Sweet Geebus! Just When One Thinks It Can't Get Any Worse.

Yet another example of the results of tyranny, even unto death. The persecuted become persecutors, the terrorized become merchants of terror, the oppressed become the oppressors, etc.

Seems obvious by now that it isn't a real good idea to give victims a state of their own and a license to kill any and all, and by any means, of their "enemies, who surround them.

In my lifetime, there have been a remarkable number of tyrants who have distinguished themselves in the school of evil. Yes, there was Hitler, before I was born but the worst of the worst, at least so I was taught as a child. We defeated him by joining up with Joe Stalin, who may have killed more of his own people that Hitler did. Then there was Castro, Pol Pot, several dirt-bags to our South, if not in our own South, Saddam Hussein, numerous torture- for-hire governments around the middle east and Central Asia.

None, no matter how many gruesome acts the may have committed, have ever been thought of like Hitler. Their acts were every bit as gruesome and illegal as those of Hitler and his Third Reich, yet to many Americans they are only footnotes in history, if that.

No other "victims" in history have been given their own state, let alone a state based on religion, propped up by the U.S. at every turn even when the governments of Israel have committed war crimes and are guilty of having nuclear weapons, in defiance of the non-proliferation treaty which we signed.

Lately, it was revealed that an infamous NeoCon asserted that anyone criticizing the NeoCons is anti-semetic.

Gee. seems only yesterday that one was anti-semetic only when one questioned the policies of the Israeli government, at any given time. Now not even the almighty Neocons can be questioned without the threat of the most unholy of all labels, "anti-semetic."

My mother taught me waht the phrase, "Never Again" means. "Never again" means we will not stand by and watch a whole group of people attacked and damned near wiped out by other people who are mad with fear and hatred.

So, are the Palestinians the present day Jews?

What's the point in gaining knowledge if we refuse to use it on the big problems that seem to have plagued us since the beginning of history?

« Patrick Fitzgerald’s Private Jihad

17 Jun

Censoring Pro-Palestinian Political Messages?

Was it policy or pressure that led Lamar Outdoor Advertising to tear down billboards featuring a pro-Palestinian political message?

Judge for yourself. Lamar, which operates over 150 outdoor advertising companies in more than 40 states and Puerto Rico, entered into an eight week contract in April with a local New Mexico grassroots group called the Coalition to Stop $30 Billion to Israel to provide ten billboards throughout the Albuquerque area. Each carried this message: “Tell Congress: Stop Killing Children. No More Military Aid to Israel.”

Motivated by concern over an Israeli military incursion into Gaza that left more than 1400 Palestinians dead – most civilians — and another 5,000 injured, Coalition members paid for the messages to register their objection to a 2007 Bush Administration Memorandum of Understanding that provides $30 billion U.S. taxpayer dollars to Israel over a ten-year period – an understanding that the Obama Administration has now adopted as its own. Much of the money will be used to purchase American-made weapons.

Surprisingly, after just three weeks, the billboards were abruptly taken down.

Coalition leaders say correspondence they received from Lamar executives indicated they had removed the billboards – despite the fact that the company’s own graphics department had designed them in cooperation with the Coalition — after having received numerous complaints. Nonetheless, the Coalition and Lamar’s corporate officers agreed on May 18 to a modified redesign of the billboards.

But just one week later, Lamar officials turned around again and rescinded their approval. Coalition members say they were told that the company’s switchboard had been inundated with phone calls objecting to the billboards.

Lamar’s Vice President of Governmental Relations Hal Kilshaw says there’s no conspiracy or censorship at play, however. Instead, Kilshaw offers a much simpler explanation for the contretemps: “We made a mistake – twice!”

Both the original and the revised billboards violated the firm’s Copy Acceptance Policy, Kilshaw says, since it prohibits “misleading and offensive” advertising. The first effort was misleading, he explains, “because Congress is not killing children.” And the second was offensive, “because it still had a picture of a young girl and a tank.”

Yet Kilshaw’s explanation raises as many questions as it answers. If the first design was so “misleading,” why did Lamar agree to accept it in the first place? And why did it stay up for three weeks? “We erred,” Kilshaw says steadfastly. “We might have had an over-zealous ad salesperson. But we took it down after it was brought to the attention of the General Manager in Albuquerque.”

What about the second design – also created in concert with Lamar executives? “We erred again in approving a redesign and then modifying it,” Kilshaw explains. “There was some interim wrangling, we agreed to change it – and then upon re-thinking, decided the revision was offensive.”

Asked what Lamar officials found so “offensive” about the second design, Kilshaw said there is “no black and white way to define what is ‘offensive,’ but like the Supreme Court once said about pornography, I know it when I see it.”

Following their second ‘error,’ Lamar executives came back with three other proposed designs:

“We rejected each and every one of these choices,” says Coalition spokesperson Rich Forer. “None had any images. We asked Lamar to include an image of a tank to accompany very similar wording in the three choices Lamar offered us. We also told them an image would not be necessary if they included the following two phrases: ‘military aid’ and ‘tax dollars.’ All of these suggestions were unacceptable to them - despite the fact is the U.S. has agreed to give $30 billion dollars of taxpayer money to Israel over ten years for military spending, and Israel in return must spend about 76% of the money on U.S. made weapons. So using ‘tax dollars’ and ‘military aid’ are unequivocally accurate.”

Earlier this month, negotiations finally reached an impasse. The design that Lamar proposed was unacceptable to the Coalition, which regarded its message as “too watered down and almost meaningless,” and found it “vague and missing key elements to the message central in our campaign to end the cycle of military violence in this conflict.”

As Coalition member Rita Erickson explained to Lamar executives in an email: “If there were no occupation and oppressive living conditions for Palestinians, there would be no conflict; hence, the impression that we appear to be more sympathetic to Palestinians than Israeli Jews.” But Erickson, like Forer, was also quick to note, “We sincerely care about the human rights of both and are very clear that the occupation is not in Israel’s best interests.”

In a last-ditch attempt at compromise, the Coalition sent still more possible choices for billboards:

1. Tell Congress: No More Tax Dollars for Military Aid to Israel
(No Image Necessary)
2. Tell Congress: Stop Giving Taxpayer Dollars to Israel
(image of tank included)
3. Tell Congress: No More Military Aid to Israel
(image of tank included)
4. Any of the above messages with an image of an Israeli woman on one side and a Palestinian woman on the other side

The emailed response from Lamar? “Sorry original copy as proposed only.”

All of the Coalition’s money has now been refunded, and Company executives say they reserve the right to reject advertising for any reason whatsoever. But Hal Kilshaw wants to make it clear that “We don’t make decisions on political grounds here.” Acknowledging the company had received “lots of comments,” he says he understands “why the Coalition might think this is political, but it’s not. We don’t disagree with their message - it just violates our copy acceptance policy.”

Coalition members aren’t so sure, however. “Their local executive told us they took the first one down because of complaints,” says Rich Forer. “As for the second design, someone — either from the company or an infiltrator within our Coalition — must have notified people in the Jewish community, because there were lots of complaints about that one as well, even though it wasn’t made public!” Forer says information from Lamar employees indicates that pro-Israel groups “may have conducted a pressure campaign to get the billboards removed.” He and the others in the Coalition believe the protests were part of a deliberate and organized attempt to silence their right to free speech, and that Lamar is bowing to the pressure. They believe “a coordinated campaign to suppress the public’s right to be informed” about the Israeli Government’s policies and actions against the Palestinians has been waged against them.

“In contrast to the open debate about U.S.-Israel relations that occurs in much of the world, including Europe and even Israel,” the Coalition noted in a recent press release, “this level of censorship is all too common whenever somebody speaks out about Israel’s policies, the role of the U.S. in financing those policies and how, by doing so, the U.S. violates its own laws, specifically the Arms Export Control and Foreign Assistance Acts.”

What do you think? Was it policy or pressure that caused Lamar to cancel its contract?

The Coalition is now calling “on all people who are concerned about human rights to contact Lamar’s corporate offices and respectfully request they put the billboards back up as agreed to on May 18:

Kevin P. Reilly, Jr., President and CEO
Lamar Outdoor Advertising - Corporate
Phone: (225) 926-1000
Email: twall@lamar.com
Mailing Address: P. O. Box 66338, Baton Rouge, LA 70896

(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.

Israel 'has faith in team Obama'

I wouldn't be so sure, if I were them.

There seems to me misinformation everywhere on the WWW these days.

Fri, 05 Dec 2008 16:18:57 GMT

An Israeli official says Tel Aviv has full confidence in the Obama administration.

An Israeli official says Tel Aviv is familiar with and has full confidence in the people nominated to run the Obama administration.

"Obama is surrounding himself with people who we know - from Hillary Clinton, to Rahm Emanuel, to James Jones. There is no reason to panic," the Israeli official told the Jerusalem Post.

The official's remarks come shortly after the release of a recent report compiled by the Saban Center for Middle East Policy and the Council on Foreign Relations -- which contains recommendations for the Obama administration's policies in regards to the Middle East and Iran.

The think-tank report, authored by veterans of past US administrations, suggests that "to deal effectively with a rising Iran, the United States must embark on a far deeper reevaluation of its strategy and launch a comprehensive diplomatic initiative to attempt to engage" Iranian officials.

The report also called for a timely normalization of "low-level diplomatic relations" with Tehran.

Israel's Foreign Ministry reportedly did not agree with the recommendations. The Israeli official, however, dismissed the proposals and told the paper that, "We have nothing to be afraid of."

Rahm Emanuel, Obama's chief of staff, boasts strong ties with Israel, according to the Jewish Telegraphic Agency.

"With Emanuel, Obama gets an enforcer, a bad cop who loves the f-word, with a unique resume no one else in the US can match," argues a Chicago Sun Times columnist.

Emanuel, a veteran of seven years in the White House during the Clinton administration, reportedly held dual citizenship with Israel and assisted the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) during the 1991 Iraq war.

Hillary Clinton, appointed as the secretary of state, is also expected to steer the next administration in a pro-Israel direction. During her 2008 presidential campaign, she threatened to "obliterate" Iran should Israel come under attack.

"It could be that the new administration's policy will be different from the Bush administration's; in fact, it will be a little different. But that doesn't mean it will be against Israel," the Israeli official told the Post.

Israel insists that Iran, a signatory to the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), has "plans" to develop a military nuclear program.

Under the allegation, top Israeli echelons and army brass have long argued that militarily taking out Iran's nuclear infrastructure is a legitimate option.

Since Obama's election victory, his campaign promise of engaging "in aggressive personal diplomacy" with Iranian leaders to resolve the controversy surrounding the nuclear program has been severely criticized by Tel Aviv.

The UN agency responsible for investigating Iran's nuclear activities confirmed in its latest report that it has "been able to continue to verify the non-diversion of declared nuclear material in Iran."

The UN body, however, insists that unless Tehran increases its nuclear cooperation, it "will not be able to provide credible assurance about the absence of undeclared nuclear material and activities in Iran."

MD/HGH

(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.

Attack on Iran Off the Table?

By Ray McGovern
October 18, 2008

On Sept. 23, the neo-conservative chiefs of the Washington Post’s editorial page mourned, in a tone much like what one hears on the death of a close friend, that “a military strike by the United States or Israel [on Iran is not] likely in the coming months.”

One could almost hear a wistful sigh, as they complained that efforts to stop Iran’s nuclear program have “slipped down Washington’s list of priorities … as Iran races toward accumulating enough uranium for a bomb.”

We are spared, at least this go-round, from images of “mushroom clouds.” But racing to a bomb?

Never mind that the 16 agencies of the U.S. intelligence community concluded in a formal National Intelligence Estimate last November that work on the nuclear weapons-related part of Iran’s nuclear program was halted in mid-2003.

And never mind that Thomas Fingar, deputy for national estimates to Director of National Intelligence Mike McConnell, reiterated that judgment as recently as Sept. 4. Never mind that the Post’s own Walter Pincus reported on Sept. 10 that Fingar added that Iran has not restarted its nuclear weapons work.

Hey, the editorial fellows know best.

The good news is that the bottom line of the Sept. 23 editorial marks one of those rare occasions when the Post’s opinion editors have managed to reach a correct conclusion on the Middle East.

It is true that the likelihood of an Israeli or U.S.-Israeli attack on Iran has receded in recent months. The more interesting questions are (1) why? And (2) under what circumstances might such an attack become likely again?

The Post attributes the stepping back by Israel and the U.S. to “the financial crisis and the worsening violence in Afghanistan and Pakistan.” These are two contributing factors but, in my judgment, not the most important ones.

Not surprisingly, the Post and other charter members of the Fawning Corporate Media (FCM) omit or play down factors they would prefer not to address.

Russia and Deterrence

More important than the bear market is the Russian Bear that, after a 17-year hibernation, has awakened with loud growls commensurate with Russia’s growing strength and assertiveness.

The catalyst was the fiasco in Georgia, in which the Russians saw the hands of the neo-cons in Washington and their Doppelganger of the extreme right in Israel.

You would hardly know it from FCM coverage, but the fiasco began when Georgian President Mikhail Sakashvili ordered his American- and Israeli-trained Georgian armed forces to launch an attack on the city of Tskhinvali, capital of South Ossetia, on the night of Aug. 6-7, killing not only many civilians but a number of Russian observers as well.

It may be true that our State Department officials had counseled Shakashvili against baiting the Russian Bear, but it is abundantly clear to anyone paying attention to such things, that State is regularly undercut/overruled by White House functionaries like arch-neo-con Elliott Abrams, whose middle name could be “F” for “fiasco.” (Or f-up)

Abrams’ encomia include those earned for his key role in other major fiascos like the one that brought about the unconscionable situation today in Gaza. (Perhaps none of Abrams’s later fiascos would have happened if the current President’s father had not pardoned Abrams in 1992 over his conviction for misleading Congress in the Iran-Contra fiasco.)

In any event, it is almost certainly true that Russian Premier Vladimir Putin saw folks like Abrams, Vice President Dick Cheney, and their Israeli counterparts as being behind the attack on South Ossetia.

For centuries the Russians have been concerned — call it paranoid — over threats coming from their soft southern underbelly, and their reaction could have come as no surprise to anyone familiar with Russian history — or, by analogy, those familiar with American history and the Monroe Doctrine, for example.

Even neo-con Randy Scheunemann, foreign policy adviser to Sen. John McCain and former lobbyist for Georgia’s Sakashvili, would have known that.

And this lends credence to speculation that that is precisely why Scheunemann is said to have egged on the Georgian president. Russia’s reaction was totally predictable. McCain could then “stand up to Russia” with very strong rhetoric and not-so-subtle suggestions that his foreign policy experience provides an important advantage over his opponent in meeting the growing danger of a resurgent Russia.

Russia’s leaders are likely to have seen something else -- in Sakashvili’s provocation, in the attempt to get NATO membership for Georgia and Ukraine, in the deployment of antimissile defenses in Poland and the Czech Republic, and in hasty U.S. recognition of an independent Kosovo -- indignities that Russia should no longer tolerate.

I can visualize Russian generals telling Putin:

“Enough! Look at the weakened Americans. They have destroyed what’s left of their Army and Marine Corps, spreading them out and demoralizing them in two unwinnable wars. We know how bad it is with just one unwinnable war. It has not been that long since Afghanistan.

"But, Vladimir Vladimirovich, before we indulge ourselves with Schadenfreude, consider what such actions betoken — total recklessness of a kind we have seen only rarely in Washington.

“Who can assure us that ‘the crazies’ — the Cheney-Abrams-Bush cabal — will not encourage the Israelis to precipitate the kind of armed provocation vis-à-vis Iran that would ‘justify’ America’s springing to the defense of its ‘ally’ to bomb and missile-attack Iran.

“You are aware of the importance of the Israel lobby, and how American politicians vie with one another to prove themselves the most passionately in love with Israel.

Can someone please tell me why????

“Periodic attempts by Congress to require President Bush to seek congressional approval before ordering a strike on Iran have failed miserably. So his hands are free for another ‘pre-emptive war’ before he leaves office.

“After all, Bush has publicly promised the Israelis he will deal with the ‘Iranian threat’ before then. Besides, our political analysts suggest that Bush and Cheney might think that wider war would help the Republicans in the November election.”

No big bear likes to have a nose tweaked. But the Russian reaction to Georgia was not merely one of pique. It became a well-planned strategic move to disabuse Israel and the United States of the notion that Russia would sit still for an attack on Iran, a very important country in Russia’s general neighborhood.

After Georgia, the Russians were bent on sweeping such plans “off the table,” so to speak, and seem to have succeeded.

The signs of new Russian assertiveness are in the public domain, although the FCM has not given them much prominence. What is more telling is the effect on Israel and the United States.

Since August – when the Russia-Georgia confrontation played out and the latest “ultimatum” to Iran over its nuclear program expired – there has been a sharp decline in the formulaic rhetoric against Iran’s “path toward nuclear weapons,” especially among U.S. policy makers and in American media.

The change in official Israeli statements was the most pronounced. After a consistent hawkish stance toward Iran, Israel’s president, Shimon Peres told London’s Sunday Times in early September:

“There are two ways [to deal with Iran’s nuclear threat]; a military and a civilian way. I don’t believe in the military option — any kind of military option … an attack can trigger a bigger war.”

And then came the bombshell from outgoing Prime Minister Ehud Olmert in his valedictory interview appearing in the Israeli daily Yediot Aharonot on Sept. 29. Olmert argued that Israel had lost its “sense of proportion” in believing it could deal with Iran militarily.

Not Russia Alone

It is a curious twist, but to their great credit, our senior military officers – Admiral William Fallon, who quit rather than let himself be on the receiving end of an order to attack Iran, and Admiral Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff – fought and continue to fight a rear-guard action against the dreams and plans of “the crazies” in the White House to attack Iran.

GO NAVY!

Fallon famously declared that the U.S. military was not going to “do Iran on my watch” as commander of CENTCOM.

As for Mullen – in addition to his outspoken opposition to opening a “third front” in the area of Iraq and Afghanistan – the JCS chairman has done much behind the scenes to talk sense into the Israelis.

From the Israeli press we know that Mullen went so far as to warn his Israeli counterparts not to even think about another incident like the one on June 8, 1967, when Israeli jets and torpedo boats deliberately did their utmost to sink the intelligence collector, USS Liberty, off the Sinai coast.

For Mullen a gutsy move. The Israelis know that Mullen knows that that attack was deliberate — not some sort of unfortunate mistake. Mullen could have raised no more neuralgic an issue in taking a shot across an Israeli bow than to cite the USS Liberty to discourage some concocted provocation in the Persian Gulf.

With friends like this who the hell needs enemies?

Hats off to today’s admirals who outshine predecessor admirals who bowed to pressure from President Lyndon Johnson to portray the Israeli air and torpedo strikes on the USS Liberty as a mistake in the fog of war — despite unimpeachable evidence it was deliberate. The attack took the lives of 34 U.S. sailors and wounded more than 170 others.

More lost lives and injuries than Al Qaeda managed to wreak on the U.S.S. Cole.

Hats off, too, to the grassroots movements that succeeded in quashing resolutions in both houses of Congress calling for the equivalent of a blockade of Iran.

Several members of Congress actually withdrew their earlier sponsorship of the resolution in the wake of public pressure. Many of them came to realize that facilitating a new war might open them to charges of poor judgment — the kind of charge that hurt Sen. Hillary Clinton who, ironically, thought she had made the politically smart move in voting to give the President authority to attack Iraq.

Not Completely Out of the Woods

There remain as many “crazies” among the Israeli leadership as there are here in Washington — crazies who continue to believe that Iran must be attacked while the going is good.

And it will never be as good as it is with George W. Bush and Dick Cheney in the White House. If the Randy Scheunemanns of this world are capable of goading the likes of Sakashvili into irresponsible action, they can try to do the same with a wink and a nod to the crazies in Tel Aviv.

The fact that the McCain/Palin campaign seems to be in serious jeopardy provides still more incentive for recklessness. If, as all seem to agree, a terrorist event of some kind might give the edge to McCain, many could argue that the same result could be achieved by a wider war including Iran, requiring senior, seasoned leadership of one who has “worn the uniform.”

And there is still more incentive for Bush and Cheney to look with favor on an attack on Iran, a very personal incentive.

It is a safe bet that if John McCain loses, Bush and Cheney and others will be plagued by various legal actions against them for the war crimes for which they are clearly responsible. Such would also be possible under a President McCain but much less likely.

But attacking Iran would be crazy, you say. Not for nothing have many of the folks around Bush and Cheney been referred to as “the crazies” since the early 1980s. Some are still there – and they have proven again and again that they do things.

In April 2006, one of my Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS) colleagues asked retired Marine Gen. Anthony Zinni if he thought the U.S. or the U.S. cum Israel would attack Iran.

Zinni shook his head vigorously, saying, “That would be crazy.” Then he stopped and quickly added, but you are dealing with “the crazies.”

Ray McGovern was chief of the Soviet Foreign Policy Branch at the beginning of his 27-year career as a CIA analyst. He is co-founder of VIPS, and now works with Tell the Word, the publishing arm of the ecumenical Church of the Saviour in inner-city Washington.

(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.

Signs Of Coming Attack By Israel On Iran

David Owen

Some key decision makers in Israel fear that unless they attack Iranian nuclear enrichment facilities in the next few months, while George W Bush is still president, there will not be another period when they can rely on the United States as being anywhere near as supportive in the aftermath of a unilateral attack.

In the past 40 years there have been few occasions when I have been more concerned about a specific conflict escalating to involve, economically, the whole world. We are watching a disinformation exercise involving a number of intelligence services. Reality is becoming ever harder to disentangle.

Last month a story in The Guardian claimed that on May 14 Ehud Olmert, the Israeli prime minister, in a meeting with Bush, had asked for a green light to attack Iran’s nuclear enrichment facilities. We were told that Bush refused. He believed Iran would see the United States as being behind any such assault and Americans would come under renewed attack in Iraq and Afghanistan. Shipping in the Gulf would be vulnerable. We were told that the source of the story was a European head of government and “his” officials – as if to exclude Angela Merkel and Germany. It is, however, improbable that Israel abandoned its option to take unilateral action.

Three weeks later the Israeli military conducted an exercise over the Mediterranean to demonstrate to the United States as well as Iran that it could attack. More recently there have been a number of stories raising concern about what is happening in Iran. One said Iran’s first nuclear electricity generating plant would go critical in December and thereafter any air attack would become impossible since it would trigger a nuclear explosion. Then we were told that a US radar system had been deployed in Israel with US personnel to strengthen Israel’s defence against Iranian airstrikes. There was also an interview with Olmert where he dismissed as “megalomania” any thought that Israel should attack Iran. He appeared to be trying to disrupt the Israeli coalition negotiations.

Finally, on Friday, The New York Times revealed that in February an IAEA inspector had talked of experiments in Iran that were “not consistent with any application other than the development of a nuclear weapon”. Iran denied the claim.

Before the Israeli negotiations got under way, Ehud Barak, the Labour leader, spoke first to Benjamin Netanyahu, leader of the Likud opposition party, rather than to Tzipi Livni, the newly elected leader of Kadima. This indicated that Barak was interested in an all-party coalition, presumably believing that a Palestinian settlement is not yet achievable and that Israel needs maximum unity to deal with a world transfixed by the economic crisis and resigned to Iran becoming a nuclear weapon state.

If Israel were to attack Iran, one Iranian response would be to block the Strait of Hormuz. On September 16 Iran said its Revolutionary Guards would defend the Gulf waters. In the narrow strait just one oil tanker sunk would halt shipping for months. Insurance cover would be refused and owners would fear the risks of sailing even if the US navy cleared mines.

The Revolutionary Guards are committed to a war against Israel and prepared, in the process, to take on the rest of the world. They have good equipment and operate from the land, sea and air. They will be suicide soldiers, seamen and airmen. If Iran is attacked, Russia and China will supply it with arms.

The circumstances surrounding Georgia’s decision to attack South Ossetia are worth remembering. The Georgian president was advised by Condoleezza Rice, the US secretary of state, not to attack but there were powerful voices in Washington that, by a nod and a wink, were encouraging action, so the Georgian government felt confident in going ahead.

Following an Israeli attack and Iranian countermeasures, the American military would be bound to follow Bush’s orders. The president-designate or, if before the election, the two candidates, would be wary of criticising him. It is imperative that voices are raised in America and Europe to warn Israel off unilateral action against Iran. The experience of Georgia has given an amber, if not a green, light to Israel and only Bush can switch that to red.

Bush’s legacy would be best served by taking dramatic diplomatic action to prevent a war with Iran. He should publicly warn Israel that the United States will use its air power to prevent it bombing Iran, while announcing that he is sending Rice to Tehran to start negotiating a grand bargain whereby all sanctions would be lifted if Iran forgoes the nuclear weapons option. He could indicate that the negotiations would not continue indefinitely, but they would give his successor, as president, time to consider all the options, military and economic. It would also allow time for Israel either to negotiate a coalition to last until 2010 or to hold elections. It would replace the present multilateral negotiations, which are stalled with Russia and China unwilling to move on strong economic sanctions. Above all, it would be a last act of real statesmanship from Bush who is otherwise destined to end his term a miserable failure.

And that is exactly what he would do if he had an ounce of sanity left, but that is a very big "IF."

David Owen was foreign secretary from 1977 to 1979

(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.

Cheney Scales New Heights of Hypocrisy

UnFreakin'Believable!


Could it be that people, like Cheney, really just do not understand that the war of aggression perpetrated by the BuCheney administration and based on gross exaggeration of the evidence for the prosecution of said war, if not out-right lies and fraud committed, with the help of the ACNM, on the American taxpayer/electorate, is worse than that which was perpetrated on Georgia, who proved itself the aggressor against South Ossetia, a small, breakaway country, with no military targets.


Georgia used extremely destructive missiles to target civilian areas. Much of Georgia's modern-day arsenal is equipped by Israel.




By ROBERT FANTINA


14/09/08 "Counterpunch" -- - While Alaska Governor and Republican vice-presidential nominee Sarah Palin is getting all the attention, the current vice president, Dick Cheney, was able to pontificate about Russia and Georgia with barely any notice from the media. However, while hardly anyone was watching, Mr. Cheney echoed the hypocrisy of his boss, President George Bush. While traveling in Italy, Mr. Cheney decided to become the moral arbiter of Russia’s foreign policies. His incredible remarks are worth studying.


“Recent occurrences in Georgia, beginning with the military invasion by Russia, have been flatly contrary to some of our most deeply held beliefs. Russian forces crossed an internationally recognized border into a sovereign state; fueled and fomented an internal conflict; conducted acts of war without regard for innocent life, killing civilians and causing the displacement of tens of thousands.”


If anyone doubted the vice president’s disdain for those who elected him and kept him in power, this speech should have been an eye-opener. How he could make that statement with a straight face is beyond comprehension. Was he not a major force in the U.S. military invasion of Iraq? Mr. Bush may not have needed much encouragement to embark on this deadly oil grab, but whatever encouragement he may have needed was gladly provided by the vice president.


Did not U.S. forces cross an internationally recognized border into a sovereign state? At least Russia’s incursion was to a country it bordered; the U.S. sent 130,000 soldiers halfway across the world to invade and occupy sovereign Iraq.


Russia, says Mr. Cheney, ‘fueled and fomented an internal conflict.’ It has been some time since people have been talking about civil war in Iraq, possibly because with the increase of 30,000 soldiers, Iraq may have finally, after five bloody, terrifying years, been cowed into submission. The U.S. overthrew the government with nothing to put in its place, disbanded the police, and turned a once peaceful nation into an inferno of deadly, daily violence.


He goes on to decry the idea that Russia ‘conducted acts of war without regard for innocent life, killing civilians.’ When Mr. Bush’s horrific and unspeakable ‘Shock and Awe’ campaign began, residential areas were targeted. The president said he was invading Iraq because it had weapons of mass destruction aimed at the U.S., but since he didn’t know exactly where they were, he would simple practice genocide on the Iraqi people and hope the weapons of mass destruction would turn up eventually (they didn’t). At the time his bombers were dropping death from the air over Baghdad, over half the population of that city was under the age of 15.


As far as conducting acts of war is concerned, could someone point out to Mr. Cheney that the invasion of a sovereign nation is probably the ultimate act of war? Occupying it for years, killing a million of its citizens and terrorizing much of the population for over five years may be business as usual for U.S. foreign policy, but that does not make those actions any less acts of war.


One could also point out that torturing political prisoners, some as young as 15, is an horrific act of war. The torture chamber that the U.S. operates at Guantanamo Bay is only the most famous; the U.S. uses ‘rendition’ sites around the world to torture those it considers dangerous. The supposedly cherished rights, such as due process, that the U.S. is said to stand for are meaningless to those who get in the way of Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney’s imperial designs.


The Russian incursion, said Mr. Cheney, caused ‘the displacement of tens of thousands.’ That number pales in comparison to the millions who have been displaced in Iraq due to the U.S. invasion and occupation. At least a million Iraqis are in crowded refugee camps, forgotten by the media and certainly ignored by that master terrorist, Dick Cheney. Perhaps two million more have had to leave their homes, although they remain in Iraq.


“The United States and many in Europe have made clear that Russia's actions are an affront to civilized standards and are completely unacceptable.” Mr. Cheney did not bother to explain why these behaviors exhibited by Russia are ‘an affront to civilized standards,’ and why they are ‘completely unacceptable,’ but when the exact same acts are perpetrated by the U.S., although on a far larger scale, they are, apparently, just fine.


“For its part, Russia has offered no satisfactory justification for the invasion -- nor could it do so.” In over five years since the U.S. invaded Iraq, it has offered ‘no satisfactory justification’ for doing so. All the original lies, including the falsehoods that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, was close to developing nuclear weapons, etc., have faded into oblivion, like the blood of millions of Iraqis on the desert sands. Mr. Bush also stated the need for ‘regime change;’ why he and his neocon cohorts felt this was their right has also never been explained.


“Differing views on the status of these two areas, within the sovereign borders of the Georgian democracy, cannot justify a sudden and violent incursion by Russia. This much, at a minimum, should be understood by all people of good will in the year 2008.”


Yet apparently the belief that Iraq posed an imminent threat to the U.S., despite the fact that United Nations weapons inspectors were combing Iraq and finding nothing, could justify a sudden and violent incursion by the U.S. People of good will in the year 2008 understand that that is simply wrong, as they did in 2003.


“This chain of aggressive moves and diplomatic reversals has only intensified the concern that many have about Russia's larger objectives.” The U.S. invasion and occupation of Iraq, continued threats against Iran and Cuba, and the fact that the U.S. has enough weapons of mass destruction to destroy the entire planet several times over have certainly intensified concern about the U.S.’s larger objectives.


Eight long years ago, Mr. Bush promised to bring dignity back to the White House. In his war-mongering mind the fact that President Bill Clinton had had an extra-marital affair was so disgraceful that the reputation of the U.S. was in tatters as a result. Today, following the Iraqi invasion and occupation that most of the world, including most of the U.S.’s allies, opposed from the start, the U.S. is the most hated and feared nation on the planet. With Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney now prancing around the world, criticizing Russia for actions that parallel in action but not in scope, the exact behaviors they have practiced and continue to practice, another mark of hypocrisy has been struck against the U.S.


As the U.S. plods towards the conclusion of its every-four-year election farce, the race for president is said to be too close to call. The Republican presidential candidate, the elderly Arizona Senator John McCain, the man who is so wealthy he does not even know how many houses he owns (or perhaps it is simply senility), calls for change by offering more of the same. This is the model his idol, Mr. Bush, used following the 2006 Congressional elections. After the war-mongering Republicans were thrown out of Congress, replaced by the spineless but equally war-mongering Democrats, Mr. Bush led the country on a ‘new way forward,’ by escalating the war. Mr. McCain has consistently supported Mr. Bush’s worst policies.


Mr. McCain’s Democratic challenger, Illinois Senator Barack Obama, has inspired many with his call for ‘change we can believe in.’ Whether or not we can actually believe in his idea of change, at the very least he offers a glimmer of the hope that U.S. citizens and the world have lived without for eight long years. He selected as his running mate Senator Joe Biden, a distinguished senator with a thorough knowledge of foreign policy, having served for many years on the senate Foreign Relations Committee, which he currently chairs. Mr. McCain selected Mrs. Palin, an (almost) one-term governor of a state with a population of less than 1,000,000. Her previous political experience was as mayor of an Alaskan town with a population of less than 7,000. She opposes every progressive movement known to man, encourages the shooting of wolves from airplanes, and believes that global warming is a natural occurrence, and not a man-made threat.


One wonders how more of the same will help to rebuild the reputation of the U.S. throughout the world, especially when it is ushered in by a cowgirl brandishing a gun and a chastity belt. Yet that is what change means to Mr. McCain.


The world is watching to see if the U.S. voters will make the same disastrous mistake in 2008 that they made in 2004. There was no excuse for it then, and there will be even less so if they do it again. The consequences of those mistakes grow with each one. It will not be long before those consequences are irreversible, to the detriment of the entire world population.


Robert Fantina is author of 'Desertion and the American Soldier: 1776--2006.


(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.

Israel's Role In Georgia/Russia Mess

Tel Aviv to Tbilisi: Israel's role in the Russia-Georgia war

August 14, 2008 By Ali Abunimah
Source: The Electronic Intifada

Ali Abunimah's ZSpace Page

Join ZSpace

Israelis wave both Georgian and Israeli flags as they chant anti-Russian slogans during a demonstration outside the Russian embassy in Tel Aviv, 11 August. (Gali Tibbon/AFP/Getty Images)

From the moment Georgia launched a surprise attack on the tiny breakaway region of South Ossetia last week, prompting a fierce Russian counterattack, Israel has been trying to distance itself from the conflict. This is understandable: with Georgian forces on the retreat, large numbers of civilians killed and injured, and Russia's fury unabated, Israel's deep involvement is severely embarrassing.


The collapse of the Georgian offensive represents not only a disaster for that country and its US-backed leaders, but another blow to the myth of Israel's military prestige and prowess. Worse, Israel fears that Russia could retaliate by stepping up its military assistance to

Israel's adversaries including Iran.


"Israel is following with great concern the developments in South Ossetia and Abkhazia and hopes the violence will end," its foreign ministry said, adding with uncharacteristic doveishness, "Israel recognizes the territorial integrity of Georgia and calls for a peaceful solution."


Tbilisi's top diplomat in Tel Aviv complained about the lackluster Israeli response to his country's predicament and perhaps overestimating Israeli influence, called for Israeli "diplomatic pressure on Moscow." Just like Israel, the diplomat said, Georgia is fighting a war on "terrorism." Israeli officials politely told the Georgians that "the address for that type of pressure was Washington" (Herb Keinon, "Tbilisi wants Israel to pressure Russia," The Jerusalem Post, 11 August 2008).


While Israel was keen to downplay its role, Georgia perhaps hoped that flattery might draw Israel further in. Georgian minister Temur Yakobashvili -- whom the Israeli daily Haaretz stressed was Jewish -- told Israeli army radio that "Israel should be proud of its military which trained Georgian soldiers." Yakobashvili claimed rather implausibly, according to Haaretz, that "a small group of Georgian soldiers were able to wipe out an entire Russian military division, thanks to the Israeli training" ("Georgian minister tells Israel Radio: Thanks to Israeli training, we're fending off Russian military," Haaretz, 11 August 2008).


Since 2000, Israel has sold hundreds of millions of dollars in arms and combat training to Georgia. Weapons included guns, ammunition, shells, tactical missile systems, antiaircraft systems, automatic turrets for armored vehicles, electronic equipment and remotely piloted aircraft. These sales were authorized by the Israeli defense ministry (Arie Egozi, "War in Georgia: The Israeli connection," Ynet, 10 August 2008).


Training also involved officers from Israel's Shin Bet secret service -- which has for decades carried out extrajudicial executions and torture of Palestinians in the occupied territories -- the Israeli police, and the country's major arms companies Elbit and Rafael.


The Tel Aviv-Tbilisi military axis appears to have been cemented at the highest levels, and according to YNet, "The fact that Georgia's defense minister, Davit Kezerashvili, is a former Israeli who is fluent in Hebrew contributed to this cooperation." Others involved in the brisk arms trade included former Israeli minister and Tel Aviv mayor Roni Milo as well as several senior Israeli military officers.


The key liaison was Reserve Brigadier General Gal Hirsch who commanded Israeli forces on the border with Lebanon during the July 2006 Second Lebanon War. (Yossi Melman, "Georgia Violence - A frozen alliance," Haaretz, 10 August 2008). He resigned from the army after the Winograd commission severely criticized Israel's conduct of its war against Lebanon and an internal Israeli army investigation blamed Hirsch for the seizure of two soldiers by Hizballah.


According to one of the Israeli combat trainers, an officer in an "elite" Israel army unit, Hirsch and colleagues would sometimes personally supervise the training of Georgian forces which included "house-to-house fighting." The training was carried out through several "private" companies with close links to the Israeli military.


As the violence raged in Georgia, the trainer was desperately trying to contact his former Georgian students on the battlefront via mobile phone: the Israelis wanted to know whether the Georgians had "internalized Israeli military technique and if the special reconnaissance forces have chalked up any successes" (Jonathan Lis and Moti Katz, "IDF vets who trained Georgia troops say war with Russia is no surprise," Haaretz, 11 August 2008).


Yet on the ground, the Israeli-trained Georgian forces, perhaps unsurprisingly overwhelmed by the Russians, have done little to redeem the image of Israel's military following its defeat by Hizballah in July-August 2006.


The question remains as to why Israel was involved in the first place. There are several reasons. The first is simply economic opportunism: for years, especially since the 11 September 2001 attacks, arms exports and "security expertise" have been one of Israel's growth industries. But the close Israeli involvement in a region Russia considers to be of vital interest suggests that Israel might have been acting as part of the broader US scheme to encircle Russia and contain its reemerging power.


Since the end of the Cold War, the US has been steadily encroaching on Russia's borders and expanding NATO in a manner the Kremlin considers highly provocative. Shortly after coming into office, the Bush Administration tore up the Anti-Ballistic Missile treaty and, like the Clinton administration, adopted former Soviet satellite states as its own, using them to base an anti-missile system Russia views as a threat. In addition to their "global war on terror," hawks in Washington have recently been talking up a new Cold War with Russia.


Georgia was an eager volunteer in this effort and has learned quickly the correct rhetoric: one Georgian minister claimed that "every bomb that falls on our heads is an attack on democracy, on the European Union and on America." Georgia has been trying to join NATO, and sent 2,000 soldiers to help the US occupy Iraq. It may have hoped that once war started this loyalty would be rewarded with the kind of round-the-clock airlift of weapons that Israel receives from the US during its wars. Instead so far the US only helped airlift the Georgian troops from Iraq back to the beleaguered home front.


By helping Georgia, Israel may have been doing its part to duplicate its own experience in assisting the eastward expansion of the "Euro-Atlantic" empire. While supporting Georgia was certainly risky for Israel, given the possible Russian reaction, it has a compelling reason to intervene in a region that is heavily contested by global powers. Israel must constantly reinvent itself as an "asset" to American power if it is to maintain the US support that ensures its survival as a settler-colonial enclave in the Middle East. It is a familiar role; in the 1970s and 1980s, at the behest of Washington, Israel helped South Africa's apartheid regime fight Soviet-supported insurgencies in South African-occupied Namibia and Angola, and it trained right-wing US-allied death squads fighting left-wing governments and movements in Central America. After 2001, Israel marketed itself as an expert on combating "Islamic terrorism."


Venezuelan president Hugo Chavez recently denounced Colombia - long one of the largest recipients of US military aid after Israel -- as the "Israel of Latin America." Georgia's government, to the detriment of its people, may have tried to play the role of the "Israel of the Caucasus" -- a loyal servant of US ambitions in that region -- and lost the gamble. Playing with empires is dangerous for a small country.


As for Israel itself, with the Bush Doctrine having failed to give birth to the "new Middle East" that the US needs to maintain its power in the region against growing resistance, an ever more desperate and rogue Israel must look for opportunities to prove its worth elsewhere. That is a dangerous and scary thing.


Co-founder of The Electronic Intifada, Ali Abunimah is author of One Country: A Bold Proposal to End the Israeli- Palestinian Impasse (Metropolitan Books, 2006).

(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.

Obama: Israel To Strike Iran If Sanctions Don't Work!

Ah Crap!

Obama: If sanctions fail, ‘Israel is going to strike Iran.’

During a meeting with House Democrats yesterday, Sen. Barack Obama reportedly told the caucus: “Nobody said this to me directly but I get the feeling from my talks that if the sanctions don’t work Israel is going to strike Iran.” Rep. Howard Berman (D-CA) asked Obama how he would deal with Iran. “If the Iranians don’t accept a deal now because they think they’re going to get a better deal from the next president, they’re mistaken,” Obama responded. Israel’s defense minister Ehud Barak “has told top U.S. officials that Israel won’t rule out a military strike against Iran.”

(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 Is An Idiot, Chapter 2, 467 and the World Waits

Any Change From Bush’s Fundamentalism Will Do

By Adrian Hamilton

22/05/08 "The Independent" - -- There is an insidious view going the rounds in Washington that says it won’t make much difference to US foreign policy what new president takes office next year, the basic building blocks of security interests, commitment of troops in Iraq, pro-Israeli policies in the Middle East and the projection of American military power around the globe will all remain.

In fact, according to one highly-spun version being pushed by the State Department at the moment, the present incumbent of the White House, George W Bush, is already preparing the way by adopting a more emollient foreign policy, mending bridges with allies, softening the rhetoric of confrontation and seeking a peace settlement between Israel and Palestine

Utter hogwash. Anybody taken in by this nonsense should read the two major speeches by President Bush on his Middle East “peace tour” over the past week. The first was his address to the Israeli Knesset on the occasion of the state’s 60th anniversary last Thursday. The second was to the World Economic Forum meeting in Sharm el Sheikh in Egypt last Sunday.

The two were clearly intended as bookmarks for a visit planned to establish Bush’s legacy as a would-be peacemaker. Indeed, the US President even used the same terms in each of the two speeches, that the democratic system is the “only fair and just ordering of society and the only way to guarantee the God-given rights of all people”, that the US is the progenitor and guarantor of freedom around the world and that freedom means free markets and open competition.

So far so pretty much expected from an American president given to hyperbole in his last year of office. But there the similarity between the two Bush speeches in the Middle East ends. The address to the Knesset attracted attention because it appeared to contain an implicit criticism of Barack Obama back home for wanting to talk with Iran and Hamas, thus breaching the normal niceties under which a president does not use speeches abroad to pursue domestic politics.

But the real importance of the speech is in what it did not say rather than what it did. An American president, with probably more influence than any American leader since Israel’s inception because of his total commitment to their cause, arrives in the country supposedly to pursue a peace plan and, in his most important public address, does not mention the peace and does not ask the Israeli government to make a single concession to further it. Not a reference or request or hint in the entire address, just a paean of praise for a country which has “forged a free and modern society based on the love of liberty, a passion for justice, and a respect for human dignity”.

The extreme right and orthodox religious parties were delighted. Liberal members of the Knesset, who had hoped for some gesture of pressure by the US president on their Prime Minister to offer concessions to the Palestinian, if only to stop the expansion of settlements, were aghast. It was, said a seasoned, and normally balanced observer, “the most shameful speech I have ever heard since I started reporting”.

Compare that to to Bush’s speech to the Arabs in Egypt three days later. It is a long list of demands on them. They must, he lectured, institute “economic reform” if they are to take their “place in the centre of progress”. “Economic reform must be accompanied by political reform”. “Property rights” must be “protected and risk-taking encouraged”. Primary schools must teach “basic skills, such as reading and math, rather than indoctrinating children with ideologies of hatred”.

And so the liturgy of requirements on these backward people goes on. Arabs must stand “shoulder to shoulder” with the US in the “great ideological struggle” against “terrorist organisations and their state sponsors”. They must oppose “Hezbollah terrorists, funded by Iran”, while “all nations in the region must stand together in confronting Hamas, which is attempting to undermine efforts at peace with acts of terror and violence”.

(These people are not backward and those who think so don't know them very well, or are almost as ignorant as Bush)

The style is the very man, as the French naturalist the Comte de Buffon said. Bush does genuinely believe that democracy is a blessing given by Almighty God to mankind and that the US is its agent and Israel its exemplar. But, as far as the rest of the world is concerned, he has made America appear quite blatantly one-sided, an ignorant and incompetent military mammoth wrecking everything in its ill-considered path.

Back in Washington, John McCain was quick to follow up Bush’s speech by demanding that Obama declare his intentions on talking to Iran and Hamas. And that may prove the tenor of the Republican attacks on the Democrat in the coming months. But outside the narrow confines of Washington, no American should be in any doubt. The world is desperate for a change of tone and course from the US of George Bush. Nothing short of a revolution will do.

a.hamilton@independent.co.uk

(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.

Israel, Religious Insanity and Our Current Self-made Nightmare

By Mike Biseborn
read more Mark Biskeborn

The Bush Administration celebrated the 60th anniversary of the Israeli nation this week.

W visited the one or two places in the Middle East where the entire population would not massively attempt to undo him. Israelis are the only people to give W a standing ovation, moving our grossly failed president to tears. It’s the only country where he feels welcome.

Which should tell us much about our policy of continuing knee-jerk defense of Israel, no matter what crimes their government commits. As we wait for a new administration, and struggle toward survival in the dawning of a new age, we must re-think our relationship with Israel and it's neighbors.

As a nation founded on, among other things, the separation of church and state, we should not support, to the death, any religious state and yet, under this administration, that is exactly what we have done.

There can be no real Democracy in a religious state because, by its very definition, one group will have privileges and rights that another group does not. It never fails. Religion becomes just another excuse to beat up on someone else, as it has many, many times in the history of this world.

Our policy should be the same, no matter the religion and that would include the "worship of the state," as in Communism.

In 1947, the United Nations approved the partition of the Mandate of Palestine into two states, one Jewish and one Arab. The Arab League rejected the plan, but on May 14, 1948, the Jewish provisional government declared Israel's independence. Israel thus became the first Jewish state in the world, now with a population of just under 8 million. It’s about the size of greater Los Angeles and 85% Jewish.

Which was one of the greatest mistakes in human history. When will we admit that and do something about it?

Since the UN recognized this new nation, especially after the 1948 Israeli-Arab War, Israelis have pushed their borders east into Muslim territories. Israeli expansion has enflamed decades long fighting between Jews and Muslims with no resolution in sight. Emphasis on the differences in their religions has continually ignited hate on both sides of the battles.

Oh joy. Lets commit more murders for God. Is this really any more civilized than sacrificing people to volcanoes for various gods and goddesses?

Neither side is innocent in this ongoing war between Jews and Muslims. Despite the holy image of Israel that once warmed the hearts of many Americans, war has stained the saintly Israeli aura.

Israel remains the preeminent military power in the Middle East. It has nuclear weapons, strong conventional forces and the capability to strike at will, as it did in September when it destroyed what it believed to be a Syrian nuclear facility.

(Oh poppy cock!)

Last year, Israel signed a 10-year, $30 billion arms deal with Washington aimed at keeping that edge for years to come.

That's pocket change compared to what we have spent on the Iraq quagmire.

Given Israel’s massive military capabilities, is it any surprise that Iran does everything it can to protect itself? Once a close ally with the US, Iran is now forming alliances with China and Russia for its oil and weapons exchanges.

Given Israel’s US support and military might, is it really any surprise that Palestinians resort to terrorist reprisals and other such guerrilla war tactics? Of course, terrorism and guerrilla warfare is unacceptable, as should be all types of war. Yet, let’s also keep in mind that Israelis have not been innocent of their share of terrorist reprisals either.

For the US to grant Israel complete unconditional love is to take sides with one party in a war that has no innocent perpetrators.

Israelis roll out the red carpet for Bush mainly because W and his old neocon war mongers have loved Israel unconditionally...and waged war for them. Israel enjoys all the benefits as if the 51st US State and without the tax bill for the invasion and occupation of Iraq.

Funny, I said the same thing just the other day. Maybe more and more minds are changing. Let's hope so. But, in all seriousness, how long would Washington put up with California arming itself to the teeth, with it's own nuclear arsenal?

Many experts on Middle Eastern affairs have shown convincing evidence that W pushed the invasion and occupation of Iraq solely to serve Israeli interests to fortify its power in the region. As a fundamentalist Christian, Bush believes in the second coming of Jesus and, so prepares for Armageddon.

W, like his buddies Hagee, Falwell, Robertson and the rest, believes in an impotent God, one whom he must assist? Glad my God isn't all that weak.

This means that neither oil or freedom or anything else motivated W more in his personal war against Iraq than religious ideology.

It was about the religious fervor that stirs the hearts of neocons like Bush, and now McCain who has gained endorsements and support from Israeli enthusiasts like Pastor Hagee and Preacher Pat Robertson. Those religious fanatics beguile the blind following of large swaths of gullible, uneducated American voters.

It stands to reason that without the interest in oil wealth of the region, the US would not support a war in those deserts for the sole sake of ousting a dictator. If this were the case, the US could easily invade North Korea, or China, or Zimbabwe…ruthless dictators run all of these and other countries.

When W first came to power, Israeli leaders like Sharon and now Olmert had long since urged the neocon fundamentalists in the US to invade and occupy Iraq and Iran. This fact is so publicly documented no references are needed, except for those in denial.

The bitter pill of Bush’s complete failure as a President, though, comes from how these Israeli leaders now voice disappointment in the US invasion of Iraq. Did I say “bitter?” Bush served the Israeli leaders faithfully like a choirboy serves the Catholic priest, in orthodox and unorthodox manners, bending over, assuming the position, and taking it all in deeply.

During the Bush admin, the US has granted Israel complete and utter unconditional love, sacrificing thousands of young American patriots and trillions of tax dollars.

"The sum total is that if you measure Israeli security at the beginning of this administration and at the end of the administration, based on things the president either could have done, should have done or failed to do, the report card is pretty negative," said Daniel C. Kurtzer, who served as Bush's first-term ambassador to Israel. (Washington Post, 14 May 2008)

Kurtzer has since switched political parties. He saw the light. He now advises Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama. Kurtzer sees Bush's neglect of the peace process for most of his seven years in office. Despite the president's optimism that he can achieve a Palestinian-Israeli deal in his final year, Kurtzer and many other analysts believe that Israel remains unwilling to negotiate peace with its neighbors. As is typical of Bush, he ignores the advise of non-religious, non-neocons. In his recent speech in Jerusalem, Bush claims that “Israel stands for peace.”

Oh, My God! What total BS! If Israel stands for peace, it's for damn sure peace doesn't stand a chance. No nation has ever, in my lifetime, stood for peace, with the possible exception of Switzerland. Since before the recognition of Israel by the U.N, while the Zionists fought to build a religious state, there has been nothing but bloodshed there. We have only ourselves and Britain to blame for supporting such a state and, of course, the people in the area who believe that Religion is worth killing over or is meant to be killed for. I, for one, have just about had it with the Abrahamic religions. Now that Greenland is melting, why not put them all up there and let them fight it out and, preferably, to the death, or how about Anartica.

As a kick to the dead horse (Bush), the Israeli defense establishment voices second thoughts about Bush's decision to remove Saddam Hussein and the botched occupation of Iraq. Despite Israel’s urging the early Bush administration to invade Iraq, those policies, they now argue, have helped fuel the rise of Israel's nemesis, Iran, whose president has spoken openly of trying to wipe Israel off the map. The war has also threatened to destabilize neighboring Jordan with a flood of refugees.

Early on, the Iraq invasion "looked as if it would serve Israel's interest," said Shlomo Brom, a former director of strategic planning for the Israel Defense Forces. But "the way that it was implemented by this administration is eventually causing damage to Israel. It is strengthening the radical elements in the Middle East."

When will you people realize that war is not the answer?

"People are mistaken,” says Brom, “to think that the most friendly president [to Israel] is also the best president that Israel has ever had."

Interesting phraesology, don't you think?

And now to stave off further criticism from his Israeli masters, Bush pursues serious talks of invading Iran, and this even after various intelligence has proven that Iran has no nuclear capabilities. W and his neocons, like McCain, have not yet learned an obvious and simple lesson in leadership, namely, that to twist up CIA intelligence and to ignore common sense advise, can lead the US into military and financial catastrophe.

Like his neocon advisors, Bush wages his wars mainly motivated by religious ideology, ‘crusades’ as he calls them in speeches. We see the results.

I have a hard time believing that the Iraq war was completely motivated by religious insanity, although that was part of it. The Bushies (the neocon branch) never do anything for only one reason. If one carefully studies their actions over the past almost eight years, one will find that any action, especially a big action, on their part usually serves at least three purposes. At the top of those purposes, is the imperial presidency and one party rule for generations to come. They blew it, big time, which renders most of the rest of their goals null and void and leaves the nation in great peril. (I think that if I were a Republican, I would be packing heat and tracking them all down, just as soon as the next president takes office. Dick Cheney and Karl Rove would be at the top of my list.)


(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.