Perino: A,mericans Have No Say Over War

Well, do tell, Ms. Perino.

Thanks, Helen for the question, which caused Ms Perino to let's 48% of us who voted for Kerry off the hook for war crimes and crimes against humanity. Those of us who voted for Kerry are almost in the clear. Some of us are still, however, paying for it for whatever reason (no doubt, the obvious one; they believe it is unlawful to not pay taxes and it is in ordinary times, but these are not ordinary times.)

Why doesn't that make me feel better?

Our Representatives (didn't vote for mine and more than I voted for Bush, as he is a mindless Bushite follower) have say over the war. They have the power over the purse. They won't exercise that power, so the people must. This is a criminal war.

Serious business, indeed. Just ask the Germans.

At a White House press briefing today, Press Secretary Dana Perino effectively tells veteran correspondent Helen Thomas that the American people's say in the Iraq occupation ended after the 2004 election.

"The American people are being asked to die and pay for this," probes Thomas. "And you're saying they have no say in this war?"

"No," Perino responds, "I didn't say that, Helen. But, Helen, this president was elected--"

Thomas interrupts: "But it amounts to it. You're saying we have no input at all."

"You had input," Perino says. "The American people have input every four years and that's the way our system is set up."

Perino's statement comes on the heels of a direct assertion by Vice President Dick Cheney that he doesn't care about public input on Iraq.

"I think we cannot be blown off course by the fluctuations of the public opinion polls," said Cheney to ABC's Martha Raddatz on Wednesday. "There has in fact been fundamental change and transformation and improvement for the better. That's a huge accomplishment."

Video of the exchange between Thomas and Perino is available at Think Progress.

(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. I.U. has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is I.U endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)


The Nazis, Fascists and Communists were political parties before they became enemies of liberty and mass murderers.

Time Is Of The Essence: Our Nation In Peril

The Five Pillars of George W. Bush’s Republican Party

The best characterization of George W. Bush that I can recall ever reading comes from Al Gore’s new book, “The Assault on Reason”. Gore points out in his book, and I agree with him, that the two stereotypes of George W. Bush as a dimwitted stooge or as a religious fanatic are flat out wrong. Rejecting the idea that Bush is either stupid or truly religious, Gore characterizes Bush in a nutshell like this:

I’m convinced, however, that most of the president’s frequent departures from fact-based analysis have much more to do with his right-wing political and economic ideology than with the Bible…. Now, with the radical Right, we have a political faction disguised as a religious sect, and the president of the United States is heading it. The obvious irony is that Bush uses a religious blind faith to hide what is actually an extremist political philosophy with a disdain for social justice that is anything but pious by the standards of any respected faith tradition I know. The truth about this particular brand of faith-based politics is that President Bush has stolen the symbolism and body language of religion and used it to disguise the most radical effort in American history to take what belongs to the American people and give as much of it as possible to the already wealthy and privileged…Make no mistake: It is the president’s reactionary ideology, not his religious faith, that is the source of his troubling inflexibility. Whatever his religious views, President Bush has such an absolute certainty in the validity of his rigid right-wing ideology that he does not feel the same desire that many of us would in gathering facts relevant to the questions at hand.

Few would argue with the conclusion that the vast majority of Republican Congresspersons for most of George W. Bush’s two terms in office have been virtually indistinguishable from Bush himself. While they were in power they gave him everything that he asked for, and they repeatedly refused to investigate the grossest abuses of presidential power, even when his approval ratings fell into the 30s. Only recently, with his approval numbers falling into the 20s, have they begun to distance themselves from him. A tremendous amount of damage has been done to our country since George Bush took office, and consequently we now find ourselves in a perilous crisis, with our Constitution in tatters, our treasury being depleted by rampant militarism, our international reputation at an all time low, and with a broken election system.

Therefore, Americans would do well to carefully consider prior to the next election the five pillars of George Bush’s Republican Party. This is a description of five groups of people, the first four which overlap to a great extent, who lead, support, and vote for today’s Republican Party.

The economic royalists

I believe it was Franklin Delano Roosevelt who first coined the term “economic royalist”. That term refers not merely to people who are wealthy, but to those who believe that it is their God-given right to have more wealth than other people, and that it is the main purpose of government to protect and enhance that God-given right. Here is how FDR put it, as he explained in his classic 1934 Democratic Convention speech to the American people the rationale behind his New Deal, which lifted tens of millions of Americans out of their poverty following the Great Depression:

Out of this modern civilization economic royalists carved new dynasties. New kingdoms were built upon concentration of control over material things. Through new uses of corporations, banks and securities, new machinery of industry and agriculture, of labor and capital … the whole structure of modern life was impressed into this royal service.There was no place among this royalty for our many thousands of small business men and merchants who sought to make a worthy use of the American system of initiative and profit. They were no more free than the worker or the farmer… The privileged princes of these new economic dynasties, thirsting for power, reached out for control over Government itself. They created a new despotism and wrapped it in the robes of legal sanction. In its service new mercenaries sought to regiment the people, their labor, and their property. And as a result the average man once more confronts the problem that faced the Minute Man.

The hours men and women worked, the wages they received, the conditions of their labor – these had passed beyond the control of the people, and were imposed by this new industrial dictatorship. The savings of the average family, the capital of the small business man, the investments set aside for old age – other people's money – these were tools which the new economic royalty used to dig itself in.Al Gore uses the same term, “economic royalists”, to provide an excellent synopsis of this group of people using modern-day terminology. He describes the economic royalists as those who are primarily interested in eliminating as much of their own taxation as possible and removing all inconvenient regulatory obstacles. Their ideology – which they and Bush believe with almost religious fervor – is based on several key elements:

First, there is no such thing as “the public interest”; that phrase represents a dangerous fiction created as an excuse to impose unfair burdens on the wealthy and powerful. Second, laws and regulations are also bad – except when they can be used on behalf of this group, which turns out to be often. It follows, therefore, that whenever laws must be enforced and regulations administered, it is important to assign those responsibilities to individuals who… reliably serve the narrow and specific interests of this small group…What members of this coalition seem to spend much of their time and energy worrying about is the impact of government policy on the behavior of poor people. They are deeply concerned, for example, that government programs to provide health care, housing, social insurance, and other financial support will adversely affect work incentives….Important results of the efforts of these people has been a wealth gap in our country that has expanded to levels unprecedented since the 19th Century, with CEOs now making 431 times that of the average working American, and the poverty rate in our country increasing substantially during the Bush administration.

The militarists

Though the dangers that our nation faces today are clearly minor compared to those we faced during nearly half a century of the Cold War, George W. Bush has declared a state of permanent war in our country and virtually suspended the freedoms and rights guaranteed to us in our Constitution; he invaded and occupied a nation which posed no threat to us, spawning a war that shows no signs of abating after more than four years; he violated our Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable searches with his warrantless spying on hundreds of thousands or millions of American citizens; and in his abusive treatment and torture of thousands of prisoners of war, he has repeatedly violated international law specified in the Geneva Convention of 1949, as well as the due process clause of our Fifth Amendment, our Sixth Amendment right to a public trial, to face one’s accusers, to be represented by counsel and to be informed of the charges against one’s self, and our Eighth Amendment protection against cruel and unusual punishment. And our Republican Congress sat silently by while George Bush and Dick Cheney did all this. There are several causes and components of this rampant militarism. One primary cause overlaps with the economic royalists: Wealthy corporate friends of the Bush administration have made billions from their no-bid contracts associated with the Iraq war, as billions of dollars have gone missing; we have built several permanent military bases in Iraq; and now we are insisting upon and intimidating the Iraqi government to gain control of their oil.George Bush himself seems to take a perverse macho pleasure in his imperialistic and cruel policies, repeatedly emphasizing that he is a “War President”.

According to Richard Clarke, Bush’s counterterrorism chief, Bush stated at a meeting on the evening of September 11th, 2001:
I want you all to understand that we are at war and we will stay at war until this is done. Nothing else matters. Everything is available for the pursuit of this war. Any barriers in your way, they’re gone. Any money you need, you have it. This is our only agenda.

When Donald Rumsfeld pointed out that international law allowed for self defense but not for retribution, Bush exploded, “NO. I don’t care what the international lawyers say, we are going to kick some ass”. Another component of today’s rampant militarism is ultra-nationalism, best illustrated by the many Bush administration signatories to the “Project for a New American Century” (PNAC). That organization’s chilling (for anyone who abhors imperialism) document, “Rebuilding America’s Defenses”, written long before the 9-11 attacks on our country, sheds much light on George Bush’s “War on Terror”.

The primary theme of that document is that our military must be much stronger than the militaries of any nation or combination of nations that might oppose our ambitions, in order that we may “shape a new century favorable to American principles and interests”, “boldly and purposefully promote American principles abroad” and maintain an “order that is uniquely friendly to American principles and prosperity”. More specifically, we now have new “missions” which require “defending American interests in the Persian Gulf and Middle East” by “deterring or, when needed, by compelling regional foes to act in ways that protect American interests and principles”.

For millions of Americans who support the rampant militarism of George Bush’s Republican Party, fear and racism undoubtedly play a major role. Constant fear mongering by the Bush administration causes many ordinary Republicans to be so fearful for their own safety that they are willing to have their Constitution and the rule of law in their country destroyed in return for George Bush’s promises to protect them. The fact that most of the victims of George Bush’s cruel and inhuman policies are Muslims of Middle Eastern descent and dark skin undoubtedly makes that bargain more palatable to many of his followers.

The propagandists and destroyers of our First Amendment rights

Despite the tremendous wealth that the economic royalists contribute to the Republican cause, and despite the fear mongering propagated in support of their militarism, most Americans simply do not share the values of the Republican Party: Most Americans would like their government to provide a national health care plan; most believe that women should not be branded as criminals for choosing to have an abortion; most believe we should have laws to require a higher minimum wage than we have had for several years; the list goes on and on. So Republicans need something other than their policies to get the votes they need to win elections.

Our Founding Fathers, recognizing that a free flow of information is essential for the maintenance of democracy, enacted the First Amendment to our Constitution in order to address that need. Such a free flow of information would be instrumental in exposing the Bush administration and its Republican Party for what it is, and that would have allowed American voters in 2000 and 2004 to make more informed choices in the voting booth. But the virtual monopoly by supporters of the Republican Party on the ownership of major news sources in our country does much to stem the free flow of information. In the lead-up to the Iraq War, our corporate news media failed to explain to the American people that the Bush administration’s case for invading Iraq was based on little or no evidence; even now they refuse to inform us in any detail of the hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilian deaths resulting from our invasion and occupation of their country; during both the 2000 and 2004 elections they failed to follow-up on clear evidence that George Bush had failed to fulfill his National Guard commitments; and they failed to explain to the American people that the proposed Bush tax cuts would benefit only our wealthiest citizens.

And to compound the problem, George Bush has denied our First Amendment rights through the use of so-called First Amendment zones to prevent protesters from being heard, by denying access to journalists who criticize him, by threatening to jail reporters who criticize his administration, and by paying shills (with taxpayer dollars) to write government propaganda disguised as news.

The crooks

But even that isn’t enough for Republicans to win elections. To provide Republicans with a chance against a Democratic Party whose values are much more in tune with the values of the American people, Republicans must also resort to bribery and election theft. Since Republican policies favor only a small proportion of the population compared with the Democratic Party, Republicans are completely dependent upon donations from wealthy donors in order to stay in office. Consequently, they repeatedly vote in favor of the rich and powerful, and in return they are rewarded with money. In theory this is illegal, but it is very difficult to prove, since the deal is rarely sealed in writing. Legislators who receive money from wealthy corporations for doing favors for them will routinely tell us that their vote was not influenced by the bribe … I mean the campaign donation. Therefore, only the extreme and more or less obvious cases of bribery (or accepting bribes), such as that perpetrated in 2006 by Jack Abramoff, Tom DeLay, Duke Cunningham, and Bob Ney, are typically prosecuted. But the solicitation or receipt of so-called “legalized bribes”, in the ethical sense, has become the routine way in which most Republicans (much more so than Democrats) obtain money for their campaigns. As I said, their continuation in office is dependent upon these bribes … I mean campaign contributions. So they are always skating close to the edge. And every now and then, when they get a little careless or overly arrogant, they skate off the edge.

Control over our elections provides another means for Republican victories. For various indefensible reasons, most Republicans believe that it is ok to have our votes counted by computers using secret vote counting code, with no means of determining whether or not the vote count is accurate. After all, these are private companies that supply the machines that count our votes. What right do we have to regulate or investigate their activities? – or so goes Republican logic. In 2000, after George Bush’s brother, the governor of Florida, illegally disenfranchised tens of thousands of African Americans from voting in the presidential election on the grounds that they were close computer matches to felons, after a Republican orchestrated riot in Miami-Dade County stopped the vote counting there, and after various other types of election fraud as well, five Republican Supreme Court “Justices” stopped the manual recount of the votes in Florida on grounds that had no Constitutional justification whatsoever, thereby declaring George W. Bush our 43rd President. I could go on and on about this. Here is evidence of vote switching fraud in national elections from 2002 to 2006; here is evidence of widespread election fraud in 2004; here is evidence of widespread election fraud in 2006; and we have recently learned that the Bush administration fired their federal attorneys for either refusing to investigate non-existent election fraud by Democrats or for pursuing too aggressively cases of election fraud perpetrated by Republicans. In fact, the main purpose behind the whole U.S. attorney firing scandal appears to be the stealing of elections.

The gullible

Despite all their money, the support of most of the corporate news media, and widespread election fraud, Republicans nevertheless must still rely on many millions of gullible Americans to push them over the top. They must convince many millions of Americans to buy into the absurdity that their economic policies are not weighted heavily in favor of the rich and powerful; that George Bush and his associates didn’t know that Iraq posed no threat to us whatsoever when he went to war against them; that the tough talk and excessive eagerness of Republicans to pull their country into war is a manifestation of courage; and finally, many millions of Christians buy into the absurd idea that George Bush and the Republican Party is the party of Christian values.

Al Gore describes the situation in his book:
While the economic royalists provide the financial support for {the Republican} coalition, a group of ultraconservative religious leaders (who actually are primarily politicians) provide manpower and voter turnout. They serve a special purpose with their constant efforts to cloak the right wing faction’s political agenda in religious camouflage. Many of them also have their own media outlets and are part of the propagandist wing of the coalition…Some readers of this post may by now be wondering why I haven’t specifically mentioned the Christian Right as one of the pillars of the Republican Party. The explanation can be found in the above excerpt from Al Gore’s book. The Christian Right is made up of those leaders who “cloak the right wing faction’s political agenda in religious camouflage” plus those rank and file Christians who are gullible enough to believe that the Republican Party promotes Christian values. These are the people who believe that Republican economic policies, which drive people into poverty by the millions and make no effort to help families acquire the basic needs of life, are Christian; that the Party that is so enthusiastic about going to war for no good reason is “pro-life”; and that the Party of crooks and liars is Christian. Many of these people may be sincere Christians. But the ones who are are exceptionally naïve to believe that the Republican Party is the Christian Party.

Here is what a Christian minister had to say to Christian voters Congress and Presidency was controlled by the Republican Party:

It has gotten to the point that moderate and liberal Christians are afraid to be open about their political leanings. Sadly, it even affects their conscience and choices as they enter the voting booth…Christian voters need to see that God’s heart breaks over more than just a few political and moral issues. It is time to take off our blinders and mourn for the sorry state of affairs that is American politics…Christians should look for candidates that will work for issues that are of importance to Christ and that can be tackled legislatively. Sadly, most of those causes have historically been opposed, ignored, and minimized by conservative Republican policy makers.

They seem to dangle the moral issues carrot around election time. Then, even with a Republican controlled White House and Congress, prove themselves powerless to do anything about those issues when they convene to legislate. Issues such as eliminating poverty and homelessness in America, true equal rights for all citizens, environmental protection, a fair minimum wage, affordable health care, and lowering our infant mortality rate all go unattended. That’s just to name a few…I have some questions for the Christian Right. Why have you not held our current elected majority officials accountable for their failure to address the full spectrum of Christian issues? Why would you vote for them again? … It is time for Christians of conscience to stand up to religious and political hypocrisy.

Today’s crises

The huge wealth gap in America today threatens to rend the fabric of our civil society. Our rampant militarism and imperialism has made us pariahs in today’s world and threatens to bankrupt us and plunge our world into global chaos. The secrecy of our government and constant attacks on our First Amendment rights, the corrupting effect of money in politics, and the widespread perpetration of election fraud by those in power poses perils to our democracy that we haven’t seen since our Civil War.But worst of all has been the contempt for the rule of law shown by our president, vice president, and their minions. Whenever confronted with a law he doesn’t like, George Bush simply issues a “signing statement” to nullify it. He has consistently shown nothing but contempt for our Constitution and essentially acted as if international law does not apply to him or his country, since he believes that we have the power to ignore it. Al

Gore puts it like this:
The unifying theme now being pushed by this coalition is actually an American heresy, a highly developed political philosophy that is fundamentally at odds with the founding principles of the United States of America… In America, we believe that God endowed individuals with unalienable rights; we do not believe that God has endowed George Bush – or any political leader – with a divine right to exercise power.That is the essence of the Constitutional crisis we have today. Many of our Democratic representatives feel that if we wait it out for another year and a half and elect a Democratic Congress and President in 2008 we will get back on the right track. My great fear is that it will be too late by then. A solid precedent will have been set that says that it is ok for our President to be above the law, like a King, rather than a servant of the people. I don’t see how we’re going to reverse that precedent if we don’t take aggressive steps to remove George Bush and Dick Cheney from the offices they have so greatly abused, while we still have the chance.

(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. I.U. has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is I.U endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)


The Nazis, Fascists and Communists were political parties before they became enemies of liberty and mass murderers.

Bush and Cheney will, probably, Help Destroy Israel

A Greater Israel

By Robert ParryFebruary 12, 2007

A big part of the crisis confronting the United States in the Middle East can be traced back to what is now more than a quarter-century-old competition among American politicians over who can best pander to Israeli hardliners.

Rather than furthering Israel’s long-term interests – or those of the American people – these politicians seek short-term electoral gains by appealing to blocs of right-wing Christian and Jewish voters who reject any criticism of Israeli policies.

But this calculated positioning – from the likes of Hillary Clinton and John Edwards on the Democratic side to George W. Bush and the neoconservatives on the Republican side – has thrown the diplomatic calculus in the Middle East out of whack.

Whereas the United States traditionally served as an honest broker between Israel and its Arab neighbors, the current dynamic is for ambitious American politicians to adopt what they see as the favored Israeli position and thereby deepen the anger of the Muslim world.

So you get former Sen. Edwards appealing to an Israeli security conference earlier this year with tough talk about putting military pressure on Iran – “We need to keep ALL options on the table. Let me reiterate – ALL options must remain on the table” – without offering a word of criticism about Prime Minister Ehud Olmert’s policies toward the Palestinians. [See Consortiumnews.com’s “Bush Is Hiding the Ball on Iran.”]

You get Sen. Clinton eagerly sharing a platform last summer with Israel’s ambassador to the United Nations, Dan Gillerman, a notoriously anti-Arab bigot who joked at a 2006 conference of the American Israeli Public Affairs Committee that “while it may be true – and probably is – that not all Muslims are terrorists, it also happens to be true that nearly all terrorists are Muslim.” [See Consortiumnews.com’s “A New War Frenzy.”]

You get President Bush – only 10 days after taking office – giving a green light to an Israeli crackdown on Palestinians. At the first meeting of his National Security Council, Bush jettisoned President Bill Clinton’s efforts to broker an Israeli-Palestinian peace deal.

“We're going to tilt it back toward Israel,” Bush said of his new policy, according to Bush's first Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill whose insider account appeared in Ron Suskind’s The Price of Loyalty.

Secretary of State Colin Powell expressed strong misgivings, predicting that U.S. disengagement would unleash Prime Minister Ariel Sharon and lead to “dire consequences,” especially for the Palestinians. But Bush shrugged off the concerns, saying “Maybe that’s the best way to get things back in balance.”

Elaborating on his theory, Bush said, “Sometimes a show of strength by one side can really clarify things.”

With Bush’s cavalier response, years of U.S. diplomatic efforts to resolve the Middle East conflict came to a halt. Sharon launched some of the deadliest attacks ever seen in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and Palestinians countered with suicide bombings that killed Israeli civilians. The cycles of violence continued to spiral out of control.

Post-9/11

After al-Qaeda’s terror attacks on Sept. 11, 2001, Bush spotted a political opportunity to implement a long-held neoconservative strategy for eliminating anti-Israeli governments in the Middle East, whether or not they represented security threats to the United States.

The invasion of Iraq was sold to Americans alternatively as necessary to eliminate weapons of mass destruction, which turned out not to exist; to topple a tyrant; or to spread democracy. But the underlying neocon plan was to conquer Iraq for use as a base of American power that would then force additional “regime change” in Iran and Syria.

In 2003, the punch-line for a neocon joke about whether U.S. forces should next go west to Syria or east to Iran was that "real men go to Tehran."

Once those two governments were removed, the theory went, Israel’s front-line enemies – Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in the Palestinian territories – would be starved of support, brought to their knees and forced to accept peace terms dictated by Israel.

Though this neocon pipedream has proved to be a disastrous fantasy – with 3,100 dead U.S. soldiers in Iraq and anti-Americanism surging around the world – Bush still earned a reputation in some pro-Israeli circles as “the best friend Israel’s ever had.”

It was, however, the classic case of the easygoing friend who lets you stagger to your car and drive off down a mountain road instead of acting as the true friend who takes away your keys and calls you a cab.

The old-fashioned friends of Israel balanced their support for its legitimate security needs with criticism of overly harsh policies against Palestinians or other actions that might unnecessarily estrange Israel from its Arab neighbors.

Yet many of those friends are now smeared with the ugly epithet “anti-Semite” and shouted into silence, while the panderers continue to jostle for position to stand shoulder to shoulder with Israel’s hardest of hardliners.

So, Bush’s Middle East policies now neatly dove-tail with Prime Minister Ehud Olmert’s. In both Washington and Tel Aviv, military force against Islamic militancy is seen as the only acceptable answer, with only periodic lip service paid to the cause of peace.

Though on one level Israel is getting what it wants, the neocon strategy also guarantees eventual catastrophe, the prospect of casting one of the world’s most strategic and volatile regions into a cauldron of violence that, in the end, could jeopardize Israel’s very survival.
Just as Bush’s invasion of Iraq predictably turned that country into a larger version of the Gaza Strip, an expansion of the neocon regional wars will transform the entire Middle East into a giant facsimile of Iraq. Rather than quell Muslim radicalism, the neocons only will exacerbate and spread the extremism.

Eventually, even American military power won’t be able to save Israel from the spreading hatreds. Radicalism eventually will infect Israel’s internal Arab population or the chaos finally will lead to a committed terrorist gaining control of a real weapon of mass destruction and the means to deliver it.

Risking Peace

The alternative course for Israel and the United States is one of showing empathy for the Palestinians and other Arabs who have legitimate grievances with Israel – and then taking concrete steps toward peace.

This course, which carries its own serious risks, would involve making difficult concessions, such as withdrawal of Israeli settlements from occupied Arab lands. A peace offensive also would require greater humility and more honesty from Washington.

A good early step might be a truth commission that lays out the history of U.S. covert strategies in the region and acknowledges American wrongdoing.

Meanwhile, a repositioning of U.S. forces out of Iraq could include putting some American troops in Israel to ease security concerns there and to help relocate settlers off the Golan Heights and out of occupied Palestinian lands. The image of U.S. and Israeli troops cooperating to resolve longstanding Arab complaints would go a long way toward defusing anti-Americanism and hostilities toward Israel. The relocations also would clear the way for Israeli peace treaties with Syria, Lebanon and the Palestinians.

There are two possible frameworks for an Israeli-Palestinian peace agreement. One is a two-state solution with the Palestinians granted enough territory and given enough assistance to create a viable country of their own.

The other approach would be more daring but might hold greater promise toward achieving regional reconciliation and building democratic institutions. This strategy would combine Israel and the Palestinian territories into one pluralistic democracy with strong guarantees of religious freedom for all.

Initially, this Greater Israel might adopt a partitioned government like Lebanon used to end its civil war, with various ethnic and religious groups guaranteed shares of power. Over time perhaps, as hostilities fade and democratic values deepen, this partitioning might become unnecessary.

While this Greater Israel would have to sacrifice some of its Jewish identity – as many leading Israeli Arabs are already demanding – it would seek to fulfill the universal goal of sanctuary for all people facing religious persecution. In that sense, it would be a tribute to the millions of Jews and other minorities who perished in the Nazi Holocaust.

However, either approach – the Two-State Solution or the creation of a Greater Israel – would open a path for Israel to emerge as a technological, cultural and financial center for the Middle East. Israel would have the opportunity to integrate its extraordinary talents with its regional neighbors, thus building the lasting bonds that can augur peace, not war.

The Neocon Plan

Despite the grand potential that genuine peace might hold for Israel and the Middle East, these options are foreclosed by the current political dynamic that has sucked the region into endless cycles of violence and revenge.

Especially after the 9/11 attacks, President Bush adopted the neocon strategy of militarily crushing or intimidating Israel’s regional foes. Through “regime change,” the United States sought to create compliant Middle Eastern governments that would follow policies favored by Washington and Tel Aviv.

But this plan for a “new Middle East” never amounted to a realistic strategy for countering the anti-Western hatreds behind violent jihad.

Indeed, while Bush wrapped the plan up in pretty words about “freedom” and “democracy,” the policy’s reliance on external military force rather than negotiated internal solutions virtually ensured that any genuinely free elections would either reflect sectarian animosities or repudiate Western interference.

Predictably, Bush’s signature intervention in Iraq has thrust that nation into a bloody civil war, strengthened Islamic extremism and dangerously demonstrated the limitations of American power.

Yet, as the disaster in Iraq became undeniable in 2006, the neocons refused to admit failure. Instead, they sought to enlist the Israelis more directly in Bush’s plan by encouraging the Olmert government to adopt a more belligerent attitude toward Hamas in Gaza, Hezbollah in Lebanon and the Syrian government in Damascus.

In summer 2006, tit-for-tat border skirmishes led to the capture of three Israeli soldiers – one near Gaza and two along the Lebanon border. Olmert reacted by unleashing massive Israeli firepower against Hamas in Gaza and against Hezbollah targets across south Lebanon.

Despite horrific bloodshed, the inconclusive outcomes of the Israeli offensives thwarted the neocons’ larger scheme of relying on Israel’s military prowess to extricate Bush from the quagmire in Iraq. [See Consortiumnews.com’s “A ‘Pretext’ War in Lebanon.”]

Now, the neocons are pushing an even riskier scheme of expanding the Middle East conflicts to Iran through a combination of Israeli and American air strikes.

Again, there is the wishful thinking that a punishing air campaign against Iran will achieve “regime change” in Tehran by demonstrating to the Iranian people the consequences of their government’s defiance of Washington and Tel Aviv.

That, in turn, is supposed to undercut the insurgency in Iraq, isolate Syria, and compel acquiescence from Hezbollah and the Palestinians – thus again enabling Israel to dictate settlement terms to its Arab adversaries.

Mad Strategy

While the madness of these Bush-neocon schemes has become apparent to millions of Americans and is even beginning to dawn on Official Washington, U.S. politics is stuck in the rut of pandering to Israeli hardliners, even at the long-term expense of Israel.

Recently, when I mentioned to one former Israeli intelligence official that some American Jews were calling George W. Bush “the best friend Israel’s ever had,” the Israeli laughed bitterly.
“The best friend Israel ever had was Jimmy Carter,” the Israeli said. “He negotiated peace with Israel’s most dangerous enemy, Egypt.”

But Carter’s role in the Camp David accords, which returned the Sinai to Egypt in exchange for peace between the two countries, angered Prime Minister Menachem Begin and other Israeli hardliners.

In 1980, Begin’s Likud Party effectively threw in its lot with Republican Ronald Reagan and worked behind the scenes to stop Carter’s reelection. [For details, see Robert Parry’s Secrecy & Privilege: Rise of the Bush Dynasty from Watergate to Iraq.]

Once in office, President Reagan credentialed the neocons – the likes of Elliott Abrams and Paul Wolfowitz – who emerged as intellectual stars in Washington. They devised foreign policy strategies, fashioned clever talking points and dominated leading opinion journals.

The neocons’ intensely pro-Israeli positions frightened Democrats about the possible loss of Jewish voters, a key element of Franklin Roosevelt’s historic coalition. So, the pandering competition was on in earnest.

Even facing the geo-strategic disaster in Iraq and after the uprising of American voters in November 2006, Democratic leaders still tread carefully around any criticism of Israel. For instance, they quickly distanced themselves from former President Carter when he came under attack for his cautionary new book, Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid.

Very few politicians from either American party, it seems, dare offer the constructive criticism that might guide Israel to a brighter and a more secure future. They prefer to play it safe for themselves, politically, even if that means putting Israel and the world in greater long-term danger.

Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories in the 1980s for the Associated Press and Newsweek. His latest book, Secrecy & Privilege: Rise of the Bush Dynasty from Watergate to Iraq, can be ordered at secrecyandprivilege.com. It's also available at Amazon.com, as is his 1999 book, Lost History: Contras, Cocaine, the Press & 'Project Truth.'

(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. I.U. has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is I.U endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)

The Nazis, Fascists and Communists were political parties before they became enemies of liberty and mass murderers.

Americans Agree: We Have A National Crisis.

Americans long for the leadership qualities of the most popular Democratic and Republican presidents of the modern era to solve what a wide majority considers a national crisis, a new Zogby International telephone poll shows.

The survey of 843 likely voters nationwide was conducted Jan. 5-9, 2007, and carries a margin of error of +/- 3.4 percentage points.

Offered thumbnail descriptions of the presidential qualities, including the names of five of the greatest American Presidents – George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, John F. Kennedy, and Ronald Reagan – respondents nationwide said Reagan’s qualities are most sought after, with FDR a very close second. Twenty–eight percent said they would prefer someone like Reagan, whose “far-sighted vision” and who “persevered despite harsh criticism from enemies and was firm in pursuing his agenda.” Nearly as many (26%) said they preferred the “pragmatism and hopefulness of Franklin Delano Roosevelt, who inspired a nation in trouble and championed the needs of the downtrodden.”

Another 21% said they think this is a time for Democrat John F. Kennedy, while 16% reached back to Abraham Lincoln in search of a leader to solve today’s modern problems. Just 6% said they think the nation – now at war around the world for five years – would be best served by George Washington, the man who led the war for independence.

It comes as no surprise Republican respondents overwhelmingly believe America is most in need of the guidance Reagan would provide – 57% of Republicans say the nation needs a president like Reagan, while 18% said it is time for a president with Lincoln’s attributes. But only 9% of Democrats believe the nation is in need of a president like Reagan. They would instead turn to Democratic presidents of the past to help solve the nation’s problems – 35% want to have a president like FDR, while 32% believe a president like Kennedy would be best able to lead America today.

Both women and men most favor a president like Reagan to deal with today’s issues – men somewhat more (32%) compared to 25% of women. FDR comes in as the second choice for men (28%) while 19% would turn to a president with JFK’s qualities. Women gave equal support (23%) to Roosevelt and Kennedy as their second choice for a president with the qualities the nation most needs now.

Our nation’s first president ranked far behind others -- only 6% who said America needs a president who possesses “the firm resolve yet humble spirit” of George Washington.
Libertarians were twice as likely to believe there is a need for a person in the White House like Washington – 12% said they feel this way as well as 11% of those who identify themselves as very conservative.

There is widespread agreement among Americans surveyed that the nation is in a state of crisis.

Democrats were much more likely than Republicans to say the nation is currently facing a crisis – 86% of Democrats feel this way, and though less so, a majority of Republicans (56%) agreed.

While 82% of progressives and 80% of moderates said a crisis now looms in America, 57% of conservatives said the nation faces a crisis.

More than half (59%) of respondents said they believe the nation is off on the wrong track – that figure jumps to 83% for liberal respondents. Conservatives were more likely to say the nation is headed in the right direction – 44% have a positive view of where the nation is headed, compared to just 30% of overall respondents.

War was Americans’ top issue heading into the 2008 presidential election for 37% of respondents – widely beating out other concerns such as the economy, healthcare, immigration issues and taxes. Asked what issue will be most important to the nation in the next presidential election, half (50%) cited war-related issues in Iraq, Afghanistan and with the troops – again trumping any other issue by a significant margin.

For a detailed methodological statement, please visit:http://www.zogby.com/methodology/readmeth.dbm?ID=1161