherwise would have ended his senatorial aspirations. The Jewish Community in Philadelphia is one of the most engaged, wealthy and politically active Jewish communities in the nation. Sestak couldn’t afford to cross them. Another possibility is that Sestak genuinely thinks that Goldstone is an idiot.
    8) Robert Wexler voted “yes.” Wexler was prominently featured at the J Street Convention last week; in fact he was given a speaking role. Wexler has spoken disparagingly of the Goldstone Report.
    9) Janice Schakowski voted “yes.” Like Wexler, Schakowski was prominently featured at J Street and she participated in a panel discussion. Seems like she doesn’t think much of Goldstone either.
    10) Jim Cooper of Tennessee voted “present.” First he does everything he can to destroy the public option (after single-handedly destroying health care reform during the Clinton years) and then he can’t bring himself to vote against Goldstone. He would be my choice for the next AIPAC target. Seems to me his career should follow in the footsteps of Congressmen (that is former Congressmen) McCloskey and Findley.

    Reply

  15. PissedOffAmerican says:

    Obama Appoints Anti-Israel Chuck Hagel as Intelligence Aide
    (Israelnationalnews.com) Jewish Republican party officials and the Zionist Organization of America (ZOA) are among several groups that have called on U.S. President Barack Obama to rescind his appointment of former senator Chuck Hagel as co-chairman of his Intelligence Advisory Board.
    Hagel made clear his attitude towards Israel when he spoke at the pro-Arab and self-proclaimed pro-Israel J Street lobby last week. He echoed President Obama’s previous statements that meeting the demand of the Palestinian Authority for a new Arab state within Israel’s current borders “is central, not peripheral, to U.S. vital security interests in combating terrorism.”
    He also said that the “special relationship” between the United States and Israel “must not come at the expense of our Arab relationships.”
    Republican Jewish Coalition Executive Director Matt Brooks stated that Hagel’s record reflects “a fundamental misunderstanding of the region and of the nature of the threats to U.S. interests in the region. Hagel does not seem to understand that the U.S. and Israel are fighting a war against terrorists whose agenda is an existential threat to our free and democratic system.”
    Hagel, who once criticized President George W. Bush for refusing to meet with Yasser Arafat, has questioned the loyalty of American Jews who support Israel, stating that “the political reality is that … the Jewish lobby intimidates a lot of people up here.”
    continues……..
    http://www.israelnationalnews.com/SendMail.aspx?print=print&type=0&item=134183
    But of course, we are very fortunate to have “questions” corrected Hagel on this premise, as “questions” knows far more about this issue than Chuck Hagel does. Rest easy America, as these racist wretches like Nadine and Wigwag chortle over AIPAC control of United States foreign policy, “questions” is here to calm our fears; Its all a big “conspiracy theory”, AIPAC is actually impotent, and Chuck Hagel doesn’t know what the hell he’s talkin’ about.

    Reply

  16. PissedOffAmerican says:

    http://palestinenote.com/cs/blogs/blogs/archive/2009/11/04/hillary-clinton-should-be-fired.aspx
    Ray Hanania
    Blog Summary » Hillary Clinton should be fired
    The Israelis keep saying they want peace but they can’t seem to support a “freeze” on the expansion of illegal settlements on Palestinian lands. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton calls that an “unprecedented” gesture by Israel.
    Not really. Israel’s rightwing governments, and even its leftwing governments, have long talked the talk of peace but failed to walk the walk. They say they want peace but when the time comes to put up or shut up, they never deliver.
    Why does Israel insist on expanding its settlements when freezing settlements would open the door to renewed peace negotiations? Because the tragic answer could be that Israel really does not want a final peace settlement. It enjoys talking about peace while continuing policies that make peace impossible to achieve.
    Although President Barack Obama tried hard to define a new strategy to achieve peace by insisting that all sides, including Israel, make substantive concessions, Israel has recognized that Obama does not have the full support of even his own party on pressuring Israel to do the right thing.
    If Israel does not want to do the right thing, the U.S. Congress, choked by Israel’s rightwing lobbying arm, AIPAC, will not force it to do the right thing. Congress would rather stand up to Obama and the American people than to a foreign country, which bleeds this country of more than $6 billion a year in foreign aid. The same day Clinton made her embarrassing comment, the U.S. Congress, in a lifelong AIPAC headlock, approved a resolution ordering the United States government to turn its back on justice and reject the findings of the Goldstone Commission on Israeli and Hamas war crimes.
    As an example of how far Congress will go to embrace hypocrisy and to compromise principle, one need only look at the debate on health care. While many in Congress refuse to support a government sponsored “public option” for health care in the United States, thanks to American taxpayers, Israelis enjoy a government sponsored public health care option.
    But for the members of the United States Congress, Israel’s interests have always been more important than the interests of everyday American taxpayers.
    That is a reality that the Obama administration must reconcile. Not even a president determined to do the right thing can force Israel to do the right thing, even for the sake of peace.
    Secretary of State Clinton’s fumbled words calling Israel’s refusal to “freeze” settlement expansion as a necessary step to resume peace negotiations with the Palestinians as being “unprecedented” became the cold water thrown in the face of the Arab World and its people. It may even have extinguished the fire that has been fueling the re-empowerment and resurgence of the moderate movement among Israelis and Palestinians.
    It’s now obvious that the United States, even with Obama as president, may be incapable of doing what needs to be done to force Israel to do the right thing when it refuses to do the right thing.
    We should all step back and begin to prepare for more conflict as moderate voices in the Arab World are pushed aside by Israel’s refusal to compromise on a simple and justified demand to stop seizing Palestinian lands and stop expanding illegal settlements on land that Israel presumably would return as a part of a permanent peace deal.
    If Israel can’t even give back that land in exchange for peace, what is the point of trying to achieve peace with Israel?
    It may be back to the bomb shelters, folks, for Palestinians who have turned their bomb shelters into everyday lives and Israelis who continue to believe they can live normal lives in an unreasoned world of their own reticence.
    It’s only a matter of time that without a strong voice of reason to push Israel to do the right thing, the region will once again be plunged into increased violence. That violence is the goal sought by the extremists on both sides who feed on the failure of the peace process that they help to block. And Israel’s refusal to compromise only emboldens the extremists in their goal.
    Maybe the answer to Clinton’s failure is that she should pay the price of failure and resign from office. Maybe Obama can salvage Middle East peace by firing her and sending someone with more resolve to the region to stand firm against Israeli intransigence.
    That might be an action that would speak volumes towards genuine intent.
    What Obama’s vision lacks is an effective emissary with the willpower to pursue true peace with vigor and determination and resolve; a peace that is a two-sided process in which Israel returns land and the Arabs give increased recognition leading Israel to a final welcome into the Middle East family of nations.
    Once again, it is a Clinton who may have undermined the solution everyone knows is the only answer to the Middle East conflict, two states formed through real compromise.
    But like her husband, I am sure Hillary Clinton will find a way to protect Israel and blame her own failures on the Arabs. That’s what Congress would want, anyway.

    Reply

  17. Outraged American says:

    Zionists really hate Jews. The one place Jews weren’t hated was
    the US & now you’re fucking that up too.
    Wig and Nadine are terrified that US Jews are assimilating, losing
    their Talmud/ Torah induced hypnotic paranoia, and actually
    enjoying life. Zionism can only survive when Jews are in a
    constant state of fear.
    The fact that Jews are not fearful in the US drives Zionist’
    neurosis to extreme levels, like organizing their canasta clubs to
    support a resolution against the Goldstone report. Now proving
    that:
    a) the Israel lobby controls Congress
    b) Americans should actually question whether US Jews support
    the US or Israel first.
    You lost out big time with this one Wig.
    Wig, BTW: why isn’t your granddaughter in the IDF?
    Is she paying her full way at Princeton? My sister went there
    and it is a bit pricey. So how much is the American taxpayer
    paying for this young lass who will graduate from college, and if
    she’s anything like her grandmother, run a nest of traitors from
    within the US?
    And Wig, I interviewed a member of Congress who had just left.
    It was off the record, but here’s the scoop — the majority of
    Congress could give a fuck about Israel and many are closeted
    anti-Jew.
    Why? Because they resent the power of the Israel lobby and how
    it controls the election cycle and forces us to do buttfuck stupid
    things like invade Iraq.
    Congressional Black Caucus vote? See Cynthia McKinney (twice)
    and Earl Hilliard.
    Too many Americans are becoming aware for you to pull this
    tripe much longer.
    If I were you I would fear the backlash against US Jews and what
    it will mean for your descendants. But you might be like the
    parents of the Lodz ghetto, who gave up their children to save
    their own skin.
    From the Jewish Virtual Library:
    …The ghetto has been struck a hard blow. They demand what is
    most dear to it ? children and old people. I was not privileged to
    have a child of my own and therefore devoted my best years to
    children. I lived and breathed together with children. I never
    imagined that my own hands would be forced to make this
    sacrifice on the altar. In my old age I am forced to stretch out my
    hands and to beg: “Brothers and sisters, give them to me! ?
    Fathers and mothers, give me your children…” (Bitter weeping
    shakes the assembled public)… Yesterday, in the course of the
    day, I was given the order to send away more than 20,000 Jews
    from the ghetto, and if I did not – “we will do it ourselves.” The
    question arose: “Should we have accepted this and carried it out
    ourselves, or left it to others?” But as we were guided not by the
    thought: “how many will be lost?” but “how many can be saved?”
    we arrived at the conclusion – those closest to me at work, that
    is, and myself – that however difficult it was going to be, we
    must take upon ourselves the carrying out of this decree. I must
    carry out this difficult and bloody operation, I must cut off limbs
    in order to save the body! I must take away children, and if I do
    not, others too will be taken, God forbid… (terrible wailing).
    I cannot give you comfort today. Nor did I come to calm you
    today, but to reveal all your pain and all your sorrow. I have
    come like a robber, to take from you what is dearest to your
    heart. I tried everything I knew to get the bitter sentence
    cancelled. When it could not be cancelled, I tried to lessen the
    sentence. Only yesterday I ordered the registration of nine-year-
    old children. I wanted to save at least one year – children from
    nine to ten. But they would not yield. I succeeded in one thing –
    to save the children over ten. Let that be our consolation in our
    great sorrow.
    There are many people in this ghetto who suffer from
    tuberculosis, whose days or perhaps weeks are numbered. I do
    not know, perhaps this is a satanic plan, and perhaps not, but I
    cannot stop myself from proposing it: “Give me these sick
    people, and perhaps it will be possible to save the healthy in
    their place.” I know how precious each one of the sick is in his
    home, and particularly among Jews. But at a time of such
    decrees one must weigh up and measure who should be saved,
    who can be saved and who may be saved.
    Common sense requires us to know that those must be saved
    who can be saved and who have a chance of being saved and
    not those whom there is no chance to save in any case….
    Rumkowski’s speech at the time of the deportation, I. Trunk,
    Lodzsher Geto (“Lodz Ghetto”), New York, 1962, pp. 311-312.
    http://tinyurl.com/yzykhxr
    Note that the dickwad who wrote this survived the Jewish
    Holocaust, while the children under ten most probably did not.
    And this could have been a faked incident in terms of what the
    Nazis were actually asking for. I have my doubts.
    I would offer myself up before I let any child in my family be
    taken, but maybe that’s not the Talmudic way.

    Reply

  18. DonS says:

    Hey, I wonder if they remembered to change the AIPAC letterhead this time. Or did it come out of the Israeli Minister of Information office?

    Reply

  19. DonS says:

    Nadine: “Chris Berman replies to Goldstone and refutes his claims”
    Big fucking deal.
    If “Chris” is as good as lying as Nadine we need go no further.

    Reply

  20. nadine says:

    Chairman Berman replied to Judge Goldstone and refutes all his claims:
    Letter and Response
    [Note: Justice Goldstone counts the descriptive paragraph as Paragraph 1. Therefore, “Paragraph 3” refers to Whereas 2 (and accordingly throughout his text).]
    [Goldstone:]
    “MEMORANDUM
    FROM: RICHARD GOLDSTONE
    TO: INTERESTED PERSONS
    RE: HR 867
    “Here are some comments on this resolution in an effort to correct factual errors:
    “1. Paragraph 3:That is why I and others refused the original mandate – it only called for an investigation into violations committed by Israel. The mandate given to and accepted by me and under which we worked and reported reads as follows:
    ‘. . .to investigate all violations of international human rights law and international humanitarian law that might have been committed at any time in the context of the military operations that were conducted in Gaza during the period from 27 December 2008 and 18 January 2009, whether before, during or after.’
    “That mandate clearly included rocket and mortar attacks on Israel and as the report makes clear was so interpreted and implemented. It was the report with that mandate that was adopted by the Human Rights Council and that included the serious findings made against Hamas and other militant Palestinian groups.”
    Response: The broadened mandate Justice Goldstone sought was discussed, but not voted on, at a UNHRC plenary session. It was then announced via a press release in an altered formulation, more restrictive than the formulation envisioned by Justice Goldstone. The UNHRC did not create a new mandate. The only relevant mandate remained the one which includes operational paragraph 14 of UNHRC resolution A/HRC/S-9/L.1, as was accepted by the Council on January 12, 2009. The January 12 mandate was also the only mandate referenced in the October 16 UNHRC resolution that adopted the Report.
    This whereas clause focuses on the mandate. Of course, the far more important issue is the Report itself, which makes only limited mention of the rocket attacks on Israel.
    [Goldstone:] “2. Paragraph 4: This is factually incorrect. Chapter XXIV of the Report considers in detail the relentless rocket attacks from Gaza on Israel and the terror it caused to the people living within their range. The finding is made that they constituted serious war crimes and possibly crimes against humanity.”
    Response: Paragraph 4 [Whereas #3] of H.Res.867 is addressing the mandate, not the Report. It reads as follows: “Whereas the mandate of the ‘‘fact-finding mission’’ makes no mention of the relentless rocket and mortar attacks, which numbered in the thousands and spanned a period of eight years, by Hamas and other violent militant groups in Gaza against civilian targets in Israel, that necessitated Israel’s defensive measures”. That statement is an accurate characterization of both the formal mandate, as passed by the UNHRC, and of the broadened mandate requested by Justice Goldstone.
    [Goldstone:] “3. Paragraph 5: The member concerned, Professor Christine Chinkin of the London School of Economics, in the same letter, together with other leading international lawyers, also condemned as war crimes the Hamas rockets fired into Israel.”
    Response: The letter Professor Chinkin signed, which was published in the British press in mid-January, did indeed accuse Hamas of war crimes. But it also accused Israel of war crimes, months before the investigation began, clearly prejudging the outcome of the investigation regarding both parties. In my view, Professor Chinkin should have been disqualified from serving on the commission, based on her having signed the letter. The UN watchdog UN Watch notes that Justice Goldstone himself admitted in an August interview that the signature “would have been grounds for disqualification” if the commission had constituted a formal judicial inquiry.
    [Goldstone:] “4. Paragraph 6: The mandate that was given to the Mission was certainly not opposed by all or even a majority of the States to which reference is made. That is factually incorrect. I am happy to provide further details if necessary.”
    Response: H.Res.867 uses the phrase “refused to support,” not “opposed by,” as Justice Goldstone suggests. The language of H.Res.867 was carefully chosen to include those nations who voted no, those who abstained, and those who chose not to vote at all, i.e., all those who “refused to support.”
    [Goldstone:] “5. Paragraph 7: This too is factually incorrect. The mandate that had been rejected was the one I rejected. Mary Robinson, for example, has written in support of the mandate given to and accepted by me.”
    Response: As indicated above, the formal mandate is that contained in the UNHRC Resolution A/HRC/S-9/L.1.
    [Goldstone:] “6. Paragraph 9: The words quoted relate to the decision we made that it would have been unfair to investigate and make finding on situations where decisions had been made by Israeli soldiers ‘in the fog of battle’. This was a decision made in favor and not against the interests of Israel.
    “I do not consider that it is fair or just to label the findings as ’sweeping and unsubstantiated determinations’.”
    Response: When summarizing the results of investigations into alleged Israeli attacks on Palestinian civilians, the Report states that “the Mission found in every case [except one] that the Israeli armed forces had carried out direct intentional strikes against civilians” and that “in none of the cases reviewed were there any grounds which could have reasonably induced the Israeli armed forces to assume that the civilians attacked were in fact taking a direct part in the hostilities…”
    The assertion regarding “intentional strikes” is particularly mystifying. The Report does not take into account that Israeli soldiers were operating under fire, in an extremely volatile and dangerous environment, in which the enemy was hiding amongst a civilian population.
    Nor does the Report generally take into account that testimony from Gazans was given under the watchful eye of Hamas officials. Moreover, the commission heard, at best, only one side of the story, since Israel, despairing of the biased mandate, chose not to participate. Whatever the wisdom of that Israeli decision – and, as indicated below, I do find it understandable – the Report at least should have acknowledged that Israeli non-participation limited the commission’s ability to reach firm conclusions.
    [Goldstone:] “7. Paragraph 11: What I had explained to The Forward was that the Report itself would not constitute evidence admissible in court of law and that investigators would have to investigate which allegations they considered relevant. That, too, was why we recommended domestic investigations into the allegations. The remark as quoted is both inaccurate and taken completely out of context.”
    Response: Here is the relevant quote, as well as the passages that directly precede and follow it, taken directly from the article in the Jewish Daily Forward:
    “Goldstone defended the report’s reliance on eyewitness accounts, noting his mission had cross-checked those accounts against each other and sought corroboration from photos, satellite photos, contemporaneous reports, forensic evidence and the mission’s own inspections of the sites in question.
    For all that gathered information, though, he said, “We had to do the best we could with the material we had. If this was a court of law, there would have been nothing proven.”
    Goldstone emphasized that his conclusion that war crimes had been committed was always intended as conditional. He still hopes that independent investigations carried out by Israel and the Palestinians will use the allegations as, he said, “a useful road map.””
    http://www.forward.com/articles/116269/
    We consider the quote in the whereas to be fully in context.
    [Goldstone:] “8. Paragraph 12: It is again factually incorrect to state that the Report denied Israel the right of self-defense. The Report examined how that right was implemented by the standards of international law. What is commonly called ius ad bellum, the right to use military force was not considered to fall within our mandate. Israel’s right to use military force was not questioned.”
    Response: We use the phrase “in effect” in our clause because the Report does not explore why Israel has the right to defend itself against terrorist aggression perpetrated by a non-state actor. Justice Goldstone says that “the right to use military force was not considered to fall within our mandate.” Yet, he went beyond his mandate in several other areas of the Report, including discussion of Israel’s policies throughout the occupied territories (including the West Bank) and recommendations that were not called for by the UNHRC resolution that established the mandate. An acknowledgement of Israel’s right of self-defense would have provided vital context to the issues raised in the Report.
    [Goldstone:] “9. Paragraph 13: This is the first suggestion that I have come across to the effect that we should have investigated the provenance of the rockets. It was simply not on the agenda, and in any event, we would not have had the facilities or capability of investigating these allegations. If the Government of Israel has requested us to investigate that issue I have no doubt that we have done our best to do so.”
    Response: As noted, Justice Goldstone’s Report went beyond its mandate in several respects; looking at the roles of Iran and Syria in assisting Hamas certainly would have provided critical context to the Report. Iran and Syria enable Hamas’ terrorism. The assistance Hamas receives from outside actors allows the Hamas terrorist organization to attack Israel incessantly, certain in the knowledge that its arsenals will be replenished.
    Hamas’ support by state actors makes it a formidable foe. The report should have considered that geopolitical context.
    [Goldstone:] “10. Paragraph 14: This is a sweeping and unfair characterization of the Report. I hope that the Report will be read by those tasked with considering the resolution.”
    Response: The Report uncritically attributes numerous statements to “Gaza Authorities” (meaning, Hamas), while often casting doubt on information derived from the international and Israeli press and from non-government-affiliated Israelis.
    For example, the Report criticizes the fact that an Israeli Government web-post cites a Newsweek article reporting on Hamas depredations against its own population and casts doubt on the accuracy of the article. According to the Report, the citing of the Newsweek article, far from being an effort to invoke a neutral source, is merely evidence that Israel itself finds the Newsweek report unconvincing, since Israel does not adduce evidence from its own internal sources (p.143 paragraphs 612-614). This is an odd criticism, since intelligence information, no matter how compelling, is only rarely disclosed to the public.
    Perhaps most tellingly, the Report appears only to cite Israeli statements when it finds such statements a useful basis for criticizing Israel. For example:
    Section 41 – “The Mission examined the mortar shelling of al-Fakhura junction in Jabaliyah next to a UNRWA school, which, at the time, was sheltering more than 1,300 people (chap. X). The Israeli armed forces launched at least four mortar shells. One landed in the courtyard of a family home, killing 11 people assembled there. Three other shells landed on al-Fakhura Street, killing at least a further 24 people and injuring as many as 40. The Mission examined in detail statements by Israeli Government representatives alleging that the attack was launched in response to a mortar attack from an armed Palestinian group. While the Mission does not exclude that this may have been the case, it considers the credibility of Israel’s position damaged by the series of inconsistencies, contradictions and factual inaccuracies in the statements justifying the attack.”
    Section 702 – “The Mission views as being unreliable the versions given by the Israeli authorities. The confusion as to what was hit, the erroneous allegations of who was specifically hit and where the armed groups were firing from, the indication that Israeli surveillance watched the scene but nonetheless could not detect where the strikes occurred, all combine to give the impression of either profound confusion or obfuscation.”
    By contrast, the Report is far more forgiving when discussing contradictions in Palestinian evidence:
    Section 1092 – “There are some minor inconsistencies, which are not, in the opinion of the Mission, sufficiently weighty to cast doubt on the general reliability of Majdi Abd Rabbo. There are also, not surprisingly, some elements of the long account which appear in some versions and not in others. The Mission finds that these inconsistencies do not undermine the credibility of Majdi Abd Rabbo’s account.”
    [Goldstone:] “11. Paragraph 16: Again, this is an unfair and selective quotation taken out of context.”
    Response: Our whereas clause reads as follows: “Whereas in one notable instance, the report stated that it did not consider the admission of a Hamas official that Hamas often ‘‘created a human shield of women, children, the elderly and the mujahideen, against [the Israeli military]’’ specifically to ‘‘constitute evidence that Hamas forced Palestinian civilians to shield military objectives against attack.’’
    This quote was not taken out of context, and it can be found in Sections 477 and 478 of the Report, as follows:
    “The Mission is also aware of the public statement by Mr. Fathi Hammad, a Hamas member of the Palestinian Legislative Council, on 29 February 2009, which is adduced as evidence of Hamas’ use of human shields. Mr. Hammad reportedly stated that:
    …the Palestinian people has developed its [methods] of death seeking. For the Palestinian people, death became an industry, at which women excel and so do all people on this land: the elderly excel, the mujahideen excel and the children excel. Accordingly, [Hamas] created a human shield of women, children, the elderly and the mujahideen, against the Zionist bombing machine.
    478. Although the Mission finds this statement morally repugnant, it does not consider it to constitute evidence that Hamas forced Palestinian civilians to shield military objectives against attack. The Government of Israel has not identified any such cases.
    The Report also displays numerous examples of credulousness regarding Hamas behavior. For example:
    p. 117: “While, in the light of the above reports, the Mission does not discount the use of booby traps by the Palestinian armed groups, it has no basis to conclude that civilian lives were put at risk, as none of the reports record the presence of civilians in or near the houses in which booby traps are alleged to have been set.”
    p. 117: “Although the Mission was not able to investigate the allegation of the use of mosques generally by Palestinian groups for storing weapons, it did investigate the incident of a missile attack by the Israeli armed forces against al-Maqadmah mosque on the outskirts of Jabaliyah camp, in which at least 15 people were killed and 40 injured on 3 January 2009 (see chap. XI). The Mission found no evidence that this mosque was used for the storage of weapons or any military activity by Palestinian armed groups. As far as this mosque is concerned, therefore, the Mission found no basis for such an allegation. However, the Mission is unable to make a determination regarding the allegation in general nor with respect to any other mosque that was attacked by the Israeli armed forces during the military operations.”
    p. 121: “On the basis of the information it gathered, the Mission finds that there are indications that Palestinian armed groups launched rockets from urban areas. The mission has not been able to obtain any direct evidence that this was done with the specific intent of shielding the rocket launchers from counterstrokes by the Israeli armed forces.”
    p. 121: “The Mission finds that the presence of Palestinian armed fighters in urban residential areas during the military operations is established. On the basis of the information it gathered, the Mission is unable to form an opinion on the exact nature or the intensity of their combat activities in urban residential areas that would have placed the civilian population and civilian objects at risk of attack. While reports reviewed by the Mission credibly indicate that members of Palestinian armed groups were not always dressed in a way that distinguished them from civilians, the Mission found no evidence that Palestinian combatants mingled with the civilian population with the intention of shielding themselves from attack.”
    [Goldstone:] “12. Paragraph 17: That Hamas was able to shape the findings or that it pre-screened the witnesses is devoid of truth and I challenge anyone to produce evidence in support of it.”
    Response: The evidence is within the Report itself. Page 111 of the Report reads as follows: “In its efforts to gather more direct information on the subject, during its investigations in Gaza and in interviews with victims and witnesses of incidents and other informed individuals, the Mission raised questions regarding the conduct of Palestinian armed groups during the hostilities in Gaza. The Mission notes that those interviewed in Gaza appeared reluctant to speak about the presence of or conduct of hostilities by the Palestinian armed groups. Whatever the reasons for their reluctance, the Mission does not discount that the interviewees’ reluctance may have stemmed from a fear of reprisals.”
    Hamas is in full control of Gaza, and this “fear of reprisals” significantly helped Hamas shape the findings. See, for example, an Amnesty International publication that reports on how Hamas murdered its rivals while operation Cast Lead was ongoing: http://www.amnesty.org/en/news-and-updates/report/hamas-waged-deadly-campaign-war-devastated-gaza-20090212.
    Furthermore, the commission conducted some of its proceedings through holding televised open hearings in Gaza. Given its total control of Gaza and its ability to intimidate, Hamas almost certainly would have been able to control the access and message of each witness attending a televised open hearing. What is beyond doubt is that witnesses were keenly aware that Hamas was monitoring the televised proceedings and likely to inflict reprisals for any unwelcome testimony.
    [Goldstone:] “Finally, I note that there is not a word to record that notwithstanding repeated pleas to the Government of Israel, it refused all cooperation with the Mission. Amongst others, I requested the views of Israel with regard to the implementation of the mandate and details of any issues that the Government of Israel might wish us to investigate.”
    Response: Justice Goldstone is correct. The Government of Israel decided not to cooperate with the Mission, based on its biased mandate, as well as the UNHRC’s long history of anti-Israel bias. I find that position, at the least, understandable.
    http://washingtonindependent.com/66189/bermans-response-to-goldstone-on-house-gaza-war-crimes-resolution

    Reply

  21. ... says:

    money, not logic is driving a lot of this… excluding the logic of getting money to run political campaigns – something american politicians seem to be overly focused on, their is no logic to these same politicians decision making other then … money…
    i look forward to a much bigger bernie madoff type event to alter the course of some of this bs…the stock and bond market is mostly just a ponzi scheme, with the federal reserve acting as fox guarding the chicken coup… when does the next shoe drop?? ought to be timed according to the next major war….

    Reply

  22. WigWag says:

    That’s pretty good, POA, but I know you can do better.
    Come on, step it up man!
    Show us the best POA ever.
    I know you can do it.
    Let me try to give you a little incentive.
    Guess what, POA, after his speech on the House Floor today, the money is just going to pour into the Hoyer campaign coffers.
    He will almost certainly be the next Speaker of the House if he doesn’t run for Senate when Senator Mikulski retires.
    Looks like Hoyer will be calling the shots for a long, long time.

    Reply

  23. PissedOffAmerican says:

    Is Hoyer lying or not?
    You’re a coward, Wigwag. A spineless coward.
    Do you really think its “american” to celebrate one of our to leaders LYING for Israel?
    This entire blog, everyone that posts here is going to read this.
    And what they are going to see is some cowardly zionist racist jackass swimming in her own shit.
    You complimented Hoyer…”Majority leader Hoyer gave an eloquent speech ripping Goldstone and his report to shreds”
    Now, you ignorant clown, you been shown that Hoyer lied. And you’ve shown us that you are too spineless, morally and intellectually too cowardly to address that fact. And you haven’t just shown ME that fact, you’ve shown the entire blog that fact. So what do you do? You resort to the petty stupid na na nah type of ignorance we see above.
    Keep it up, Wigwag. Like I said, you’re showing us EXACTLY what you are made out of. And as anyone can plainly see, it ain’t much.
    And Nadfine, your sleazy play on semantics doesn’t cut it. Did Goldstone address the rocket attacks, and declare them as war crimes or not?
    And did not Goldstone insist that both Israeli AND Palestinian war crimes be investigated?
    Look, Nadine, theres no question you and wigwag are scum. We don’t need further convincing.

    Reply

  24. nadine says:

    OA, you are raving like the crazed anti-Semite you are. Hoyer’s statement: “The Human Rights Council mandate for the report specifically targeted Israeli actions, ignoring the deliberate Hamas attacks on civilians that provoked Israel’s self-defense in Cast Lead.” is perfectly accurate.
    To prove it, all one needs to do is read the Mandate from Goldstone’s report, which I have reproduced in full below. It contains not one SINGLE mention of Hamas attacks on Israeli civilians. The Mandate is purely to investigate war crimes committed during the course of Israel’s military operations from 27 Dec to 18 Jan, which the Mandate prejudiceally assumes occurred. It also refers to Israel as the “occupying power” in Gaza, even though Israel stopped occupying Gaza in 2005.
    A. Mandate and terms of reference
    151. In his letter appointing the members of the Mission, the President of the Council entrusted
    the Mission with the following mandate: “to investigate all violations of international human
    rights law and international humanitarian law that might have been committed at any time in the
    context of the military operations that were conducted in Gaza during the period from 27
    December 2008 and 18 January 2009, whether before, during or after.”
    152. To implement its mandate, the Mission determined that it was required to consider any
    actions by all parties that might have constituted violations of international human rights law or
    international humanitarian law. The mandate also required it to review related actions in the
    entire Occupied Palestinian Territory and Israel.
    153. With regard to temporal scope, the Mission’s broad mandate includes violations before,
    during and after the military operations that were conducted in Gaza between 27 December 2008
    and 18 January 2009. The Mission considered that, while the Gaza events must be seen in the
    context of the overall conflict and situation in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, in view of the
    limited time and resources available, it would be beyond its abilities to focus on conduct or
    actions that took place long before the military operation of December–January. The Mission
    therefore decided to focus primarily on events, actions or circumstances occurring since 19 June
    2008, when a ceasefire was agreed between the Government of Israel and Hamas. The Mission
    has also taken into consideration matters occurring after the end of military operations that
    constitute continuing human rights and international humanitarian law violations related to or as
    a consequence of the military operation, up to 31 July 2009.
    154. The Mission considered that the reference in its mandate to violations committed in the
    context of the December–January military operations required it to go beyond violations that
    took place directly as part of the operations. Thus violations within its mandate include those that
    are linked to the December–January military operations in terms of time, objectives and targets,
    and include restrictions on human rights and fundamental freedoms relating to Israel’s strategies
    and actions in the context of its military operations.
    155. The normative framework for the Mission has been general international law, the Charter
    of the United Nations, international humanitarian law, international human rights law and
    international criminal law.
    http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/hrcouncil/docs/12session/A-HRC-12-48.pdf

    Reply

  25. WigWag says:

    “Wigwag, you are a embarrassment to our flag…”(POA)
    Wow, an embarassment to the flag; that’s a pretty big deal. I never realized you were such a patriot.
    “Note how this sack of shit Wigwag has to drag Nina into the mix. Whats next? A small penis essay?” (POA)
    Well, you know what they say, POA, “if the shoe fits…” or in your case perhaps the better expression would be “if the condom is too big…”
    I don’t know when I had more fun. Helping to organize my neighbors to support H Res 867 was great but chatting with you and OA is even more entertaining.
    Some of the AIPAC volunteers are planning a big victory party.
    Do me a favor POA (and you too if you’re still out there OA) give me some more of the most vitriolic stuff you have. I just know that everyone at the victory party will get a good laugh!
    Come on, POA, give me your best Elmer Fudd impression.
    Please!

    Reply

  26. PissedOffAmerican says:

    So there you have it folks.
    This piece of garbage, Wigwag, lauds the Majority Leader standing before the House or Representatives, LYING, blatantly and unabashedly. Whats that say about Wigwag? Is that a “good American”. Does this ignorant fuckin’ jackass have the right to tell anyone to get out of the country?
    Tell us again how great Hoyer was Wigwag. Thats the problem with you Israel firsters. You’re full of shit. You are shameless liars. You’d sell America out in a heartbeat if it benefited Israel. Amd when you celebrate some spineless sack of shit, who is supposed to “represent” Americans, lying his ass off at the podium before the House, thats EXACTLY what you are doing; selling your own country out.
    Its YOU that needs to get the hell out of here. Go back to Israel, you’re no kind of “American”.
    And take that sack of shit Hoyer with you.

    Reply

  27. WigWag says:

    The Congressional Women’s Caucus is bipartisan; 76 members of the House of Representatives are in the caucus.
    They don’t seem to think much of Mr. Goldstone’s report either.
    9 members of the Congressional Women’s Caucus voted “no” and 5 voted “present.”

    Reply

  28. WigWag says:

    Members of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus also voted overwhelmingly to repudiate Goldstone.
    There are 23 members of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus (excluding the one member from the Senate, Senator Robert Menendez of New Jersey)
    Of these members, two voted “no” and two voted “present.”

    Reply

  29. PissedOffAmerican says:

    Steny Hoyer……
    “The Human Rights Council mandate for the report specifically targeted Israeli actions, ignoring the deliberate Hamas attacks on civilians that provoked Israel’s self-defense in Cast Lead.”
    Its a bald faced lie, isn’t it Wigwag???
    I can’t hear you, Wigwag. Can you speak a little louder?

    Reply

  30. PissedOffAmerican says:

    Do you deny Hoyer was lying, Wigwag? Lets see what you’re made out of, Wigwag. Defend Hoyer’s statement, that I quoted above.
    I CHALLENGE YOU TO SHOW US THAT HOYER WASN’T LYING.
    THEN, I CHALLENGE YOU TO TELL US WHY YOU CELEBRATE THE MAJORITY LEADER LYING TO THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, THE AMERICAN PEOPLE, AND THE GLOBAL COMMUNITY. IS THAT YOUR IDEA OF A “GREAT AMERICAN”?
    Come on, you ignorant jackass, show us your character. Show us what you are made of, what a “great American” YOU are.

    Reply

  31. PissedOffAmerican says:

    Settlement by stealth belies promises of restraint
    Hillary Clinton has praised Israel for its policy on settlers but, the displacements go on
    By Donald Macintyre in Jerusalem
    AFP/GETTY
    Maysaa Al-Kurd has lived all her life in the home her family moved into in 1956. The pomegranate tree standing in the garden was planted by her father when she was still an infant nearly half a century ago. But that hardly reassured her yesterday when she heard the Jewish settlers break into the next-door extension building her brother Nabil built to house his family in 2001.
    “I heard the door opened by force,” she said. “And then I heard one of them say: ‘This furniture belongs to whom?'” Later she saw “with my own eyes” a settler breaking a television set. Outside, a refrigerator, cushions and household furniture, apparently removed by the intruders, stood for several hours in the pouring rain. Inside, broken glass could be seen above a stove.
    What Ms Kurd, of the inner-city East Jerusalem neighbourhood of Sheikh Jarrah, was hearing at about 10.30am yesterday was the latest in an accelerating series of highly charged and organised moves by settlers into the city’s Arab sector. Armed with a court order saying they own the property, the settlers – about 40, according to Ms Kurd – decided to break in just four days after Hillary Clinton, the US Secretary of State, dismayed Palestinian and other Arab leaders by praising the Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s “unprecedented” promise of “a restraint” in illegal settlement activity.
    continues…….
    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/settlement-by-stealth-belies-promises-of-restraint-1814198.html

    Reply

  32. PissedOffAmerican says:

    Hey Wigwag…
    WAS HOYER LYING OR NOT????
    Are you too much the characterless coward to answer the question?
    This entire blog community awaits your answer. And they ALL will note your response.

    Reply

  33. WigWag says:

    So here’s more on how overwhelmng the vote actually was. As it turns out, even the most “progressive” group in the House, members of the Congressional Black Caucus supported H Res 867. At the very least, they didn’t oppose it.
    There are 41 members of the Congressonal Black Caucus excluding Senator Roland Burris of Illinois who obviously can’t vote in the House of Representatives.
    Of these 9 voted no and 1 voted present.
    These results are preliminary because the roll call isn’t out on THOMAS yet but it looks like a rather dramatic rejection of Goldstone by the group in Congress that is reliably the most “liberal.”

    Reply

  34. PissedOffAmerican says:

    Whats worse, I would bet my life the ignorant jackass hasn’t even read the report.

    Reply

  35. PissedOffAmerican says:

    BTW, that Hoyer quote is straight off the AIPAC website. Are we to believe AIPAC doesn’t know that Hoyer’s speech contained blatant lies, such as the one quoted above?
    Tell us again how great AIPAC is, Wigwag. We all know the American people love being lied to, don’t we??
    Hey Steve, think your buddies Olberman or Maddow are going to touch this tonight??? Maybe tell us how Hoyer stood before the House of Representatives and lied his ass off, and the House lapped it up like whores swilling fifty cent whiskey between blow jobs?
    If you aren’t ashamed of our government yet, then you’re not paying attention, or you’re busy killing, torturing, demonizing, or starving Muslims.

    Reply

  36. DonS says:

    Wigwag:”Why don’t we let the House of Representatives decide which one of us has views that are “un-American?”
    There is nothing to be proud of in equating the politics of bigotry with being ‘pro-American’ as you would find out in every other country of the world. Because the US Congress has been manipulated and bought into disgracing itself does not make it right. There is nothing “American” about their vote. And that’s the disgrace. You can twist the outcome all you want, but this is a victory for all that is worst about Israel, not for America.

    Reply

  37. PissedOffAmerican says:

    Do you deny Hoyer was lying, Wigwag? Lets see what you’re made out of, Wigwag. Defend Hoyer’s statement, that I quoted above.
    I CHALLENGE YOU TO SHOW US THAT HOYER WASN’T LYING.
    THEN, I CHALLENGE YOU TO TELL US WHY YOU CELEBRATE THE MAJORITY LEADER LYING TO THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, THE AMERICAN PEOPLE, AND THE GLOBAL COMMUNITY. IS THAT YOUR IDEA OF A “GREAT AMERICAN”?
    Come on, you ignorant jackass, show us your character. Show us what you are made of, what a “great American” YOU are.

    Reply

  38. WigWag says:

    Poor POA and OA!
    You spent some time in the entertainment business didn’t you, OA?
    Do you remember that old cartoon, “Dudley Do-Right of the Canadian Mounties?” My kids could watch that one for hours.
    Anyway, I’m trying to decide which of the two of you reminds me more of the “Snidely Whiplash” character.
    Like the two of you, he was always in the position of lamenting,
    “Curses! Foiled again!”

    Reply

  39. PissedOffAmerican says:

    Note how this sack of shit Wigwag has to drag Nina into the mix. Whats next? A small penis essay?
    Above, she lauds Hoyer for his “Fuck Human Rights, National Security, and American Values” speech.
    Trouble is, Hoyer is a liar…..
    “The Human Rights Council mandate for the report specifically targeted Israeli actions, ignoring the deliberate Hamas attacks on civilians that provoked Israel’s self-defense in Cast Lead.”
    The above statement is a BALD FACED LIE. Anyone that has read the report, KNOWS Hoyer is a liar. Yet here we see this Palestinian hater and shameless Islamophobe Wigwag actually CELEBRATING Hoyer’s lies. In Wigwag World, its perfectly OK for an American House Majority leader to get in front of the House and lie, blatantly and unabashedly, as long as hes lying to Israel’s benefit. What other lies are we being told by this fucking worm Steny Hoyer?
    But heres the catch; If you have to lie to support a Resolution, what does that say about the Resolution? And here you have the reason these racists like Nadine and Wigwag can say things like “It looks like my views are supported by the majority of Americans and the vast majority of their democratically elected representatives”
    Why??? Because Israel’s positions, rationales, and justifications, presented to the American people ARE GOD DAMNED LIES. Have always been GOD DAMNED LIES, and are obviously going to continue to be GOD DAMNED LIES.
    I used to believe the lies. Why?? Because my only source of information was the liars and the lies. Thats changing.
    Wigwag gloats over the passage of 867??? Does an American gloat over a complete and utter casting aside of American values, truth, respect for human rights, and the sanctity of life?
    Wigwag, you are a embarrassment to our flag, to our nation, to our values, and a blight to mankind as well. I hope my children see the day that your kind of ignorant blind hatred is rewarded with the kind of justice it so dearly deserves.

    Reply

  40. Outraged American says:

    Bullshit Wig. Most Americans can’t find America on a map much
    less Israel. Israel is not our ally, we don’t have a treaty with her
    BY ISRAEL’S CHOICE.
    I think you’re a self-hating Jew, because it appears you’re doing
    your best to make Jews hated.
    I have thought about this for decades, and pondered it when I
    was at Auschwitz/ Birkenau — why are Jews almost universally
    hated? Have you ever asked yourself that?
    As I’ve mentioned, I’ve lived in four countries and traveled, in
    many cases extensively, in 28 or so more, and Jews were hated
    everywhere, not just in Christian countries.
    Navel gaze on that one Wig, as you march the US to her end
    times.
    The day that UsRael bombs Iran is the day I find you in your
    Florida condo and turn over your mah jong tables and force you
    to make every Zionist in the US Congress eat the tiles then
    pledge real allegiance to the US and not Israel.

    Reply

  41. PissedOffAmerican says:

    In other words, these pieces of shit, Behrman and Ileana Ros-Lehtinen LIED their asses off in writing this resolution. And these fucking cowards that voted to ignore egregious war crimes JOINED in that lie. And like our resident liar, Nadine, who is so full of shit that every single poster except Wigwag has yanked her covers, the lies contained in this resolution are transparent, AND KNOWN TO BE LIES BY THE ENTIRE GLOBAL COMMUNITY, INCLUDING THE UNITED STATES AND ISRAEL.
    And Wigwag GLOATS and CELEBRATES over Israel’s ability to commit horrible war crimes against a defenseless civilian population. There is NO difference between Wigwag, and an SS Corporal turning on the spigot to gas showers. And she tells ME to leave?

    Reply

  42. WigWag says:

    *Emigrate to Israel Wig. You and your “Christian” Zionist co-travelers have worn out your welcome. (OA)*
    Sorry, OA. It looks like my views are supported by the majority of Americans and the vast majority of their democratically elected representatives. It’s you who are out of step. If anyone has worn out their welcome, it’s you.
    Maybe it’s you who should emigrate. I understand that you disagree with me and you would love to see me leave.
    I have an idea.
    Why don’t we let the House of Representatives decide which one of us has views that are “un-American?”

    Reply

  43. PissedOffAmerican says:

    The Honorable Howard Berman
    Chairman, House Committee on Foreign Affairs
    The Honorable Ileana Ros-Lehtinen
    Ranking Member, House Committee on Foreign Affairs
    October 29, 2009
    Dear Chairman Berman and Ranking Member Ros-Lehtinen,
    It has come to my attention that a resolution has been introduced in the United States House of Representatives regarding the United Nations Fact Finding Mission on the Gaza Conflict, which I led earlier this year.
    I fully respect the right of the US Congress to examine and judge my mission and the resulting report, as well as to make its recommendations to the US Executive branch of government. However, I have strong reservations about the text of the resolution in question – text that includes serious factual inaccuracies and instances where information and statements are taken grossly out of context.
    I undertook this fact-finding mission in good faith, just as I undertook my responsibilities vis à vis the South African Standing Commission of Inquiry Regarding Public Violence and Intimidation, the International War Crimes Tribunal on the former Yugoslavia, the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda, the International Panel of the Commission of Enquiry into the Activities of Nazism in Argentina, the Independent International Commission on Kosovo, and the Volker Committee investigation into the UN’s Iraq oil-for-food program in 2004/5.
    I hope that you, in similar good faith, will take the time to consider my comments about the resolution and, as a result of that consideration, make the necessary corrections.
    Whereas clause #1: “Whereas, on January 12, 2009, the United Nations Human Rights Council passed Resolution A/HRC/S-9/L.1, which authorized a `fact-finding mission’ regarding Israel’s conduct of Operation Cast Lead against violent militants in the Gaza Strip between December 27, 2008, and January 18, 2009;”
    This whereas clause ignores the fact that I and others refused this original mandate, precisely
    because it only called for an investigation into violations committed by Israel. The mandate given to and accepted by me and under which we worked and reported reads as follows:
    “. . .to investigate all violations of international human rights law and international humanitarian law that might have been committed at any time in the context of the military operations that were conducted in Gaza during the period from 27 December 2008 and 18 January 2009, whether before, during or after”.
    Whereas clause #2: “Whereas the resolution pre-judged the outcome of its investigation, by one-sidedly mandating the `fact-finding mission’ to `investigate all violations of international human rights law and International Humanitarian Law by . . . Israel, against the Palestinian people . . . particularly in the occupied Gaza Strip, due to the current aggression’”
    This whereas clause ignores the fact that the expanded mandate that I demanded and received clearly included rocket and mortar attacks on Israel and as the report makes clear was so interpreted and implemented. It was the report carried out under this broadened mandate – not the original, rejected mandate – that was adopted by the Human Rights Council and that included the serious findings made against Hamas and other militant Palestinian groups.
    Whereas clause #3: “Whereas the mandate of the `fact-finding mission’ makes no mention of the relentless rocket and mortar attacks, which numbered in the thousands and spanned a period of eight years, by Hamas and other violent militant groups in Gaza against civilian targets in Israel, that necessitated Israel’s defensive measures;”
    This whereas clause is factually incorrect. As noted above, the expanded mandate clearly included the rocket and mortar attacks. Moreover, Chapter XXIV of the Report considers in detail the relentless rocket attacks from Gaza on Israel and the terror they caused to the people living within their range. The resulting finding made in the report is that these attacks constituted serious war crimes and possibly crimes against humanity.
    Whereas clause #4: “Whereas the `fact-finding mission’ included a member who, before joining the mission, had already declared Israel guilty of committing atrocities in Operation Cast Lead by signing a public letter on January 11, 2009, published in the Sunday Times, that called Israel’s actions `war crimes’;”
    This whereas clause is misleading. It overlooks, or neglects to mention, that the member concerned, Professor Christine Chinkin of the London School of Economics, in the same letter, together with other leading international lawyers, also condemned as war crimes the Hamas rockets fired into Israel.
    Whereas clause #5: “Whereas the mission’s flawed and biased mandate gave serious concern to many United Nations Human Rights Council Member States which refused to support it, including Bosnia and Herzegovina, Cameroon, Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the Netherlands, the Republic of Korea, Slovakia, Slovenia, Switzerland, Ukraine, and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland;”
    This whereas clause is factually incorrect. The mandate that was given to the Mission was certainly not opposed by all or even a majority of the States to which reference is made. I am happy to provide further details if necessary.
    Whereas clause #6: “Whereas the mission’s flawed and biased mandate troubled many distinguished individuals who refused invitations to head the mission;”
    This whereas clause is factually incorrect. The initial mandate that was rejected by others who were invited to head the mission was the same one that I rejected. The mandate I accepted was expanded by the President of the Human Rights Council as a result of conditions I made.
    Whereas clause #8: “Whereas the report repeatedly made sweeping and unsubstantiated determinations that the Israeli military had deliberately attacked civilians during Operation Cast Lead;”
    This whereas clause is factually incorrect. The findings included in the report are neither “sweeping” nor “unsubstantiated” and in effect reflect 188 individual interviews, review of more than 300 reports, 30 videos and 1200 photographs. Additionally, the body of the report contains a plethora of references to the information upon which the Commission relied for our findings.
    Whereas clause #9: “Whereas the authors of the report, in the body of the report itself, admit that `we did not deal with the issues . . . regarding the problems of conducting military operations in civilian areas and second-guessing decisions made by soldiers and their commanding officers `in the fog of war.’;”
    This whereas clause is misleading. The words quoted relate to the decision we made that it would have been unfair to investigate and make finding on situations where decisions had been made by Israeli soldiers “in the fog of battle”. This was a decision made in favor of, and not against, the interests of Israel.
    Whereas clause #10: “Whereas in the October 16th edition of the Jewish Daily Forward, Richard Goldstone, the head of the `United Nations Fact Finding Mission on the Gaza Conflict’, is quoted as saying, with respect to the mission’s evidence-collection methods, `If this was a court of law, there would have been nothing proven.’”
    The remark as quoted is both inaccurate and taken completely out of context. What I had explained to The Forward was that the Report itself would not constitute evidence admissible in court of law. It is my view, as jurist, that investigators would have to investigate which allegations they considered relevant. That, too, was why we recommended domestic investigations into the allegations.
    Whereas clause #11: “Whereas the report, in effect, denied the State of Israel the right to self- defense, and never noted the fact that Israel had the right to defend its citizens from the repeated violent attacks committed against civilian targets in southern Israel by Hamas and other Foreign Terrorist Organizations operating from Gaza;”
    It is factually incorrect to state that the Report denied Israel the right of self-defense. The report examined how that right was implemented by the standards of international law. What is commonly called ius ad bellum, the right to use military force was not considered to fall within our mandate. Israel’s right to use military force was not questioned.
    Whereas clause #12: “Whereas the report largely ignored the culpability of the Government of Iran and the Government of Syria, both of whom sponsor Hamas and other Foreign Terrorist Organizations;”
    This whereas clause is misleading. Nowhere that I know of has it ever been suggested that the Mission should have investigated the provenance of the rockets. Such an investigation was never on the agenda, and in any event, we would not have had the facilities or capability of investigating these allegations. If the Government of Israel has requested us to investigate that issue I have no doubt that we have done our best to do so.
    Whereas clause #14: “Whereas, notwithstanding a great body of evidence that Hamas and other violent Islamist groups committed war crimes by using civilians and civilian institutions, such as mosques, schools, and hospitals, as shields, the report repeatedly downplayed or cast doubt upon that claim;”
    This is a sweeping and unfair characterization of the Report. I hope that the Report will be read by those tasked with considering the resolution. I note that the House resolution fails to mention that notwithstanding my repeated personal pleas to the Government of Israel, Israel refused all cooperation with the Mission. Among other things, I requested the views of Israel with regard to the implementation of the mandate and details of any issues that the Government of Israel might wish us to investigate.
    This refusal meant that Israel did not offer any information or evidence it may have collected regarding actions by Hamas or other Palestinian groups in Gaza. Any omission of such information and evidence in the report is regrettable, but is the result of Israel’s decision not to cooperate with the Fact-Finding mission, not a decision by the mission to downplay or cast doubt on such information and evidence.
    Whereas clause #15: “Whereas in one notable instance, the report stated that it did not consider the admission of a Hamas official that Hamas often `created a human shield of women, children, the elderly and the mujahideen, against [the Israeli military]’ specifically to `constitute evidence that Hamas forced Palestinian civilians to shield military objectives against attack.’;”
    This whereas clause is misleading, since the quotation is taken out of context. The quotation is part of a section of the report dealing with the very narrow allegation that Hamas compelled civilians, against their will, to act as human shields. The statement by the Hamas official is repugnant and demonstrates an apparent disregard for the safety of civilians, but it is not evidence that Hamas forced civilians to remain in their homes in order to act as human shields. Indeed, while the Government of Israel has alleged publicly that Hamas used Palestinian civilians as human shields, it has not identified any cases where it claims that civilians were doing so under threat of force by Hamas or any other party.
    Whereas clause #16: “Whereas Hamas was able to significantly shape the findings of the investigation mission’s report by selecting and prescreening some of the witnesses and intimidating others, as the report acknowledges when it notes that `those interviewed in Gaza appeared reluctant to speak about the presence of or conduct of hostilities by the Palestinian armed groups . . . from a fear of reprisals’;”
    The allegation that Hamas was able to shape the findings of my report or that it pre-screened the witnesses is devoid of truth. I challenge anyone to produce evidence in support of it.
    Sincerely,
    Justice Richard J. Goldstone
    http://www.israel-palestinenews.org/2009/10/goldstone-sends-letter-to-berman-ros.html

    Reply

  44. Outraged American says:

    America’s Congress should work for Americans. Emigrate to
    Israel Wig. You and your “Christian” Zionist co-travelers have
    worn out your welcome.
    Why the FUCK are you living here? GET OUT OF HERE. Just the
    sheer gloat dripping off your post is poisoning my computer
    screen.
    The Protocols of the Elders of Zion have nothing on you and
    Nadine.
    You think this is a great thing for Israel and the Jews? It’s not.
    This is the ULTIMATE proof that Israel controls the US, and the
    whole world now knows it.
    In any case the Goldstone report has been put into the
    International Criminal Court, so unless Israel bombs the Hague,
    and I wouldn’t put it past Israel to launch a false flag attack and
    blame it on…Iran? Syria? Yemen? Canada?… Israel’s pig is being
    rapidly cooked.
    I hated this song by Twisted Sister, but now I’m screaming it at
    the top of my lungs, ‘We’re not going to take it. No we ain’t
    going to take it. We’re not going to take it anymore.”
    I think that you and Nadine and Questions want another Jewish
    Holocaust because if you didn’t you’d at least have the decency
    to STFU. And yet you don’t have the courage to emigrate to
    Zion.
    Fucking bullshit.

    Reply

  45. ... says:

    “Congress voted Pyongyang style, 344-36, to denounce the Goldstone report–without contesting one statement of fact in the findings. My sources tell me that the total of 36 No’s and 22 voting Present is actually a giant improvement over, say, the Lebanon votes that typically were in the 400 range, Yes-wise.” mondoweiss… lets look at this as a move in the right direction… when these old farts die off, maybe the us will have a chance to redeem itself…

    Reply

  46. WigWag says:

    “Better late than never. I wonder if your neighbors now realize that this is not your father’s Democratic Party., ” (Nadine)
    Actually, Nadine, I disagree. Of the House Democrats who voted, over 88 percent voted in favor of the resolution. Every member of the Democratic House leadership voted in favor of the H Res 867 as did a majority of the congressional hispanic caucus and the congressional women’s caucus (the congressional black caucus was split).
    Majority leader Hoyer gave an eloquent speech ripping Goldstone and his report to shreds.
    It’s hard to imagine Congressional Democrats being any more supportive of Israel.
    Of course an even higher percentage of Republicans voted in favor of H Res 867. In fact, only three Republicans voted “no.”

    Reply

  47. ... says:

    it’s calling killing the messenger.. whether it be goldstone, dons or poa – anyone speaking the truth needs to be put down in the eyes of those wanting to create a fascist world where racism and murder are condoned or encouraged… come to think of it, that seems to be usa’s congress view as well! wigwag has a point! this is the ethically bankrupt place wigwag, nadine, israel and the usa congress operate from…. shoot the messenger if the message isn’t pretty…

    Reply

  48. PissedOffAmerican says:

    “Better watch out DonS and POA. It looks like the United States Congress supports Israel to the hilt and could care less about the Palestinians”
    Yeah, and you should swim over there and kill of few of those Palestinian kids yourself, wiggie, instead of just gleefully standing on the sidelines while the REAL macho Israeli war criminals act out on your bigotry.
    BTW, you piece of shit, constantly bringing up Nina is a DIRECT window into just what you are really made out of. You’re a bigoted old zionist bitch, Wiggie. And I personally hope your karma takes into account every single Palestinian child whose death you celebrate.

    Reply

  49. WigWag says:

    Better watch out DonS and POA. It looks like the United States Congress supports Israel to the hilt and could care less about the Palestinians. Who knows, it might not be long before people who think like you are no longer welcome in the United States.
    You might have to move to the West Bank or Gaza to live amongst your friends. Even better, you could move to Iran. You know, POA, I bet Nina would love it there. I hear they have beautiful head coverings. I’m told that it’s great that they look so good in light of the fact that women have to wear them whether they like it or not.
    Now that your point of view has been so repudiated by the American public and its elected representatives, which will it be, the West Bank, Gaza or Iran?
    If you prefer you could try Syria. I’ve also heard that southern Lebanon is nice.
    If you do select Iran or South Lebanon, don’t forget to send us some pictures of yourself celebrating the Ashura Holiday; you know, the rending of garments, the self flagellation and the cutting of your own skin with knives. I’m sure Steve would be kind enough to post them.
    Bon Voyage and best of luck!

    Reply

  50. PissedOffAmerican says:

    “Wow, what a tremendous victory”
    Yeah, isn’t it wonderful that you racist monsters can get away with frying women and children in white phosphorous? Makes ya fuckin’ gleeful, doesn’t it Wiggie?
    Just can’t wait to fry a few more, can you?
    Well, don’t dispair, these despicable bought and paid for despicable whores in Congress just gave you a wink and a nod to do just that.

    Reply

  51. ... says:

    wigwag supports the use of white phosphorous on palestinians.. he thinks this helps the jewish state of israel i suppose… this resolution was not meant to change anything, only to uphold the usa’s fealty to israel and the status quo which includes dropping white phosphorous on palestinians… it is interesting to see who is happy about this as it says a lot about their character…

    Reply

  52. nadine says:

    Hi Wigwag,
    Better late than never. I wonder if your neighbors now realize that this is not your father’s Democratic Party. Obama talks like a moderate, but he’s not a moderate, not even a liberal. He’s a leftist and is governing as one. There was an article today in the New York Times of all places, about second thoughts (= buyer’s remorse) among Obama voters in Iowa.
    J Street hasn’t taken one pro-Israel position, and is being exposed for the fraud it is.
    Have you noticed that when I say the Palestinians don’t want a state, none of the pro-Palestinian posters disagrees? Where are the posts saying “No you liar, the Palestinians want a state desperately”? Just more of the usual agitprop charges against Israel.

    Reply

  53. DonS says:

    Wigwag: “Wow what a tremendous victory HR 867)
    Victory for what? Influence of a foreign government over the internal workings of the American political system. You’re quite an American Wigwag. And I’d have to say that of 344 Congresscrittters on this issue too.

    Reply

  54. Mr.Murder says:

    OT- Warren Buffet bought up Burlington Northern, and he sees great growth prospects for America in the 3 coming decades.
    He bought into the future…

    Reply

  55. WigWag says:

    Wow, what a tremendous victory. H Res 867 (repudiating the Goldstone Report) passed by the overwhelming majority of 344 to 36 Tens of thousand of Americans organized by AIPAC and by various Christian Zionist organizations were mobilized in just a couple of short weeks to write to their Representatives requesting them to vote in favor of the resolution.
    It’s interesting how J Street was put in a bind over H Res 867. Given the *progressive* leanings of the organization you just have to believe that they badly wanted to oppose it. In fact, it has been suggested that Morton Halperin, one of the founders and major J Street donors actually penned the reply that Goldstone made in response to the introduction of the House Resolution. Instead, the best J Street could do was post this anemic statement on their website.
    “We are not urging members of Congress to oppose H. Res. 867. We are urging thoughtful amendment of the Resolution…”
    Just last week, J Street was bragging about all of the members of Congress supporting their young organization. In fact, they were so proud of this support that they gave Congresswoman Schakowsky and Congressman Wexler prominent speaking roles at their inaugural Convention. Interestingly both of these Representatives were Co-Sponsors of H Res 867 and both were conspicuous and vociferous in their verbal support.
    AIPAC’s organizational efforts were quite impressive. The volunteer leaders in their South Florida field office contacted all AIPAC members in the area where I live (in South Florida, AIPAC member’s number in the thousands) and urged us to e-mail or write our Congressman. The Resolution was sponsored by Howard Berman (Democrat from California) and a South Florida Republican Congresswoman with excellent relations with the Jewish community, Ileana Ros-Lehtinen
    The four House members from our area are Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, Alsee Hastings, Kendrick Meek and Ron Klein; all of them co-sponsored the Resolution and obviously they all voted for it. We were advised that collectively their offices received in excess of 6,800 letters, e-mails and phone calls in favor of H Res 867; less than 100 people contacted their offices in opposition to the Resolution. Within the next several months, each of these Representatives has fundraising events planned designed support their campaigns. Despite the hard economic times they all know that their vote for the Resolution will translate into generous pecuniary support. My neighbors and I will all give more than we can afford to support the candidates who vote the way we want them to. This is especially true for Congressman Meek who is running for Senate. Of course, regardless of whether Congressman Meek is elected to the Senate or whether one of the two Republicans vying for the Seat are elected (Governor Charlie Crist or former State House Speaker, Mark Rubio), the next Senator from Florida is guaranteed to be someone who unambiguously supports Israel, views the Palestinian Authority with suspicion and considers Hamas to be a terrorist organization that should be eradicated not engaged.
    Not one House member in the State of Florida opposed the Resolution. Anyone who had could have expected to receive the same treatment that Senator Percy, Congressman McCloskey, Congressman Findley and Congressman Gilchrest received.
    Interestingly we were informed that even in States with virtually no Jewish population like South Carolina, Alabama and Mississippi, congressional offices were being flooded by pro-H Res 867 correspondence; presumably all this mail was generated by Christian Zionists. We were also told that in Congressional offices in Massachusetts, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Ohio and California mail in favor of H Res 867 was very heavy and exceeded mail that opposed the resolution by greater than 100 to 1.
    AIPAC is incredibly organized in South Florida. I went door to door with a few neighbors urging people to contact their representatives to urge a favorable vote on the Resolution, but it really wasn’t necessary. Everyone had already received a phone call from AIPAC volunteers; many had received more than one call.
    I was amazed at how much hostility to Obama there was in what is a highly Democratic neighborhood. Where I live, most people voted for Obama; I would say that at least 50 percent of the folks who did now regret it. An issue that really annoyed people down here that got virtually no coverage in the media was the “Medal of Freedom” award that Obama gave to former Irish President, Mary Robinson. Many people consider her to be a bigot for her role in the first Durban Conference. These people won’t forget Obama’s decision to recognize her. The controversy about this was several months ago; it was surprising how many people still remember (especially considering the fact that a lot of my neighbors are like me; they don’t have acute memories any more).
    The other thing that surprised me as I went door to door is how many of my neighbors now think Netanyahu is doing a good job. Many of these people know a lot about Israel and Israeli politics; many have friends and family members living in Israel and most have visited Israel at least once. Few of them hoped Netanyahu would win. Because of the way Netanyahu stood up to Obama lots of my neighbors now seem to like him much more than they once did.
    Almost all of my neighbors vote and many make political contributions to candidates throughout the country who support causes they believe in.
    Isn’t American democracy grand?

    Reply

  56. ... says:

    Settlers force Palestinians out of East Jerusalem home
    http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1125577.html
    business as usual in racist israel…

    Reply

  57. Outraged American says:

    The Palestinians wouldn’t hate Jews if the Jews weren’t white
    phosphor-ing them in their living rooms.
    The use of white phosphorus or DIME weapons is a bit impolite
    to the Palestinians. One minute you’re sipping weak tea due to
    the Israeli sanctions,, the next minute your 5-year-old is
    writhing on the floor, her face melting.
    Nadine, it’s time your lot cleared out of the Middle East, which it
    appears many of the up-and-coming youth of Israel are doing.
    Seriously, check out the restaurants on Ventura Blvd in LA. If
    there’s an earthquake, which there will be soon, the entire San
    Fernando Valley will be engulfed in a tsunami of humus.
    At the rate the youth are fleeing Israel for greener (literally —
    Israel’s running out of water) pastures in the US it’s soon going
    to be “Press one for Hebrew, press two for Spanish, press three
    for English” — and then you’ll get transferred to a call center in
    India. The other place young Israelis are migrating.
    Yiddish is spoken too in LA, so no need to worry about that
    Nadine. That language will not die as long as there is an
    entertainment industry and the shmucks who buy the bullshit it
    sells.
    Although I have to say –and Nadine hold on tight to your head
    scarf -remember that your head must be covered before
    Yahweh, just like those devout… who are the other fanatics who
    have to cover their heads before “God”??? Muslims??? – I can
    speak Yiddish better than a lot of young Jews in the industry.
    It’s pathetic — me convent educated but lacking one word of
    Latin, had to translate Yiddish to English and vice versa for some
    of the younger Jews I worked with in the industry.
    Next career crossroads I’m going to become a yeshiva teacher
    and make sure and bring a BLT to eat in front of the students
    and see how long it takes the yeshiva PTA to crucify me then
    claim that the Romans did it.
    Leave the real Semitic Jews there, the ones who have gotten
    along with the Palestinians for thousand of years (maybe
    because they share the same genes), but get the Ashkenazim
    back to the “West” where they’ll undoubtedly make trouble, but
    at least it won’t be a FUCKING NUCLEAR WORLD WAR.
    So from Israeli paper Ha’ aretz, comes proof that Zionists carry
    out false flag attacks on their fellow tribe members to get them
    to immigrate.
    Ha’aretz article: (h/t poster at antiwar.com)
    On January 14, 1951, at about seven in the evening, a bomb –
    or perhaps it was a hand grenade – was tossed into the open
    courtyard of the Masuda Shemtov synagogue in Baghdad. The
    courtyard served as a gathering place for Jews, prior to their
    departure for the airport, on their way to Israel. At the time of
    the terror attack, the place was filled with several hundred
    people. Four of them, including a 12-year-old boy, were killed;
    about 10 were wounded. The Iraqi authorities blamed two
    activists from the Zionist underground, and had them executed.
    The British embassy in Baghdad relayed to London its own
    assessment of the motives behind the attack: Activists of the
    Zionist movement wanted to highlight the danger for the Jews of
    Iraq, in order to spur the State of Israel to accelerate the pace of
    their immigration. At the time, there was serious debate in Israel
    on this issue and some wished to slow down the rate of
    emigration from Iraq.
    http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/objects/pages/PrintA

    Reply

  58. ... says:

    israel is a racist state.. of that you can’t deny… complain all you want about what palestine is or isn’t… the sad truth remains about israel for all the world to see…nothing you say changes any of it.. 2 wrongs don’t make a right… neither does israel behavior in these instances…

    Reply

  59. nadine says:

    “nadine, i point israels legal system out and how racist it is due the fact that people like you keep on telling me how democratic israel is… it isn’t… it’s an ethnocracy, not a democracy… if you want to always compare israel to palestine no one is stopping you, but it speaks very poorly about where israel is at that the murder of arabs is condoned, but not that of jewish… that is called racism plain and simple..”
    Khalid, you cry crocodile tears over Israeli racism, which is not even proven in this case, as nobody is condoning the Jewish terrorist’s killing Arabs, they just failed to catch him then. Israel is upset and horrified by the case.
    If the shoe were on the other foot, he would be a hero of Palestine. If failing to catch him when he killed Arabs makes Israel an ethnocracy, what would calling him a hero make Israel? Because whatever that is, it’s what Palestine is already.
    But you don’t mind that. You don’t care about democracy or racism at all, you’re just looking for cudgels to beat Israel with, any charge will do. Pretending to care about racism or democracy is pure hypocrisy on your part.
    You really have to ask yourself why it is that the Israelis and Americans keep offering the two state solution and the Palestinians keep refusing it. If the occupation is so horrible, so humiliating as they keep complaining, why don’t they jump at the chance to end it?
    The Palestinians could have their own state tomorrow, so why aren’t they the ones pushing for a deal? Why aren’t they laying out their conditions and demanding a settlement? But instead they run away from the deal. Abu Mazen was delighted when Obama gave him a new reason to refuse to negotiate. That’s the seeming paradox of the situation.
    The answer lies in the same reason why the Jewish terrorist Teitenbaum would be a hero of Palestine if the shoe were on the other foot: the high priority given to killing Jews.
    The Palestinians don’t want the deal because the deal would leave Israel standing. That’s what they can’t stand about it. They care far more about killing Jews and destroying Israel than ending the occupation, and they have convinced themselves that as long as they keep saying no, the offers will get better and better. They won’t – the Israelis have wised up to them, that’s why Meretz has only 3 seats in the Knesset now – but the Palestinians often practice fantasy politics.
    Which is why there won’t be a Palestinian state for a long, long time. You can’t make people take a state if they don’t want one. You can’t make a people accept a compromise if they have convinced themselves that total victory will be theirs if they just hold firm and wait for it.

    Reply

  60. JohnH says:

    Yemen? Somalia? Pretty soon they’ll have to rebrand the USA as ‘Quagmires are Us’ (AKA a welfare system for merchants of death).

    Reply

  61. samuelburke says:

    from patrick langs sic semper tyranis website.
    “Yesterday Iraq, today Afghanistan, tomorrow Somalia, then Yemen?
    http://turcopolier.typepad.com/
    “ONE OF THE rhetorical questions frequently tossed out in the debate over Afghanistan concerns the brewing trouble in Somalia and Yemen, both of which are known to host al-Qaeda cadres and training camps. If it’s necessary to pacify Afghanistan to protect U.S. security, goes the taunt, must we also intervene in Somalia and Yemen?
    The presumed answer is: “Of course not — and therefore why bother with Afghanistan?” The more sensible response is: If something is not done soon about these lawless places, one or the other may well become the next Afghanistan — a place where U.S. military intervention was compelled by a devastating attack on the homeland. ” Washpost lead editorial
    ————————————————————————
    Can there be any doubt that what the Post has in mind are COIN campaigns in these and all other “necessary” places?
    “COIN = political reform + economic development + counterguerilla operations.” (Bernard Fall’s definition)
    The prophets of COINism must be upset today with their fellow travelers at the Post. This kind of thought must be concealed from the American electorate if they are to be manipulated into acceptance of the unending series of revolutionary wars that are the emerging destiny of the United States.
    The COIN prophets+the COIN generals+the neocon revolutionaries+the neocon driven corporate media; this coalition of the obsessed and the self-obsessed is driving America towards commitment to a future filled with COINist zeal for revolutionary change across the world, starting with the Islamic world.
    The inevitable end of that development will be national bankruptcy and political unrest that will make the 60s and 70s look trivial by comparison.
    We should thank the editorial page of the Post for revealing what this all about. pl”

    Reply

  62. silver slipper says:

    Hey, since President Obama now knows who is President of Afghanistan, he can go ahead and make his strategy decisions! Maybe he will make some decisions to keep our troops safer soon!

    Reply

  63. ... says:

    nadine, i point israels legal system out and how racist it is due the fact that people like you keep on telling me how democratic israel is… it isn’t… it’s an ethnocracy, not a democracy… if you want to always compare israel to palestine no one is stopping you, but it speaks very poorly about where israel is at that the murder of arabs is condoned, but not that of jewish… that is called racism plain and simple..
    johnh – you make a very good point.. steve went up and down both sides of iran, in keeping with the hypocritical stance of the usa, but it is all silence over the very same issue in afganistan.. how convenient!!! it strikes me like a cop out…

    Reply

  64. PissedOffAmerican says:

    The following is kinda funny in a way, plus quite telling in its underlying message. The odorous stench of racism seems to taint every aspect of modern Israeli society. This Israeli coach’s belief that darkskin people suffer from inferior intelligence doesn’t seem to be much different than the insane rants of a stateside fifties KKK fanatic.
    The truth of the matter is we are subsidizing, condoning, and abetting what amounts to the cross burnings and hangings in the deep south
    http://palestinenote.com/cs/blogs/blogs/archive/2009/11/03/a-lesson-on-israel-from-the-nba.aspx#comments

    Reply

  65. Mr.Murder says:

    In fact, Clinton tried to make just that case yesterday:
    “I don’t think it has anything to do with the legitimacy of the election,” Clinton told reporters in Abu Dhabi on Saturday. “It’s a personal choice… We see that happen in our own country where, for whatever combination of reasons, one of the candidates decides not to go forward.”

    Reply

  66. PissedOffAmerican says:

    “Steve really needs to make a strong, unambiguous statement about the legitimacy of the Afghan elections”
    Actually, we need to be addressing the legitmacy of our own government. From my vantage point, it appears to me that it doesn’t even vaguely resemble what it is supposed to be.

    Reply

  67. JohnH says:

    Steve really needs to make a strong, unambiguous statement about the legitimacy of the Afghan elections. Having declared that “legitimacy matters” in Iran, he needs to clarify his thinking on Afghanistan, Honduras, and probably soon Iraq.
    Which is more important? That someone friendly to America always win? Or does legitimacy trump short term American “interests?”
    Already we’ve seen what Democracy 2.0 has done to jeopardize the security interests the US feels entitled to in Japan.
    So which is it? Follow America’s lofty ideals? Or follow Washington’s dictates? The two are in conflict.

    Reply

  68. PissedOffAmerican says:

    J Street Runs in the Wrong Direction
    Posted on October 29th, 2009 by Michael Brendan Dougherty
    I was pretty positive about J Street when it launched 18 months ago. And of course, on balance I prefer J Street to the bellicose AIPAC. The former does not advocate that America launch wars (Iraq) that are not in its interest to fight.
    But J Street’s premises may be flawed. This “pro-Israel, pro-peace” lobby exists for two reasons. 1) To give American Jews, most of them progressive, a sane alternative to AIPAC. 2) To convince Americans, and American policymakers that a two-state settlement is both desirable and–contrary to other pro-Israel groups–that it is achievable if only America really tries.
    In a country that happens to control the largest, best equipped, and most hubristic military apparatus in the world, J Street finds itself banging on the table, shouting, “Yes, we absolutely agree with AIPAC that it is vital for America to protect Israel’s interests. And yes, we agree that many Arab state actors are monsters.” Then, in an embarrassed whisper, it adds “We think there are diplomatic solutions that America should begin imposing.” Finally, it concedes in footnotes to be released later, that “No, we don’t think America should really threaten to withhold its money or technology from Israel to accomplish any of this.”
    I’m sorry. This won’t work.
    The fix for Washington’s obsession with protecting Israel is not a series of panel discussions on what is really in Israel’s best interest. Instead, our political class should focus on what is in America’s best interest.
    J Street’s problem is its internationalism. In J Street’s view, America is supposed to throw its weight around the region toward a two-state solution. Its supposed to stand up to the Israeli right. Once America initiates this process, guides it, subsidizes it, and perhaps defends it – then America will reap some rewards. In other words, J Street absolves Israel and Israelis from responsibility for their own peace process.
    My own view is that radical Palestinians may be just as aggrieved at an American-imposed peace process, as by an American-enabled Israeli occupation. If by some miracle the dust ever settles in the Middle East, it would be better for us if our fingerprints were not discovered there.
    http://www.amconmag.com/blog/2009/10/29/j-street-runs-in-the-wrong-direction/
    Amen.

    Reply

  69. Outraged American says:

    More on Doug Liman, the director of the Plame/ Wilson movie. I
    only met him once, when I went to the “GO” location. Our
    mutual producer introduced me as his next “star” writer and
    Liman could not have been less interested. Shaking his hand
    was like shaking one of the limpest tentacles of a dying octopus.
    Liman doesn’t go far enough in the following interview — I
    could tell you stories about Hollywood that would uncurl your
    hairs down under, the ones you cover up, that is if you’re not a
    nudist, a porn star or Paul.
    I also met Katie Holmes on that location. She at that point
    looked and acted like the fresh-faced, perky, mid-Western
    youngster that she was. Then she married the Gay Midget Dwarf
    and now she looks like she’d qualify for the Senior Citizen pass
    at the Grand Canyon.
    Hollywood grinds your soul to where it’s at a molecular level. I
    find it ironic that Liman is pretending to be one of the good
    guys. Maybe he is. But there are only three of them in
    entertainment so chances are slim. Plus my old roommate said
    he was already a big, swinging, dick in high school.
    That said, I will see the Plame/ Wilson movie. I thought he did a
    great job on GO. I hope that Liman has done his homework, like
    research things like this:
    Cheney Failed to Answer 72 FBI Questions
    Documents from Interview in Valerie Plame Case Show Vice
    President was Unclear on Many Points, Big and Small
    article
    http://tinyurl.com/yhwpmhz
    Liman on Hollywood:
    CAREER WATCH: What It’s Really Like To Work In The Movie
    Business
    Over at action site 30ninjas, blockbuster film director Doug
    Liman (Bourne, et al) is explaining what it’s really like to work in
    the movie business.
    Doug complains about not sleeping enough. But other than that,
    it sounds like job-seekers could do worse.
    A hilarious thing about the movie business is that you can get
    away with anything as long as you call it “process.” Literally,
    anything.
    I mean, [one famous director I know is always sound asleep
    during the filming of climactic scenes]! The director is literally
    sound asleep on set — what the hell’s going on here? Well, he’s
    slept through his last three movies, and they were huge hits. It’s
    how he works; that’s his “process.” He’ll wake up at some point
    and give notes, but for now, let him catch a few Zs. I haven’t
    been in the business that long, but at this point I can’t think of
    a single outrageous behavior that I haven’t seen occur on set
    and then heard excused as someone’s process.
    I have a friend who was directing his first feature film, and the
    actor who’s starring in it came up to the director, my friend, and
    said: “Just to let you know from the beginning, I’m going to be
    stoned in my trailer every morning and all day long. But before
    anyone panics, I’ve been stoned in every movie I’ve been in, and
    I was stoned when I auditioned for you. You’ve basically never
    seen me when I’m not stoned. The guy that you’ve cast is
    basically stoned, so don’t be alarmed that I’m in my trailer
    getting stoned.”
    Then there’s the director who was known for fondling P.A.’s in
    the video village. Explicitly fondling them — putting his hands
    down the pants of P.A.s in the video village in front of
    everybody. And what did the studio do? They built a tent so no
    one could see. They created a private little video village for him
    so they wouldn’t get sued for sexual harassment by the rest of
    the crew.
    So there it is. You know, I feel a little lame that my unusual
    behaviors aren’t that extreme, but I have started to like it when
    people say I turn up on set and I’m so disorganized that it’s just
    my “process.” They’re like, “Where’s your shot list?” Well, I didn’t
    have a shot list on Swingers, and I didn’t have a shot list on
    Bourne, so that must be my process. So I’ve started to use that
    to justify certain things, to get certain people off my back. Then
    again, I’m now meticulously going through Moon shot by shot
    for special effects. So much for my “process.”
    continues
    http://tinyurl.com/ylo7du4

    Reply

  70. PissedOffAmerican says:

    http://walt.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2009/11/01/from_washington_and_jerusalem_more_bad_news
    From Washington and Jerusalem: more bad news
    Mon, 11/02/2009 – 10:46am
    Back in 2007, we wrote that AIPAC has an “almost unchallenged hold on Congress.” Little has happened since then to alter that conclusion, and we will probably get another demonstration of Congressional spinelessness this week. On Tuesday, the House is scheduled to vote on H.R. 867, an AIPAC-sponsored resolution denouncing the recent Goldstone Report on possible war crimes by Hamas and Israel during the Gaza War last year. You can read the resolution here. You should then read Judge Goldstone’s response here, which points out the errors in the House resolution. And then read historian Tony Judt’s eloquent statement here. If you’re convinced that the resolution makes a mockery of America’s professed commitment to justice and human rights, then you might express that sentiment here or here. Or just call your Congressman’s office and tell him/her to grow a backbone and vote against it.
    Meanwhile, over in Israel itself, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is completing the Obama administration’s humiliating retreat from the principles set forth in the president’s Cairo speech of less than five months ago. In a joint press conference with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Clinton did not criticize continued Israeli home demolitions in East Jerusalem (a practice she had previously denounced), and praised Netanyahu for making “unprecedented concessions” on settlement expansion. Huh? This is Clintonian double-talk worthy of her husband. Netanyahu’s “concession” was to insist that Israel would keep building whatever and wherever it wished in East Jerusalem, and would also continue the “natural growth” of settlements in the West Bank, but would not start any completely new settlements for awhile. Bear in mind that virtually every country in the world regards all of the settlements — both the unauthorized outposts and the vast neighborhoods built by the Israeli government — as illegal under international law, and the United States used to say this too. And for this “concession” the Palestinians are supposed to enter into another meaningless round of discussions, while the bulldozers and construction crews continue to eat away at the land on which they hope to establish a state of their own. To praise Netanyahu’s position as an “unprecedented concession” is like discovering someone is robbing your house, and then expressing gratitude when they offer to do it a bit more slowly.
    The two-state solution was on life-support when Obama took office, and at first it appeared he might make a serious effort to nurse it back to health and make it a reality. At least, that’s what he said he was going to do. Instead, he and his Secretary of State are in the process of pulling out the plug. But what will they do when “two states for two peoples” isn’t an option and everybody finally admits it, and the Palestinians begin to demand equal rights in “greater Israel?” Will the United States support their claims for equality, democracy, and individual rights, or will it continue to defend and subsidize what will then be an apartheid state? Well, if it’s up to our courageous reps in Congress, you know what the answer will be.
    Stephen Walt

    Reply

  71. PissedOffAmerican says:

    “…..whatever I do is justified, whatever is done to me is an outrage”
    Here we have Nadine, giving us a thirteen word summary of her total posting message.

    Reply

  72. nadine says:

    …, the Israelis arrested the Jewish terrorist, and yes, they have arrested Jewish terrorists in the past with Arab victims. He’s going to jail and will stay there.
    Let’s make a more realistic comparison, shall we, not to some level of perfection that only Israelis are supposed to achieve, but to actual actions of the Palestinian Authority. What if the shoe were on the other foot? Does the PA arrest Arab terrorists with Jewish victims? Has it ever? No, they declare them Heroes of Palestine, give them medals, give their families $25K if they are “martyrs”.
    But naturally, extolling the killing of Israelis, male or female, old or young, as the most glorious of Palestinian activities is not “racism”. No, no. Only Jews can be racists. Arabs are just exercising their rights of “resistance.”
    Khalid, you an shining exemplar of Arab hypocrisy at its purest: whatever I do is justified, whatever is done to me is an outrage.

    Reply

  73. ... says:

    israels legal system: democracy doesn’t work this way…. racism does though…
    http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1125244.html

    Reply

  74. Mr.Murder says:

    Met someone who knows people that worked for Colin Powell,one of whom went to school with Obama, and said he is one of the smartest people she’s ever known.
    He agreed with my take, that Obama is actually an Ike Republican in the way he’s been doing things.
    “He is very realistic, level headed.”
    On the economy:
    “This mess America was made into is just a George Bush hangover.”

    Reply

  75. Mr.Murder says:

    The reason I think GDP marginally ticked downward, in addition to wage declines or stagnation along with a slight gas spike:
    state lotteries
    Here in AR people are spending as much for scratch and win tickets as they do anything else. Lotteries should have a levied tax figured into the payout to reflect the cost of each ticket because so much of its money ends up coming from varied entitlements.
    A federal tariff on lotteries could retap some of the currency flow draining from the most needy. This would enable non lottery states to access a portion of the overall revenue without making every local ballot initiative the subject of new lotto racketeering aims.
    You really want the mob to decide your school agendas if they contribute to the education fund through gambling?

    Reply

  76. PissedOffAmerican says:

    Erich….
    Sorry man, I had no idea you had already posted it.
    AToL is a great source, isn’t it?

    Reply

  77. PissedOffAmerican says:

    http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/KK03Df04.html
    US goofs the Afghan election
    By M K Bhadrakumar
    Abdullah Abdullah’s refusal to take part in the Afghan presidential election runoff on November 7 is a watershed event. From his point of view, the former foreign minister did the sensible thing, having carefully assessed he had no stake whatsoever in a runoff that he had zero chance of winning.
    President Hamid Karzai has also shown the door to Abdullah’s Western sponsors. They had approached in hopes of gaining a last-minute “deal” that would see Abdullah, their protege, gain some position in the future administration. Abdullah saw that from this point onward, the law of diminishing returns would be at work if he kept pecking at Karzai.
    Karzai estimated that Abdullah would be a thorn in the flesh – or worse still, a Trojan horse for the Western powers; having him in the government in any serious capacity would result only in Karzai spending sleepless nights at the presidential palace.
    In any case, Karzai calculated that Abdullah had already inflicted the maximum damage possible by lending his services to the president’s Western detractors. Karzai also knows that he will continue to enjoy strong support from within the major non-Pashtun groups as long as his partnership with erstwhile mujahideen leaders Mohammed Fahim, Karim Khalili, Ismail Khan, Rashid Dostum and Mohammed Mohaqiq remains intact.
    The real political game in great Afghan style is now all set to begin. The shadow boxing is over. At the center stage of the political theater stands Karzai. He has turned the table squarely on the Western powers, but he will not easily forget the sustained attempts over the past year and more to ridicule him and pull him down. There has been some attrition. The attacks on him and his family members have at times been on very personal terms and they hurt deeply. Afghans are unused to such Western-style muckraking in the name of democracy.
    The latest broadside in the New York Times, portraying his brother, Wali Karzai, as a drug trafficker, has taken matters to a point of no return. American officials who spoke out of turn have done colossal damage to US interests in Afghanistan. It was probably meant as a desperate, last-ditch attempt to sling some more mud at Karazi. Hopefully, Washington will not order an inquiry into the New York Times story, as John Kerry, chairman of the US Senate Foreign Relations Committee, reportedly sought.
    Any such inquiry will only end up bringing out of the cupboard skeletons that neither Kerry nor US President Barack Obama will want to see.
    Washington must take serious note that the response to the New York Times report has come from none other than the Afghan Minister of Counter-Narcotics, General Khodaidad Khodaidad. The minister has brought into public debate Afghanistan’s best-kept secret: the role of foreign troops in drug trafficking.
    It was one thing to be dismissive when the former director general of Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI), General Hamil Gul, alleged that American military aircraft were being used for drug trafficking in Afghanistan. It might also have been expedient to simply ignore the issue when well-informed Russian sources made media comments that US troops were doing roaring business in drug trafficking in Afghanistan running into hundreds of millions of dollars. But Khodaidad is a highly trained professional who knows what he is talking about.
    The Indians know him, and so do the Russians. Khodaidad passed out from the prestigious Indian Military Academy in Dehra Dun and was a product of the famous Fronze Military Academy in Moscow. He had a proven record in the communist government in Kabul as a highly decorated general; he led crack paratrooper brigades in the war in the early 1980s and he served as the army commander in the crucial Kunduz and Takhar frontline facing Ahmad Shah Massoud of the Northern Alliance. Britain, where he lived in exile for a decade, knows him too.
    Therefore, when Khodaidad said on Sunday that the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) contingents from the US, Britain and Canada are “taxing” the production of opium in the regions under their control, he carried a stern warning on behalf of Karazi. It is a simple, direct message: don’t throw stones while sitting in a glass cage.
    Continues…..

    Reply

  78. Outraged American says:

    Or Rahm Emanuel’s goon squad stuck a dead horse’s head under
    the covers of Abdullah Abdlullah’s bed.

    Reply

  79. erichwwk says:

    US goofs the Afghan election
    By M K Bhadrakumar
    A sample, addressing the U.S. military role in drug trafficking:
    “The latest broadside in the New York Times, portraying his brother, Wali Karzai, as a drug trafficker, has taken matters to a point of no return. American officials who spoke out of turn have done colossal damage to US interests in Afghanistan. It was probably meant as a desperate, last-ditch attempt to sling some more mud at Karazi. Hopefully, Washington will not order an inquiry into the New York Times story, as John Kerry, chairman of the US Senate Foreign Relations Committee, reportedly sought.
    Any such inquiry will only end up bringing out of the cupboard skeletons that neither Kerry nor US President Barack Obama will want to see.
    Washington must take serious note that the response to the New York Times report has come from none other than the Afghan Minister of Counter-Narcotics, General Khodaidad Khodaidad. The minister has brought into public debate Afghanistan’s best-kept secret: the role of foreign troops in drug trafficking.
    It was one thing to be dismissive when the former director general of Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI), General Hamil Gul, alleged that American military aircraft were being used for drug trafficking in Afghanistan. It might also have been expedient to simply ignore the issue when well-informed Russian sources made media comments that US troops were doing roaring business in drug trafficking in Afghanistan running into hundreds of millions of dollars. But Khodaidad is a highly trained professional who knows what he is talking about.”
    Full article at:
    http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/KK03Df04.html

    Reply

  80. Dan Kervick says:

    Whether they look like fools or not is the least of their problems right now, Nadine. They are gearing up to fight some stepped-up version of a counterinsurgency campaign, with only the scope of the campaign in doubt. The whole point of a counterinsurgency war is to extend the range of central government protection and control, little by little, over some territory, and by the same process to constrict the operational range of the insurgents, and the territory within which the insurgents can disrupt government control. If there is no government whose power can be expanded, there is no hope of counterinsurgency. If they are going to go through with this thing, then the White House desperately needs *some* kind of starter government in Afghanistan they can build out.
    In the bygone olden days of unapologetic imperialism and colonialism, a country could just move to take over the country they were trying to conquer, administratively as well as militarily, and send in their own governors, viceroys and legions. But such a thing is generally regarded as unthinkable and declasse in the contemporary political context. In our enlightened modern world, great powers need plenty of local window dressing when they attempt to conquer a country.

    Reply

  81. nadine says:

    Okay, Dan, I see what you are saying: the WH looking like fools was the better option. It’s possible, I suppose.

    Reply

  82. Dan Kervick says:

    Why on earth should the WH press Abdullah to withdraw?
    Because it had become clear that the re-vote was going to be just as much of an unworkable, craptacular, pseudo-democratic crack-up as the original election, and that the political outcome would be even more dicey and ambiguous than it was the first time. There would, once again, be no clear winner, and Karzai would be even weaker than he is now.
    It seems to me that since Abdullah stood down, the White House can now say that that the leading opposition candidate has effectively *conceded* to Karzai. This gives Karzai even more legitmacy than he had before.
    In fact, Clinton tried to make just that case yesterday:
    “I don’t think it has anything to do with the legitimacy of the election,” Clinton told reporters in Abu Dhabi on Saturday. “It’s a personal choice… We see that happen in our own country where, for whatever combination of reasons, one of the candidates decides not to go forward.”
    As soon as I heard that on the radio, I immediately suspected that Washington had prevailed upon Abdullah to get out, so that they could rhetorically reconstruct his withdrawal as a concession.

    Reply

  83. nadine says:

    Dan, it was the Americans who pressed for an election rematch in the first place. Why on earth should the WH press Abdullah to withdraw? The WH looks like fools now, calling up Karzai to congratulate him on an election that they were openly calling fraudulent just two weeks ago.

    Reply

  84. Dan Kervick says:

    What’s the scuttlebutt, Steve? Did the White House prevail on on Abdullah to withdraw?

    Reply

  85. Dan Kervick says:

    “Steve Clemons, proprietor of the Washington Note, will be backstage at the Bruce Springsteen concert tonight at the DC Verizon Center.”
    Finally. It’s about time Springsteen met The Boss.

    Reply

  86. nadine says:

    If the Afghan election was fraudulent enough to require a runoff, how does does the certification of a non-runoff of a constitutionally mandated runoff constitute a valid election?
    If the US didn’t like the first election, why is it compelled to like the non-election?
    If the US likes democracy, why does it support non-democracy?
    If Afghan people were incensed before, how will they be now?
    Does Obama really believe he can control this?
    POTUS SCOTUS SCOTUS POTUS HOCUS POCUS
    ************************
    Catchy theme you got going there, James.
    I have one more question going begging: Will the US support democracy in Palestine? Will the US insist that the elections Abu Mazen has called for next January actually take place in Gaza as well as the West Bank? The Palestinians get most of the their income from foreign aid, if the Euros and the US ever got together to insist, they could make it happen.

    Reply

  87. nadine says:

    The Founders never, ever applied Constitutional protections to the Barbary Pirates. It was Jefferson who made war on them, don’t forget.
    I only wish you wished to maintain Constitutional protections for American citizens. Where in the Constitution does it say the Government can MANDATE me to buy health insurance even if I don’t want it? It is the progressives who turned the Constitution into a “living document” which means you don’t have to pay any attention at all to what it actually says, you just make it up as you go along.

    Reply

  88. DonS says:

    The protections of the Constitution have served well for 200+ years.
    Ben Franklin had it right.
    If the US can’t maintain it relative freedom by respecting it’s core values, it doesn’t deserve to continue to market itself as such. What’s the point? Keep a few idealogues like yourself in business?

    Reply

  89. nadine says:

    Hey DonS, maybe Obama got into office, learned the real extent of threats against the US, and figured out that for all his previous posturing, there is no good option not involving military tribunals. Guantanamo won’t close either, wait and see.
    This is the problem with running by irresponsibly demagoguing issues you don’t fully understand. It comes back to bite you once you are in office. People figure out that you aren’t a serious person. Your supporters feel betrayed, while your opponents gather strength.

    Reply

  90. DonS says:

    John Waring, the manner in which the Obama Justice Department has continued and extended previous draconian policies infringing on civil rights and privacy matters has been perhaps been the most disappointing aspect of this administration; even more than the ME where I didn’t expect him to do anything but buckle under pressure. As you probably know, Marcy Wheeler (Emptywheel) has been all over this issue from the days of the Fitzgerald investigation on. I can’t bring myself to follow her every elaboration of Obama’s betrayal. Much too depressing. I am considering taking a bit of local action and follow the many privacy advocates who have taken their opposition to the Patriot Act, even with Obama’s measly tinkering, to local town councils and forced localities to confront whether they will abide by it despite the clear constitutional prohibitions on which it encroaches. Clear, that is, in the absence of case law decisions, to individuals who view DOJ practices as clashing with what has heretofore been viewed as “within the four corners” of the Constitution.

    Reply

  91. JamesL says:

    Questions begging:
    If the Afghan election was fraudulent enough to require a runoff, how does does the certification of a non-runoff of a constitutionally mandated runoff constitute a valid election?
    If the US didn’t like the first election, why is it compelled to like the non-election?
    If the US likes democracy, why does it support non-democracy?
    If Afghan people were incensed before, how will they be now?
    Does Obama really believe he can control this?
    POTUS SCOTUS SCOTUS POTUS HOCUS POCUS

    Reply

  92. Paul Norheim says:

    Sorry …,
    but if you read what I actually said, I have concluded that I DON`T EXIST. Would you
    like me to prove it with a link in French (the original text), or in a translation?
    As to the proof that Rummy is behind the swine flu hoax, OA has already provided
    plenty of links; and if you want a confirmation that the sky is blue in Phoenix, easy
    e confirmed it here:
    http://www.thewashingtonnote.com/archives/2009/10/captcha_plus/#comments

    Reply

  93. ... says:

    paul, i would like to see the link that proves you exist, lol… otherwise i am not so sure, lol..
    kotz, it’s like usa foreign policy is now being run by some just like you! dr strangelove would be happy…

    Reply

  94. kotzabasis says:

    All the celestial flying expectations of liberals, including Clemons, toward Obama’s Middle East peace process are in tatters. This is clearly illustrated by Dennis Ross’ silent ‘pussy foot’ move from the State Department to the inner sanctum of National Security. As his task will be to stitch together the torn patches of Obama’s Middle East failed diplomatic policy into a more realistic and feasible one than Obama’s soft ballerina’s tip-toe diplomacy toward Palestinian, Fatah-Hamas intransigency.

    Reply

  95. John Waring says:

    http://harpers.org/archive/2009/11/hbc-90006018
    DonS, please read Scot Horton’s entry, “Hold Claims State Secrets — Again” at the above link. Yes, I am becoming more pessimistic.

    Reply

  96. Paul Norheim says:

    Don, thanks for the links!
    I`ve already read the Haaretz article (thanks to … for a previous link), but the
    Jerusalem Post piece was brilliant.
    ———————————–
    Outraged, you said:
    “Paul’s going to question if the sky is blue and if he exists…”
    As to the color of the Phoenix sky, I think easy e generously provided some reliable
    information early this morning. The Phoenix sky seems to be blue.
    With regards to the not less important question of my existence, allow me to elaborate a
    bit. When I was 19, I studied philosophy. While reading Descartes, I felt that his
    initial description of fundamental doubt and insecurity was an accurate description of
    my own inner doubt and confusion. However, I have to confess that I reached a conclusion
    that somehow differed from the conclusions of the author. Descartes` meditations had the
    unintended consequence of helping me to realize that I am an illusion. Since then, I`ve
    known, with absolute certainty, that I don`t exist.
    I would suggest that you in the future address these crucial issues to Questions, as
    well as other pseudonyms at TWN, who may still be struggling with existential problems
    that I left behind me several decades ago.
    And Outraged, if you don`t believe my claim that I don`t exist, I`d be happy to provide
    a link.

    Reply

  97. Mr.Murder says:

    As for headlines and items of topic, Clinton had a statue unveiled due his honor, in Kosovo.
    Obama needs to sharpen his majority position re: insurance opposition to Health Care.
    The best way to do it is providing leveraged incentive. A critical committee review of insurance industry bailouts in the wake of Katrina and other hurricanes is due.
    This might be enough of a matter to mute their other aims in opposition to public options and single payer rates.
    Insurance received the first bailout.
    Call Health Care plans “stimulus” as the expansion of service will expand the economy.

    Reply

  98. ... says:

    speaking of the usa and nato’s presence in afganistan, greenwald also has an excellent article well worth reading… check it out
    The universality of war propaganda
    A soldier with the Russian army in Afghanistan recounts what they believed about their mission
    http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2009/10/28/propaganda/index.html

    Reply

  99. Mr.Murder says:

    Thw Wilsons film should become a landmark along the ines of All the President’s Men.
    RIP, Todd Staheli and Paul Johnson.

    Reply

  100. ... says:

    thank you usa! a moron could do a better job running the usa, which is headed for a complete downgrade in the worlds and it’s own eyes…
    The United States provides $3 billion for weapons and military equipment every year to Israel. The Goldstone Report concluded that “ grave breaches of the Fourth Geneva Convention were committed by Israeli forces in Gaza: willful killing, torture or inhuman treatment, willfully causing great suffering or serious injury to body or health, and extensive destruction of property, not justified by military necessity and carried out unlawfully and wantonly. ”
    http://mondoweiss.net/2009/11/let-goldstone-testify-in-congress-before-you-rush-to-judgment.html/comment-page-1#comment-120721

    Reply

  101. ... says:

    dons thanks for posting greenwalds review of levys article which i posted here yesterday… quote him greenwald further down in the article-
    ” The U.S. is unwilling merely to demand from Israel a cessation of activity which is illegal in the eyes of the entire world and destructive to American interests.
    Even worse, the U.S. Congress appears poised — yet again — to enact a meaningless though odious Resolution that has no purpose other than to shield Israel from criticism; place ourselves squarely on Israel’s side no matter what it does; and once again obstruct war crimes investigations. That Resolution — co-sponsored by two members of Congress from each party, including supreme AIPAC loyalist Howard Berman, the Democratic Chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee — would advance the repellent through all-too-familiar personal smears against U.N. investigator Richard Goldstone by urging that the U.S. “oppose unequivocally any endorsement or further consideration” of Goldstone’s report — which found both Israel and Hamas likely guilty of “war crimes” in the war in Gaza — on the ground that the Report was biased, flawed, one-sided, pre-ordained and false.
    It’s apparently not enough that the U.S. Government block all efforts to investigate its own war crimes while immunizing its own war criminals. Now the U.S. Congress has decided that they were elected to do the same for Israel. The reality is that Goldstone’s report found that both Hamas and Israel committed war crimes in the war in Gaza, but the focus of the report was on Israel because the number of civilian deaths it caused was — as usual — many times the magnitude caused by Hamas.”
    as mondoweiss pointed out, none of this sucking up would happen without an israel lobby having undue inflence in the usa… gives the lie to all the moaning about w & m’s idea of an israel lobby…

    Reply

  102. Outraged American says:

    Hollywood story: the producer who optioned my script was
    working w/ Liman on “Go” while he was working with me.
    The reason I went with this producer, as opposed to the other
    ones who wanted my script, is because I read John August’s
    screenplay “Go” and it was pretty much the best screenplay I’d
    ever read out of the hundreds I’d read, marketed, did story
    notes on, so I figured the producer had great taste.
    The soundtrack to Go down by the wife of an old friend of mine,
    is amazing, and I think the movie is just really silly funny.
    It turned out that one of my old school friends who I ended up
    living with in NYC way before I’d written the script, had gone to
    school with Liman. His dad, Arthur Liman was the lead counsel
    on Iran/ Contra.
    Paul’s going to question if the sky is blue and if he exists so
    here’s a little background:
    http://nymag.com/news/features/42823/

    Reply

  103. DonS says:

    But your’re not trying to be president, Paul.
    ………………………
    “Scathing critique” of Israel in Israeli paper, (as opposed to what’s permissible in the US), via Greenwald:
    http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/
    Makes a wonderful juxtaposition to excoriation of Israeli art of “victim mentality” in another Israeli paper (J. Post would you believe):
    http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1256740787801&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull
    I did not excerpt texts since both articles are powerful in their whole.

    Reply

  104. Paul Norheim says:

    Hey Don,
    what the hell is wrong with the wisdom and age of those who are 47? I`ll defend that
    age…uh…well…perhaps not until I die, but at least until 01.19.10!

    Reply

  105. DonS says:

    “power” not “poser”. I have to be more careful of that “w” key. Second time I’ve done it. Or is there some greater force working here?

    Reply

  106. DonS says:

    Like I said, a year or two moratorium on Obamaspeak would be good.
    What, John Waring turning pessimistic! I had the same thoughts about the Fla and NY political constituencies. If true, pretty damn pathetic considering Obamas ’08 margin. If he’s looking at the interim elections, why bother? The issues that need addressing, at least in foreign affairs, involve quite different dynamics than domestic nose counting. Perhaps Obama really hasn’t sorted out the dynamics, foci, and realities to which the poser of the presidency can be applied.
    Call me elitist, but maybe part of Obama’s flailing about has to do with that old thin resume issue, and being ‘only’ 47 or so. (No offense to the 40ish crowd intended, but there is something to be said for the age/wisdom equation, at least until you get into the senile/cranky territory)

    Reply

  107. ... says:

    meanwhile turkey ignores american’s particular brand of madness and continue to point out the obvious… what to do about turkey??? start a heavy pr campaign to negate them??? begin a push to have them permanently barred from the eu??
    something must be done for them having the audacity to comment on the reality in the medeast….. this is unheard of in a world of regular us/israel bullshit….

    Reply

  108. John Waringl says:

    This is extraordinary. We have two rather small domestic constituencies in charge of American foreign policy towards Cuba and Israel/Palestine. The White House appears willing to exchange coherence for appeasing these two domestic interest groups, because of their critical position in the presidential electoral process. Florida and New York are must wins for the President in 2012.
    I have to give credit where credit is due. I have the utmost respect for those capable of manipulating the system so exquisitely for their own benefit.
    I can only wish my own interests were so lovingly cared for

    Reply

  109. ... says:

    we are about due for another eloquent speech from obama… the media will then proceed to fawn all over it….
    hillary is the bimbo many took her for…
    steve – enjoy the springsteen show…

    Reply

  110. samuelburke says:

    HA HA….HOW RIDICULOUS.
    BY HOOK OR BY CROOK.

    Reply

  111. JohnH says:

    Humpty Dumpty once stood tall
    Humpty Dumpty took a great fall
    All of Barack’s bombers and all of Barack’s men
    Couldn’t put Humpty together again…

    Reply

  112. Paul Norheim says:

    If Obama managed to “change the optics” during the first months of his presidency,
    Hillary Clinton certainly undermined that in the Muslim world during last weekend.
    Obama`s charisma won`t have any effect in the above mentioned issues.

    Reply

  113. Paul Norheim says:

    Right now we are watching three significant geopolitical events unfolding more or less
    simultaneously:
    1) Israel continuing the settlement policies, ignoring former US demands.
    2) Russia announcing that sanctions against Iran would be unwise.
    3) Afghanistan announcing that Karzai is the winner of the election.
    And the White House pretending that everything is fine.
    Of course the whole world realize that these are serious strategic setbacks for Obama.
    Are we witnessing the current POTUS exposing the limits of US diplomacy, the way the
    former POTUS exposed the limits of US military power?
    In other words: are we basically witnessing a) an inevitable process, or b) events
    happening largely due to personal weaknesses and lack of judgement in the White House –
    both by Bush and Obama? Or are the diplomatic setbacks c) largely a result of the
    military adventures of the former POTUS?
    (P.S.
    I first posted this comment at the “captcha” tread, but it belongs here.)

    Reply

  114. JohnH says:

    Steve wouldn’t say it, but I will: the Obama administration’s foreign policy is on the rocks.
    The Afghan election farce seals the illegitimacy of the America effort there. Plus there are charges of the American military running drugs there. No longer just running an oil protection racket?
    Meanwhile SOS Clinton is leaving a series of failures in her wake as she jet sets from one capital to the next:
    1- Growing distrust in Pakistan
    http://news.antiwar.com/2009/11/01/clinton-charm-offensive-yields-growing-distrust-in-pakistan/
    2- Caving to Bibi and disgusting the Arab world.
    3- And then there’s the small matter of Japan.
    The dollar is clearly not the only American currency that has lost its luster.
    Instead of trying to finesse every difficult situation, Obama urgently needs to take decisive action that will prove that he actually stands by the lofty principles he so eloquently articulates. He is on the verge of being dismissed as fool’s gold, a worthless flash in the pan amidst the ruins of American foreign policy.

    Reply

Add your comment

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