From Bush's speech, via Arthur Silber:

>>>"In our discussions, we all agreed that there is no magic formula for success in Iraq. And one message came through loud and clear: Failure in Iraq would be a disaster for the United States.

The consequences of failure are clear: Radical Islamic extremists would grow in strength and gain new recruits. They would be in a better position to topple moderate governments, create chaos in the region, AND USE OIL REVENUES TO FUND THEIR AMBITIONS."<<<

Who said it wasn't about oil? OR, for the hair-splitters, control of oil?

The NYTs just reported a new "Iraqi" law, written by BearingPoint consultants, that gives Exxon and other oil giants 75% if all oil revenues (until drilling costs are paid for). Then--20%--twice the industry average, after THAT. Of course, with ZERO auditing and ZERO accountability possible in Iraq since 2003, who's to say it isn't more?

Our govt can't effectively audit the TREASURY Dept. when it comes to oil revenues--why isnt' there any outrage our punditry expended on THIS??

We were "assured"--read: lied to--that it wasn't about oil over and over and over again by neocon ideologues in the run-up to the invasion and occupation. Will any editor, reporter, news-reader, or pundity call them on it?

As Ray McGovern so inelegantly said, the war in Iraq is about O.I.L. O is for oil, I is for Israel, L is for Logistics aka geo-political strategery. Then again, Ray McGovern might just be a dirty hippy anti-semite.

Lost in all the recent accusations (not just around here) is the fact that Arab peoples are also Semitic.

Sooo... aren't anti-Muslim bigots also anti-Semitic?

Can I get a MEME???

It's a strong statement, but I wonder why don't I ever hear Democrats mention the Iraq Study Group in their critique of the escalation? A bi-partisan commission looked at the issue and recommended diplomacy and troop reductions. The President is completely ignoring their advice.

Democrats should be bashing Bush over the head with the ISG report, but instead they're making it appear as if this is a purely partisan issue. Or maybe that's the goal?

"The Iraq "oil trusts". Yeah, those Producion Sharing Agreements (PSAs) are written to favor big oil, not the Iraqi people and will last from twenty-five to thirty years. And once they are signed, Iraq will have little or no control of its oil and no recourse even in international courts, for grievences thereof.

And the terrorism machine created because of the policies of the Bush administration will simply go on, and on, and on.

And the profits from the oil, and the profits from the American blood shed for that oil, will go to those who never risked anything.

You don't have to be a blind conservative not to see it, just an ignorant one to deny it.

That is a clear statement from Hillary but I am waiting for the BUT..becuase there is always a "but" with Hillary.

And in talking about the oil and/or Israel factor in the Iraq invasion, they are intertwined, not necessarily seperate or two different things. The people who claim it was for Israel's "protection' do so because that is how Israel and politicans 'frame" it. In reality it is all oil economics, not security or WMDs for either the US or Israel.

To my mind the 1975 Memorandum of Understanding between the US and Israel has been one of the rarely if ever, mentioned factors or "pipe dreams" as Janes Intelligence puts it, in the Iraq deal. For obvious reasons neither the Israelis or the politicans in DC want the public discussing the "Memo". It would raise even more question about the US support of Israel in the public to see the extent of and true cost of Israel to the US taxpayers and consumers...and further take away from the war for democracy excuse.

http://www.janes.com/regional_news/africa_middle_east/news/fr/fr030416_1_n.shtml

Oil from Iraq : An Israeli pipedream?

Israel stands to benefit greatly from the US led war on Iraq, primarily by getting rid of an implacable foe in President Saddam Hussein and the threat from the weapons of mass destruction he was alleged to possess. But it seems the Israelis have other things in mind.

An intriguing pointer to one potentially significant benefit was a report by Haaretz on 31 March that minister for national infrastructures Joseph Paritzky was considering the possibility of reopening the long-defunct oil pipeline from Mosul to the Mediterranean port of Haifa. With Israel lacking energy resources of its own and depending on highly expensive oil from Russia, reopening the pipeline would transform its economy.

To resume supplies from Mosul to Haifa would require the approval of whatever Iraqi government emerges and presumably the Jordanian government, through whose territory it would be likely to run. Paritzky's ministry was reported to have said on 9 April that it would hold discussions with Jordanian authorities on resuming oil supplies from Mosul, with one source saying the Jordanians were "optimistic". Jordan, aware of the deep political sensitivities involved, immediately denied there were any such talks.

Paritzky said he was certain the USA would respond favourably to the idea of resurrecting the pipeline. Indeed, according to Western diplomatic sources in the region, the USA has discussed this with Iraqi opposition groups.

It is understood from diplomatic sources that the Bush administration has said it will not support lifting UN sanctions on Iraq unless Saddam's successors agree to supply Israel with oil.

All of this lends weight to the theory that Bush's war is part of a masterplan to reshape the Middle East to serve Israel's interests. Haaretz quoted Paritzky as saying that the pipeline project is economically justifiable because it would dramatically reduce Israel's energy bill.

US efforts to get Iraqi oil to Israel are not surprising. Under a 1975 Memorandum of Understanding (MoU), the US guaranteed all Israel's oil needs in the event of a crisis. The MoU, which has been quietly renewed every five years, also committed the USA to construct and stock a supplementary strategic reserve for Israel, equivalent to some US$3bn in 2002. Special legislation was enacted to exempt Israel from restrictions on oil exports from the USA.

Moreover, the USA agreed to divert oil from its home market, even if that entailed domestic shortages, and guaranteed delivery of the promised oil in its own tankers if commercial shippers were unwilling or not available to carry the crude to Israel. All of this adds up to a potentially massive financial commitment.

The USA has another reason for supporting Paritzky's project: a land route for Iraqi oil direct to the Mediterranean would lessen US dependence on Gulf oil supplies. Direct access to the world's second-largest oil reserves (with the possibility of expansion through so-far untapped deposits) is an important strategic objective.

Visser's analysis, appearing in excerpted part in the comments for the preceding post, are more relevant to this discussion of the (increasingly bipartisan) political opposition's response to the ripple.

* * *

Reidar Visser's analysis of the ripple...

What Exactly is Washington Surging for in Iraq?
By Reidar Visser (http://historiae.org) - research fellow at the Norwegian Institute of International Affairs with a background in history and comparative politics (University of Bergen) and a doctorate in Middle Eastern studies (University of Oxford).

11 January 2007

"Hillary Clinton Says No To Escalation"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
BUT, SHE WILL SAY ***YES*** TO IRAN.

Entrenched Hypocrisy: Hillary Clinton, AIPAC and Iran

By Joshua Frank

President Bush's position on Iran is "disturbing" and "dangerous", reads a recent screed written by AIPAC (American Israel Public Affairs Committee). Recently the Bush administration accepted a Russian proposal to allow Iran to continue to develop nuclear energy under Russian supervision and AIPAC is downright pissed.

In a letter to congressional allies, mostly Democrats, the pro-Israel organization admitted is was "concerned that the decision not to go to the Security Council, combined with the U.S. decision to support the 'Russian proposal,' indicates a disturbing shift in the Administration's policy on Iran and poses a danger to the U.S. and our allies."

Israel, however, continues to develop a substantial nuclear arsenal, and in 2000 the BBC (British Broadcasting Corporation) reported that Israel has most likely produced enough plutonium to make up to 200 nuclear weapons. So, it is safe to say that Israel's bomb building techniques are light years ahead of Iran's dismal nuclear program. Yet the major U.S. ally in the Middle East still won't admit they have capacity to produce such deadly weapons.

And while AIPAC and Israel pressure the U.S. government to force the Iran issue to the U.N. Security Council, Israel itself stands in violation of numerous U.N. Resolutions dealing with the occupied territories of Palestine, including U.N. Resolution 1402, which demands that Israel withdraw its military from all Palestinian cities at once.

AIPAC's hypocrisy is stomach-turning, to say the least. The goliath lobbying organization wants Iran to be slapped across the knuckles while the crimes of Israel continue to be ignored. And who is propping up AIPAC's hypocritical position? Senator Hillary Clinton of New York.

As the top Democratic recipient of pro-Israel funds for the 2006 election cycle thus far, pocketing over $58,000 as of October 31 last year, Senator Clinton now has Iran in her cross-hairs.

During a Hanukkah dinner speech delivered on December 11, hosted by Yeshiva University, Clinton prattled, "I held a series of meetings with Israeli officials [last summer], including the prime minister and the foreign minister and the head of the [Israeli Defense Force] to discuss such challenges we confront. In each of these meetings, we talked at length about the dire threat posed by the potential of a nuclear-armed Iran, not only to Israel, but also to Europe and Russia. Just this week, the new president of Iran made further outrageous comments that attacked Israel's right to exist that are simply beyond the pale of international discourse and acceptability. During my meeting with Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, I was reminded vividly of the threats that Israel faces every hour of every day ... It became even more clear how important it is for the United States to stand with Israel ..."

As Sen. Clinton embraces Israel's violence, as well as AIPAC's duplicitous Iran position, she simultaneously ignores the hostilities inflicted upon Palestine, as numerous Palestinians have been killed during the recent shelling of the Gaza Strip. Over the past weeks Israel continues to mark the occupied territories (they call 'buffer zones') like a frothing-mouth K9 on the loose.

Hillary Clinton's silence toward Israel's brutality implies the senator will continue to support AIPAC's mission to occupy the whole of the occupied territories, as well as a war on Iran in the future. AIPAC's right -- even President Bush appears to be a little sheepish when up against Hillary "warmonger" Clinton.
http://www.onlinejournal.com/artman/publish/article_383.shtml

WAKE UP FOLKS! The PNAC folks are in control. This is now about IRAN. And Hillary is controlled by the crowd that wants to take Iran out.
http://www.stopwaroniran.org/

Was it coincidence the Iranian consul in Irbil was attacked, and its members taken into custody just hours after the call for escalation? Have not found much being said about this today. That bit of news was more startling to me than the long awaited word from our feckless leader.

Bravo to Hillary for alluding to oil. She is a lot braver than most of the foreign policy/national security mafia who want to hide that dirty little secret from the American people.

Carroll--If I have my history correct, the start of Iraq's deterioring relations with the US can be traced to Rumsfeld's visit to Baghdad in the mid 1980s. Saddam had just gassed the Kurds, but Rumsfeld paid the war crime no heed. Instead he was there to talk about the pipeline to Israel. Saddam flatly rejected the idea and immediately lost favor.

Israel's designs on oil go well beyond its own needs. During its attack on Lebanon, stories surfaced about Isreal's dream of plugging into Caspian oil at Ceyhan; "According to Israeli Knesset member Joseph Shagal, the Baku-Ceyhan pipeline would eventually link up with Israeli ports and pipeline routes. In May 2006, Joseph Shagal confirmed that Israel was envisaging a new 400 km under water pipeline, which would join up with the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan (BTC) main pipeline, “Baku oil can be transported to Ashkelon via this new pipeline and to India and the Far East.[via the Red sea]."
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=20060523&articleId=2508

More direct routes would be through Iran or Afghanistan, or directly to China. But that would cut out the Israeli middlemen...

I don't think this is a solid statement at all. It is vapid.
Not one mention of the Iraqi people who are in the middle of this hell the US has caused.
The last paragraph says nothing. What oil trust? The Hydrocarbon law that robs Iraq of oil money?
Pressure on the Iraq government?
That government is less than a year old. It can't perform miracles. Any kind of reconcilliation would take around ten years, if at all.
The US polticos have got themselves in a real bind this time. They want Iraq to do what they can't do here with a stable country.
This is hogwash.
Also, a phased redeployment is too vague to even comprehend.
Where was she for 3 and one half years?
I didn't hear her yelling about the terrible suffering, deaths and fleeing of Iraqi people.
This statement is about her, not reality.

Hillary says no to escalation because she sniffs at the winds and realizes that the stench of war has reached our shores and turned everybody off to war and to her "triangulation" and rubber-stamping of Republicans.

I'm not waiting, with baited breath to hear what she has to say. It's too late.

If you'd like to talk about escalation, I surprised that few people have noted the two paragraphs in Bush's speech about Iran.

Moreover, there was a report today on the BBC that the U.S. had raided an Iranian "consulate" while Condi Rice was telling the Senate that Iran and Syria need to, "end their destabilising behavior"

This is a very dangerous state of affairs indeed.

Rich wrote: "Lost in all the recent accusations (not just around here) is the fact that Arab peoples are also Semitic. Sooo... aren't anti-Muslim bigots also anti-Semitic? Can I get a MEME???
Posted by rich at January 11, 2007 01:04 PM

Could be Rich...but that's not the meaning of the word. Here's an entry from that Zionist rag, Wikipedia: "Antisemitism (alternatively spelled anti-semitism or anti-Semitism) is hostility toward or prejudice against Jews as a religious, racial, or ethnic group, which can range in expression from individual hatred to institutionalized, violent persecution. While the term's etymology may imply that antisemitism is directed against all Semitic peoples, it is in practice used exclusively to refer to hostility towards Jews. The highly explicit ideology of Adolf Hitler's Nazism was the most extreme example of this phenomenon, leading to the Holocaust."

...but then again, you knew that, didn't you? Someone as interested in the truth as you would.

Hicks's dad fears son may die at Guantanamo
David Hicks's father says he is worried his son will commit suicide if he is not released from Guantanamo Bay soon.

Today marks the fifth anniversary of Mr Hicks's detention in the United States military camp on suspicion of being a terrorist.

He still has not been charged.

His father, Terry Hicks, says the confinement is taking its toll.

He is afraid his son could die at Guantanamo.

"It's a problem that's always in the back of your mind," he said.

"They've had suicides in the Guantanamo Bay.

"Over the last 12 months his reactions as far as the mental side aren't very good, so we've just got to hope that he's strong enough."

'Sick of appeals'

Terry Hicks says he hopes his son's case will help unseat the Liberal Party at the next federal election.

However he says he does not believe an appeal to the Prime Minister today will do any good.

"I'm sick of making appeals to John Howard ... he doesn't do anything about it," he said.

"All I can say at this point in time with John Howard is I think David's been there long enough for whatever reason.

"He's done his time.

"I think it's time he came back here.

"If they want to put him through a court system so be it, but I think five years is long enough for anyone."

In other developments:
The military lawyer for Guantanamo Bay detainee

Steve Clemons wrote of Hillary:
"This is a solid statement that hits the right notes."

With pols, spoken or written words are only the symbolic pawns they use to play their power/control/money games. With Hillary she is, in part, way too influenced by AIPAC and Israel to actually live up to her written words about the ME and war. The words may hit the right notes, but the player is an actor, and not a true believer of those words written for her.

If there is any cunning little thing she can do to bolster her (not great) presidential numbers, she'll even out lie her liar hubby to get her poll numbers a'goin'. And that, we know, takes some doing!

Hillary and her camp are pro poll watchers and she doesn't say or write anything that won't up her numbers. The Clintons have both been masters at knowing exactly what to say before people even start to ask the questions.

Steve, if you wait a while, what Hillary ends up doing (not saying or writing) may have you unfortunatley eating crow about her "right notes".

MP wrote:
>>>"Could be Rich...but that's not the meaning of the word.
...but then again, you knew that, didn't you? Someone as interested in the truth as you would.

Posted by MP at January 11, 2007 04:06 PM "<<<

Please. Laboring to evade the point, aren'tcha?

It's obvious to everyone that's what the word means. And that doesn't negate my point. This is just how the English language works.

If "anti-Scandinavian" denoted in common usage prejudice against Swedes, and Norwegians are also Scandihoovians, it's also true that anti-Scandinavian could, would, and does denote hatred of Norwegians equally valid. Not possible to deny the point.

I'm not playing cute. Anti-semitism is used to denotes hatred of Jewish people (and is a horrific and abominable phenomenon) and is defined as such; Arabs are also Semites; by any honest mechanism of the English language, anti-Semitism could be, would be equally valid usage denoting hatred of other Semitic peoples, i.e., Arabs.

I don't see how you have any reasonable quibble with this. The broad definition of Semites is ALSO denotatively defined in dictionaries, etc. I don't know where your criticism arises from here. It's a pretty neutral/objective definition. Or is ownership of the word and English itself so Almighty that even the rules of language change to suit some--but not others?

The following is offered for informational purposes only --

What Is Anti-Semitism?

By Rev. Ted Pike

The arrest of eleven Christians in Philadelphia in October, 2004, for "hate crimes" brought with it an uncomfortable new obligation for Christians. In order for Christians to avoid similar persecution under ADL inspired "hate laws," they must do what has to this point seemed unimaginable: they must criticize the evil Jewish leadership that has created such Orwellian legislation.

"Criticize a Jew? Unthinkable," most evangelicals would reply. "That is anti-semitic!"

Well, if criticizing evil Jewish leadership is "anti-semitic," then Christ, the apostles, and the prophets were all raving anti-semites, for they filled the Bible with criticism of such leadership.

Let me tell you what real anti-semitism is. It is the belief that Jews are racially, morally, intellectually degenerate; that they are, from their mothers' wombs, evil, corruptive, conspiratorial. Today, some branches of the "Christian Identity" theology believe Jews, as the "seed of Satan," fulfill these criteria. Some KKK and white supremacist groups regard Jews in the same light.

But it is not "anti-semitic" to expose and reprove evil wherever it is found, even if it happens to be found among the Jews. Scripture exhorts us to "reprove, rebuke, exhort, with all long-suffering and doctrine." (II Tim. 4:2) The Bible never grants Jews exemption from Christian reproof.

Of course, the Anti-Defamation League of B'Nai B'Rith does not see it that way. For nearly a century, the ADL has drilled society to believe that any criticism of "God's chosen people," or its venerable institutions, such as B'Nai B'Rith, borders on anti-semitism.

Actually, the opposite is true. It is an act of kindness for friends of the Jewish people to warn them against the false leadership provided by ADL/B'Nai B'rith. Such leadership, by its hate laws and militant anti-Christianity, can only create anti-semitism, victimizing innocent Jews under a future backlash of hatred and persecution.

2600 years ago, Jeremiah, out of love, warned the people of Judah not to follow their wicked priests and kings. The people scorned Jeremiah, claiming he was "against" the Jewish people (anti-semitic). Result: they were led, with hooks in their jaws across the burning sands into captivity in Babylon.

Scripture tells us that "faithful are the wounds of a friend." (Prov. 27:6) It is time that, as an act of love toward the Jewish people, Christians show their faithfulness, not by misguidedly "blessing" Jews by speaking more smooth words of flattery toward them (an approach characteristic of false prophets of old), but by speaking the whole truth. Such should be spoken without fear of the accusations of "anti-semitism" that will surely come from the ADL.

What a blessing it would have been to the Jews of Jeremiah's time if they had heeded his criticisms of those false leaders -- and been spared exile and the destruction of their city!

So it is today. If Christian leaders with foresight and courage could suggest the dissolution of B'Nai B'Rith/ADL, with all of their anti-Christian mischief, then what a "blessing" for Israel that would be -- especially if such advice were heeded. In fact, someday the Jews, realizing how such enlightened criticism may have spared them another "holocaust," might be profoundly grateful to their Christian critics.

They might realize, at last, that there is more than one way to "bless" the Jews.

Carroll--If I have my history correct, the start of Iraq's deterioring relations with the US can be traced to Rumsfeld's visit to Baghdad in the mid 1980s. Saddam had just gassed the Kurds, but Rumsfeld paid the war crime no heed. Instead he was there to talk about the pipeline to Israel. Saddam flatly rejected the idea and immediately lost favor.
Posted by John at January 11, 2007 03:19 PM
>>>>>>>>>>>

That's interesting..I wasn't aware of the purpose of Rumfeld's visit back then.
But it is clear that Israel and oil for Israel as well as oil for the US has been the guiding light in the ME for the US.

But I agree Israel (and their minions here) do have delusions of being THE ME power, military and economic. It won't happen of course, but they will destroy themselves and the US trying.

Umm... Has Hagel definitely said he would not be running for President? Also I've heard Hillary talk the talk many times, but now we are in the majority will she walk the walk i.e. vote for Kennedy's idea, or align herself with Feingold! I don't want to wait to make sure Bush and Blair gets the oil deals, does she?

ted pike?! oy vey. thanks again, pauline.

can someone tell me why *every* thread on this blog devolves into a criticism of AIPAC, b'nai brith, ADL israel and/or the jews?!

i don't think steve's post or hillary's statement even mentioned israel.

As the subject of a lengthy criminal investigation by the Department of Justice, Hillary Clinton’s extensive record of unlawful conduct is available in the public record.

She repeatedly provided perjured testimony during the Ken Starr investigation. And she was the driving force behind the Clinton pardons.

She was not prosecuted because it was not politically expedient to prosecute her for perjury. Therefore, she skated. It's as simple as that.

A reading of her history offers insight into several aspects of her character. Specifically she is cold, calculating, and manipulating. She lets no one stand in the way of her ambition and her greed.

She has parlayed the multitudinous Clinton crimes into personal wealth and political influence and it is all predicated upon giving the Clinton supporters what they want - good or bad, lawful or unlawful.

She is completely absent of any morals or scruples. She will do and say whatever is politically expedient. She is completely absent of any conscious.

I can’t imagine a worse person to be in the White House. She is a law unto herself. And that is not what we need in a President.

I hope that Americans will not forget the horror of the Clinton years.

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/RANCHO/POLITICS/WW/white20.html

Rich wrote: "It's obvious to everyone that's what the word means. And that doesn't negate my point. This is just how the English language works.

If "anti-Scandinavian" denoted in common usage prejudice against Swedes, and Norwegians are also Scandihoovians, it's also true that anti-Scandinavian could, would, and does denote hatred of Norwegians equally valid. Not possible to deny the point."

Well, language does change over time and so does the meaning of words. So, over time, if people started using it that way, and people began to mean "hatred of Arabs" as well as "hatred of Jews," the word's meaning could change.

Equally, there are plenty of words which, when you look at their history, could refer to things that they no longer refer to. The words simply no longer mean what they appear to mean, or "could" mean any more.

So your point that "...could, would, and does denote hatred of Norwegians equally valid..." is not true. If the word meant "anti-Swedish," and when people used it, they conjured Swedes and Swedish history and Swedish physiogonomy and Swedish culture and Swedish mores, then NO, the word would not equally apply to Nowegians even though they were (and are) also Scandinavians.

In fact, anti-Semites don't hate Jews because, ethnically, they are semitic. They hate them for killing Christ, etc., etc., etc. Moreover, anti-Semites DON'T hate other semites (if they hate them at all) in the same way and for the same reasons they hate Jews. So a shared semite heritage has little, if anything, to do with anti-Semitism as a phenomenon. For example, certain Christian anti-Semites don't believe that Arabs killed Christ nor do they hate them for it.

As you say, "anti-Semitic" doesn't mean "hatred of Arabs." So yes, it "could," if the word's meaning changed. And, if the word's meaning changed, it "would." But, in fact, it does NOT denote hatred of Arabs. And if you use it that way without a preface, you will have to explain what you mean, because no one will understand you.

(And every time you used it, you'd have to explain whether you meant the millenia-old hatred of Jews and all of its associated imagery...or you meant hatred of Arabs and all of its associated imagery. So you'd still, in effect, have two words that meant different things.)

So, in fact, you're doing the laboring...to change the word's meaning. And it IS a "pretty neutral/objective definition": It means hatred of Jews. What's non-neutral or non-objective about that?

It has nothing to do with "ownership of the word." No one owns it. Jews certainly don't own the word. It is an English expression with a specific meaning. No one uses the word "racism" to refer to "hatred of Jews," because the word has a different meaning, even though Jews have many times and incorrectly been called a "race."

"...and English itself so Almighty that even the rules of language change to suit some--but not others?" Ah, I'm not changing the rules of language; you are. Nor is there any prejudice towards other semites, e.g., Arabs, in not using the word to refer to "hatred of Arabs." I, and many other Jews, are perfectly happy to acknowledge and condemn hatred of Arabs, other semites, and other peoples--but these hatreds aren't anti-Semitism, even though they are just as bad and abhorrent.

Rich wrote: "We were "assured"--read: lied to--that it wasn't about oil over and over and over again by neocon ideologues in the run-up to the invasion and occupation. Will any editor, reporter, news-reader, or pundity call them on it?"

Yes, it's been obvious from the beginning that this has been about oil.

Based solely on Steve's excerpt, I'd say Hillary's put out a fairly frank, solid statement.

I haven't been a Hillary fan these past six years. She saw what happened in Vietnam and Watergate--I've wanted to ask her where she's been all this time.

Hillary said what must be hammered through to every colonel, think-tanker, Republican, pundit, and intel officer:

~There's NO SOLUTION here, NO new approach, NO political adjustment, NO AGILITY in policy or logistics, NO improved purpose or method for achieving any goal.

Bush's approach is just MORE. And when he says "victory will not look like it did for our grandfathers, there will be no surrender signing ceremony on a battleship" --well, can this mean anything OTHER than just killing them all???

"The President . . . will continue to take us down the wrong road -- only faster. The President's speech failed to adequately address the political situation in Iraq, rising sectarian violence, mounting strain on our military, growing Iranian influence, and festering divides over how to distribute oil revenues."

Goodness sakes, PM! You're talking to an English major--who got over it. There's nothing you can say about the English language that'd be news on this end--you're ~25 years too late. And it doesn't matter whether you're talking Samuel Johnson or Gertrude Stein. Twain, Pynchon, from ur- to bane, cummings, Chandler, from Lac Vieux Desert & Itasca to the Big Easy, Derrida--Allen Ginsberg--from canonical linguist or cunning lyricist--you can take your pick.

I haven't followed your deeply involved posts. But you've worked yourself up into a lather over some very poorly thought-out assumptions--you don't 'stand in the schoolhouse door' like a six-year-old in tenured robes, pissing on a burr oak so wide it's blotting out the sun. Son, you may think it's the library wall, but that's the Tree of Life you're watering.

Hillary can not be trusted on anything she says or does.OBAMA, my man of the year for 2006, or John Edwards are MUCH better picks for Demo nominee for POTUS. Hillary's only ideology is to attain and maintain power any way she can. Who cares what she thinks on the issues? I don't.

“I want you to get rid of all these bitches he’s seeing … I want you to give me the names and addresses and phone numbers, and we can get them under control” – Hillary to Ivan Duda in 1982.

“I believe that Bill Clinton had my father killed to protect his political career.” Gary Johnson whose father, Jerry Parks, was murdered in cold blood on 9-26-93. Hillary and her boyfriend Vince Foster had hired Jerry Parks to spy on Bill for years and Jerry Parks knew a LOT about the Clintons.

“Oh, that’s good L.D., that’s good.” Bill to C.I.A. operative L.D. Brown, also Bill’s favorite state trooper, after L.D. said he was going to Mexico to kill Terry Reed. Terry Reed knew about Bill’s involvement with the C.I.A.’s contras/arms/drugs back to USA scheme of the 1980’s.

“My God, I can do it again.” – Bill to Juanita Broaddrick before he raped her for second time on April 25, 1978.

“You better put some ice on that.” – Bill to Juanita after he had raped her and referring to her upper lip that Bill had chewed on with his teeth.

“You will never believe what the motherfucker [Bill] did now, he tried to rape some bitch!” - Hillary in 1978 referring to Bill’s rape of Juanita, as related by close advisor Larry Nichols.

“We want to thank you for everything you do for Bill,” Hillary to Juanita Broaddrick at a political event just 3 weeks after Bill had raped Juanita in 1978, as Hillary kept holding Juanita’s hand, then Hillary repeated “Everything you do for Bill.” [meaning shut up, don’t talk]

“I was very, very, very terrified” – Kathleen Willey, referring to the time Hillary’s goon approached Kathleen while she was alone walking her dogs, after her cat Bullseye had disappeared and 3 of her car tires had been nail-gunned.

“That’s too bad. Bullseye was his name wasn’t it? … You’re just not getting the message, are you?” – Hillary’s goon to Kathleen on 1-8-98 and referring to Bullseye, her pet cat of 13 years, that had Hillary’s goons had stolen.

“Is Gennifer Flowers the sort of person who would commit suicide?” – Hillary’s goon Jack Palladino to the former roommate of Gennifer.

“They looked like [Arkansas] state troopers, I’ll say that.” – Gary Johnson referring to the 3 big, beefy men with short haircuts who savagely beat and nearly murdered him on 6-26-92.

“We have to destroy her.” – Hillary referring to Gennifer Flowers.

“We have to destroy her story.” – Hillary referring to Connie Hamzy and speaking to George Stephanopolous.

“Hillary let that old man of hers call me a liar … I might be a slut and a whore. But I am no liar.” – Connie Hamzy

“If you cooperate with the media, we will destroy you.” – Walter Kyle, Clinton campaign worker, in 1992 to his sister Dolly Kyle Browning, who had an affair with Bill for decades.

“Bitches,” “Whores,” “Sluts,” “Trailer Trash” who must be “destroyed” – how Hillary refers to Bill’s sex victims and girlfriends.

"Yes, I was physically scared. We are talking about the presidency of the country here, and between the friendly calls on one hand telling me to get out of town for my own good and then talking about smear tactics on the other, I got scared. Yes, physically scared. There were always veiled threats. Always.”

- Elizabeth Ward Gracen on the harassment campaign that Hillary’s goons subjected her to in 1997.

“Marilyn Monroe got snuffed.” – from an intimidation letter sent to Sally Perdue who had an affair with Bill in 1983.

“I thought it was the coolest thing in the world that we had a governor who got high.” – Sharlene Wilson referring to Gov. Bill and his cocaine use.

“Got to get some for my brother [Bill], he’s got a nose like a vacuum cleaner.” – Roger Clinton buying cocaine and referring to Bill.

“Sure you don’t want some of this? This is good shit. We sure do grow lotsa good things besides watermelons here in Arkansas.” – Bill to Terry Reed and who Bill was trying to talk into going to Mexico for the C.I.A. Gov. Bill was commenting on the quality of the dope.

“Go on. I’m the commander in chief here; you won’t get busted.” – Gov. Bill to Terry Reed and offering a joint.

“I wouldn’t put anything past Bill Clinton.” - Kathy Fergusen, who Bill had once pinned against the kitchen counter in the Governor’s mansion.

“It looks like someone has shot out all your tires with a nail gun; is there someone out there who does not like you?” – the mechanic of Kathleen Willey in the fall of 1997.

“Suck it,” Bill referring to his penis in 1979 and speaking to Carolyn Moffet who ran out of the room.

“Would you kiss it for me?” Bill referring to his erect penis and speaking to Paul Jones.

“Crooked and hard and gross” - Bill’s penis as described by Paula Jones to her sister Lydia Cathey.

“Drag a hundred-dollar bill through a trailer park, you never know what you’ll find.” Clinton aide James Carville referring to Paula Jones.

“I was sitting there crying and so upset at the time … I felt like the next person coming through the door [was coming] to get rid of [my] body. I absolutely could not believe what had happened to me.” – Juanita Broaddrick referring to the aftermath of Bill’s rape of her.

“[Bill] ministers to troubled people all the time. He’s done it dozens if not hundreds of times. He does it out of religious conviction and personal temperament.” – Hillary to Sydney Blumenthal.

“That cat, he was a nice cat. Bullseye was his name, wasn’t it?” Kathleen added, “He asked me about my children by name. He said, ‘How are your children, Shannon and Patrick?’ It was a very insidious thing and it was meant to scare me.” - Kathleen Willey referring to her experience with Hillary’s goon.

“I gotta get in Rose [Law Firm] … I’m gonna fuck [Webb] Hubbell.” – Hillary

“Larry, unless they have pictures of me with a goat, I’ll deny it.” – Bill to Larry Patterson and referring to his gargantuan philandering

“He is my friend. He will lie for me, steal for me, cheat for me, kill for me …You have to do the same to cover for me.” – Bill to Larry Patterson and referring to another state trooper

“Come on, Bill, put your dick up. You can’t fuck her here.” – Hillary to Bill at a political event.

“What the fuck do you think you’re doing? I know who that whore is. I know what she’s here for. Get her out of here.” -Hillary, in front of Bill, speaking to Larry Patterson who had brought along one of Bill’s girls to a going away ceremony in January, 1993.

“Bill owes me.” – Hillary to anyone who would listen for years.

“Goddamn it, Bill, you promised me that office.” – Hillary to Bill, on Inauguration Day, 1993, and referring to the office of Vice-President Al Gore.

Clinton is a remarkably scarey entity in United States politics.

Number one, she is partially owned by AIPAC.

Number two, she is so shrewd, so politically savvy, that her remarkable intelligence would allow her, if she desired, to carry out huge deceptions in a manner that Bush has been unable to do. If she was doing what Bush is doing, many here would be supporting her, because she would have cornswaggled us intelligently and competently.

And, number three, she stood on the sidelines while Bush brought us to this point. She was smart enough to know were Bush was taking us, why didn't she employ her formidable popularity to rally the masses against him? She had to have had reasons polar to the true interests of this nation.

I am not sure I want to know why, this whole mess is sordid enough without adding Hillary's motives to the long list of unanswered questions that we have lived with since 9/11. Call it brain strain.

I'm no fan of hers, but this is the first mention made -- however oblique -- to the need for Iraqis to keep control of the nation's asset.

The NY Times treated the hydrocarbon law as just another "benchmark." The LA Times said, "Ah ha! It IS about oil!" but never analyzed the law or spelled out how it threatens a resolution.

Every expatriated dollar is a dollar that could induce the Sunnis to buy into a distribution scheme, since you can bet they'll see the last dollar that stays in Iraq.

There's no daylight between Bush and Baker on this issue -- they serve the same master on this one -- and for this and other standard reasons it's been underreported. It's about time it saw the light of day in the US. As it is, it's known in UK (the Independent), in Germany (Spiegel Online), in the blogosphere (AlterNet), and in a brief note on Democracy Now!

So good for Hillary! Let's lend our voices here!

In my lifetime of 62-years, I have witnessed our nation of voters ignore known liars who favor popular causes. In spite of their character flaws we vote for them because of single issues they favor.

However, our failure to repudiate and send clear messages to known liars has allowed sick, depraved, individuals to reside in the White House and put our country through one nightmare after another.

It is hard for me to give credence to criticisms of other nation's leaders when I have seen our country ignore the obvious and put crooks, criminals, and mentally disordered people in the White House to lead our nation.

Isn't it time that voters took a candidates past seriously enough to quickly dispense them to the sidelines?

Hillary Clinton is such a candidate. Send her to the sidelines where she cannot do anymore harm to our country than she has already done.

She was part and parcel of our country's eight-year long nightmare during the Clinton years. She showed the nation who she was and what she was.

She does not deserve our nation’s support for anything she might do – or want to do - at this point in our history.

In my opinion, she belongs in jail right along side her husband, who practiced fraud upon our system of justice and escaped the consequences.

Of course Hillary won't oppose Bush. She can't afford to - not as long as the statute of limitations is running on her perjurious testimony to federal prosecutors.

Yeah, its a damned lucky thing that Bill Clinton's blow job didn't kill a million or so people, isn't it? Now THERES an orgasm.

Judith, I have defended you here. But in these circumstances, for you to dredge up real or imagined past transgressions of Clinton's makes me think I was defending a principle so it could be abused by an idiot.

Rich wrote: "I haven't followed your deeply involved posts. But you've worked yourself up into a lather over some very poorly thought-out assumptions--you don't 'stand in the schoolhouse door' like a six-year-old in tenured robes, pissing on a burr oak so wide it's blotting out the sun. Son, you may think it's the library wall, but that's the Tree of Life you're watering."

Dear Rich: Just because you were an English major, doesn't mean you're correct on this point. And, if you're not following my posts, surely your right, how can you pretend to know that I'm pissing on the Tree of Life or that I'm wrong on this point?

I guess my question to you, since you brought up this point to begin with is this, what do you get by widening the meaning of anti-Semitism to include other semites?

MP--
Obviously read your recent posts on this topic, and that's what my comment refers to. I haven't had time to plumb the depths of your recent extensive debates with other posters.

As I clearly stated, 'English major' is but the tip of the iceberg, and no I'm not going to list credentials, cv, bodies of work, course of study: your exposition is pointless as it reads the tracks I left in the snow ~25 years ago.

What I meant by the obvious application of the word anti-Semite, which equally obviously has specific context and scope in history, should be equally obvious if you lift a mental finger to think about it a bit. How have Arab Semites been dealt with in Western "Civilization" lately? How does that contrast with out supposedly sacred core values as Americans? As Christians? As Jews? Spoon-feeding you now, MP. Since egregiously false charges of "anti-Semitism" have been wielded like a club in open debate here (& in American discourse) lately, it's telling that the word cuts both ways. Think about it. What DO you call scurrilous false charges against Iran? Against Palestinians? Against Americans who ONLY want a fact-based, solution-oriented discussion about what's in the best interest and national security of America? Scapegoating. Absolutist hate-mongering. It's the ramming of sheer Force and clearly dishonest rhetoric down the throat of Democracy, in every sense of the word. It's incredibly ahistorical, reckless, corrosive-to-national-security policies. The truth is, there are many pro-Zionist, anti-hate, Constitutional Conservatives, core-value patriots who adamantly support and respect Jewish culture and people that have had enough. Yet the unbelievably corrosive and hateful rhetoric just grows to smear allies and moderates and those who seek common ground.

So, NO, MP--I'm not about to engage in a disingenous, hair-splitting 'debate' over the English language when you and I damn well both know the point is to get you to think about rhetoric, current debate, the excess of hate, the obscenity of policy from any and all sides, and who your Brother really is. Do your own work, actually think about it, before you presume to engage in cheap semantics. As I said, you don't know who you're trying to school.

Or, as a dairy farmer I once knew liked to say, "Holy Cow!"

rich,

i take it that you are an accomplished academic of some sort or another. kudos. clearly, you are a very smart person with much experience.

but, i must say that the tone of your last post is a bit self-righteous. i know that this is a common trend in academia, but i also believe that it is demonstrates a degree of ignorance -- especially in an online debate with anonymous contributors.

i would ask that you take your own admonishment to heart and keep in mind that you also don't know who *YOU* are trying to school.

please take this comment with all due respect. i do value your contributions in this forum.

winnipeg--

appreciate your tone. However, I don't earn a salary as an academic, precisely BECAUSE I don't feel a need for "being right," and don't have much patience for self-righteousness--hence my comments.

Or, put another way, 'I don't know from self-RIGhteousness???'

You seem to temper your tone there, so thanks for that. The point of my posting on this at all was precisely, in your own words, to prompt/ask 'you'/others to "take your own admonishment to heart." Hope you can understand that much of what it'll take to find common ground in this debate and in these wars is for BOTH sides to do exactly that.

Obviously I don't know the backgrounds of the folks posting--and was merely matching the attitude to gain some recognition of that very fact.

Rich, thanks for your response. Just a few points:

• You wrote: "How have Arab Semites been dealt with in Western "Civilization" lately? How does that contrast with out supposedly sacred core values as Americans? As Christians? As Jews? "

Badly. But I have no trouble saying that. I guess you seem to think I do--I'm sorry if I left that impression--but I don't. Maybe that's why you feel the need to "spoon feed" me. But maybe you and I are having different conversations on this point.

• You wrote: "Since egregiously false charges of "anti-Semitism" have been wielded like a club in open debate here (& in American discourse) lately, it's telling that the word cuts both ways."

We'd have to look at the posts; I've seen some, but actually not a lot here. Yes, in the States, false charges of anti-Semitism are used wrongly to squelch debate and intimidate people to not discuss the I/P conflict. An open debate here is needed around the I/P conflict and America's genuine interests. I'm all for it, and recognize that the American Jewish establishment--a big chunk of it--has attempted to control and cut off debate. A big wrongo, IMO.

I don't think I do that here and have, in fact, defended folks like Carroll as NON-anti-Semites. However, I have also pointed out anti-Semitism when I've seen it and certainly don't apologize for it. Here, there mostly seems to be a lack of appreciation for the phenomenon itself. Listening to some people, one would think that Jews and/or Israel are just crazy or evil for acting and reacting the way they do. Any number of posters don't really believe that Israel has the right to exist--and if you listen to them, you will see that. Judith Haney said it outright. Should I just ignore these people?

• You wrote: "Think about it. What DO you call scurrilous false charges against Iran? Against Palestinians? Against Americans who ONLY want a fact-based, solution-oriented discussion about what's in the best interest and national security of America? Scapegoating. Absolutist hate-mongering."

"Absolutist hate-mongering" is a good candidate. Palestinian haters. Iranophobes is good. Arab haters. They all exist and they are all abhorrent. And Jews of any stripe shouldn't use charges of "anti-Semitism" as a way of ignoring these realities or responding to them.

• You wrote: "...the point is to get you to think about rhetoric, current debate, the excess of hate, the obscenity of policy from any and all sides, and who your Brother really is."

But I do...already...without changing the word to mean what it doesn't. Moreover, changing the word IMO allows the phenomenon to disappear from view go underground and grow unnamed and therefore unchecked. I would also say this...

...the image of the "the Jew" with all its associations has a millennia-long negative hold on the world's imagination in a way that the "Arab" or the "Iranian" or the "Turk" or even the "Palestinian" simply does not. The only equivalent, IMO, is "the black."

So, yes, I am a bit suspicious when people say, "Arabs and Jews are both semites, so anti-Semitism refers to both their plights."

I guess before you lecture me on who my brother is, you might remind yourself of this fact: Down through the years, the Jews have done a pretty good job of knowing and helping their brother--probably, though who's to say?--a better job of it than their much more numerous and powerful Christian and Muslim brothers and gotten killed and kicked out for their trouble. Even Winnepeger, if he is a member of Peace Now and does work for social welfare agencies, is probably doing a better job of helping his Palestinian brothers and others in this troubled world than any number of people on these comments who may just be commenting and, in any case, aren't saying one way or another what they are doing.

Rich...listen to all the talk here about "dualists" and "traitors" and "Israel firsters" on this blog...and you will hear the charges that have been brought repeatedly against Jews down through the years. And when hate crimes and prejudice have arisen toward Muslims (and other minorities) in this country, look at who has stood up for them: The Lobby--the ADL. Trying pointing that out on this blog of free thinkers.

So let me say this: If enlarging the word "anti-Semitism" to include prejudice against Arabs, even all Muslims, would cause or help Israel to sit down with the Palestinians, soften the hearts of rightwingers toward Palestinians so they saw them as brothers ... and enable them to come to a just solution...I would be in favor it without qualification. You can sign me up right now.

I would hope, though I wouldn't make this a requirement, that as both sides came to see each other as "semites"--as brothers--we would no longer hear how these foreign Euorpean invaders simply took "our" land--but rather how, when they were exterminated by their so-called Christian brothers, we opened our hearts to them, recognized their long-standing roots amongst other semites and Muslims, knew that there was plenty of land to share with a brother, and empathized with their need to have one small place where they were in the majority.

Rich--I'm not attempting to school you--I'm merely giving you my opinion and my reasoning. If you find it faulty, great, tell me why. If you want to share with me your academic cred, great, I hope to learn something. If you find all of this disingenuous, well, I'm sorry. It's not been my intention.

Winnipeger wrote: "but, i must say that the tone of your last post is a bit self-righteous. i know that this is a common trend in academia, but i also believe that it is demonstrates a degree of ignorance -- especially in an online debate with anonymous contributors."

Winn, to be honest, I started it with a bit of unnecessary snark ("but then again, you knew that, didn't you?") unloaded onto Rich. I've been so upended by the "rules of the road" on these blogs that I've taken on some unfortunate ways of expressing myself.

The other piece of it is this: Post my first reaction to Rich, on reflection, I KNEW what Rich was getting at. Partly because I have been reading his comments for a while. Unfortunately, I've heard his suggestion so often--and mostly it's just a way of dimissing the huge impact anti-Semitism has had on Jews, past and present--that I reacted.

It was a point I needed to make...but this wasn't a conversation I needed to have with Rich. If that makes sense.

YOU, MP, switched the issue to "jews" when referring thusly......

"Rich...listen to all the talk here about "dualists" and "traitors" and "Israel firsters" on this blog...and you will hear the charges that have been brought repeatedly against Jews down through the years."

The terms are not applied to "jews" for thier faith or history, MP, at least not by me. But they are terms I am not afraid to use, as you know. The term is applied, by me, to Americans, particularly those in our government, that put Israel's interests above our own, and work towards insidiously implanting Israel's interests into American foreign policy, EVEN IF that implantation works against the interests of the United States. It is YOU that always uses the tactic of inserting the word "jews" into such a debate, because it opens the door to this despicable accusation of "anti-semitism" that is the time worn tactic through which Israel has consistently sought to silence those that oppose Israeli policy.

Case in point; Do you REALLY think Jimmy Carter is "anti-semitic"??? Well, the charge is certainly being lodged against him, loudly and voraciously.

Now, if you cannot recognize the above mentioned insidious implantation of Israel's aims into this administration by the likes of Ladeen, Zakheim, Feith, Wolfowitz, Perl, etc, than I pity your powers of observation. And if you DO recognize it, as I am sure you have the mental capacity to do, yet still deny it, and counter it with the despicable swiftboating of any who dare point to the truth by snarling "anti-semite" at them, well.....

Do you think that a military assault against Iran, at this time, is in America's best interests? Well, if not, I suggest you have a close look at the rhetoric being posted on AIPAC's website, AND the rhetoric coming from the right wingers in Israel. And the same crew in Bush's circles that launched us into Iraq are now poised to do it again in Iran. You would have us believe the rhetoric from the right wingers in Israel, and from such entities as AIPAC, being so closely paralleled by Bush's actual actions and seeming intent is just another coincidence, just another "conspiracy theory"??

Hmmm, well, perhaps you better stick to the "anti-semitism" schtick......

Dear POA,

Thanks for your response. Here's the piece I'm responding to:

"The term is applied, by me, to Americans, particularly those in our government, that put Israel's interests above our own, and work towards insidiously implanting Israel's interests into American foreign policy, EVEN IF that implantation works against the interests of the United States."

• These lists of traitors and dualists only ever show Jews. Though Cheney and Bush, to pick just two examples but there are many others (e.g., Rumsfeld, Condi, Hadley, Armitage, Powell), are working just as hard and in concert with these people, only the Jews are listed as traitors or dualists and only they are asked to swim to Israel or leave the country for "their own." Yet their policies, those of Cheney et al, are as inimical to American interests--not to mention the welfare of the world--and presumably as pro Israel as those of anyone on the list--probably more so, because Cheney and friends have REAL power.

• It is wrong for any American to work against the interests of America. It is not more wrong for someone with a dual passport than it is for someone from Wyoming. How could it be? First, the results for America are the same. Second, both individuals are, in fact, Americans. The focus needs to be: What are America's real interests and, second, who is working for them and who isn't? But I'm willing to consider the notion that somone with a dual passport probably shouldn't hold highly sensitive governmental positions--but I'm not certain about it.

• It is possible to disagree--even strongly--about what America's "best interests" are. Just because you disagree with so-and-so and have good reasons for doing so doesn't make him a traitor, a dualist, or anything of the like kind. Keep going down this road and, someday, YOU will be thrown out for being a traitor. Isn't that what you are afraid Bush is going to do to you? But in fact, you just strongly disagree with what Bush is doing. (Rightly so.)

• You write: "You would have us believe the rhetoric from the right wingers in Israel, and from such entities as AIPAC, being so closely paralleled by Bush's actual actions and seeming intent is just another coincidence, just another "conspiracy theory"??"

No, but I don't believe that Israel is calling the shots, either. It's not like AIPAC and Israel are the puppeteers and those poor, hapless Americans who can't figure out their own true interests and can't exert their own will and intelligence in the face of Israel's overwhelming power...are the puppets.

No, sorry, I don't believe in the fairytale that goes like this: Israel and AIPAC are the puppeteers and America is the puppet. This is a version of the old canard that a conspiracy of Jews rules the world and the rest of the world--though much bigger, much more powerful, much richer--and MUCH more in need of oil--is helpless against it.

No, sorry, I don't believe in the fairytale that goes like this: Israel and AIPAC are the puppeteers and America is the puppet. This is a version of the old canard that a conspiracy of Jews rules the world and the rest of the world--though much bigger, much more powerful, much richer--and MUCH more in need of oil--is helpless against it.

Posted by MP

Who said anything about "puppets"? I am talking about partners in crime.

And your inability to remove the term "jews" from this discourse perfectly underscores my comments. Wolfowitz and the crew I mentioned above are jews, some may not be, I simply don't know, nor do I care. But their allegiance to the war drums of Israel are really quite pronounced. I have made that clear repeatedly. I loathe these men for their actions, not for being jews.

I noticed you completely avoided my questions posed to you, although you did carefully remove a portion of one of them from context so you could create yet another straw argument.

Dear POA:

Some questions don't require answering in certain contexts, but I have no problem doing so. Here are my answers:

• "Case in point; Do you REALLY think Jimmy Carter is "anti-semitic"???" No.

• "Do you think that a military assault against Iran, at this time, is in America's best interests? " No. I also don't believe it's in Israel's interests.

Is that clear enough?

This statement, however, makes my point: "Now, if you cannot recognize the above mentioned insidious implantation of Israel's aims into this administration by the likes of Ladeen, Zakheim, Feith, Wolfowitz, Perl, etc, than I pity your powers of observation."

The "insidious implantation of Israel's aims into this adminsitration by the likes of..." suggests the manipulation of US interests by a foreign government.

But, in fact, Cheney is doing what he is doing because he believes it's in America's interest--not because he beieves it's in Israel's interests. He may feel the two are coincidental, but this is not an "implantation" unless you believe that without Wolfie and friends Cheney would just be a teddy bear.

Maybe you can answer a question for me: Even though Cheney is accused here of pursuing Israel's interests just as much if not more than Wolfie, why is he never called a traitor or a dualist or told to "swim back to Israel?"

Hehehe....

Now tell me, MP, if Jimmy Carter isn't anti-semitic, then why is he being labeled as such?

If attacking Iran is not in America's best interests, then why are we poised to do so, in harmony with Israel's goading?

And, why do I not call Cheney a "dualist"? Because I have never used the term. Is he Jew? Not a Jew? Is that your point MP? (Like I need to ask). Has Cheney consistently committed to the actions "lobbied for" by Israel, some of which have not only not been in our best interests, but in fact have been horribly damaging to our interests. You bet. Look at our country, our once proud nation. Look at the missing pages of our constitution, ripped out by this administration.

Why don't I call Cheney a traitor? But MP, I have no problem calling Cheney a traitor. In my opinion, he is one of a small cadre of this Administration whom I believe should be tried for treason, convicted, and executed. As is George Bush.

Why don't I think he should be told to swim back to Israel??? Thats asinine, MP, but I will humour you. Because he didn't come from Israel.

Besides, if I was going to suggest he swim across anything, my choice would be the lava pool on Mt. St Helens.

POA writes: "Now tell me, MP, if Jimmy Carter isn't anti-semitic, then why is he being labeled as such?" I haven't seen the quotes you're referring to, but...probably because: a) these people think he is or b) they are using the anti-Semite gambit to cut him down and stifle debate on this question--as I've agreed with you.

Truth is, I'd have to read Carter's book (which I intend to) to give you my views on his views. To the degree that he's trying to open debate on this whole issue, I'm for it.

POA writes: "If attacking Iran is not in America's best interests, then why are we poised to do so, in harmony with Israel's goading?" You tell me. Because we have insane people running this country.

Before you jump on it, MP, my sentence...

"Look at the missing pages of our constitution, ripped out by this administration."

......was meant for the paragraph below the one in which it appeared.

No, MP, I don't blame Israel for these maniac's desecration of our Constitution, although the fear here, that has been carefully nurtured by Israel, certainly contributed to the "social atmosphere" that has allowed these bastards to get away with it.

You wrote: "No, MP, I don't blame Israel for these maniac's desecration of our Constitution, although the fear here, that has been carefully nurtured by Israel, certainly contributed to the "social atmosphere" that has allowed these bastards to get away with it."

I can live with "contributed to it." But I think it's important for America and Americans to take full responsibility for their own actions--and not blame them on others. We all respond to others and our actions are partly (sometimes largely) affected by others. But in the end, we are the ones who act.

Personally, I don't think many people in the heartland pay too much attention to what Israel's leaders say, think, or do, except when war breaks out. And even then, it's pretty much a mystery to them. So any fear they feel is largely homegrown, IMO. But that's just impressionistic--my view.

POA writes: "If attacking Iran is not in America's best interests, then why are we poised to do so, in harmony with Israel's goading?"

You tell me. Because we have insane people running this country.

Posted by MP at January 12, 2007 04:59 PM

Well, using that premise, you have to wonder at Israel's motives, don't you? I mean, I don't know about you, but I despise anyone that manipulates the mental illness of another so that they can acquire personal gain.

"I can live with "contributed to it." But I think it's important for America and Americans to take full responsibility for their own actions--and not blame them on others."

Well, I'm sorry MP, but when someone aids a deception that costs hundreds of thousands of lives, then they should certainly be called to task.

Two people rob a bank. One helps plan the hiest, the other commits it. Judge MP only convicts one person, and acquits the other. Was he acquited because of true innocence, or because of his religious beliefs and history, that judge MP happens to share?

MP wrote:
>>>"Personally, I don't think many people in the heartland pay too much attention to what Israel's leaders say, think, or do, except when war breaks out. And even then, it's pretty much a mystery to them. So any fear they feel is largely homegrown, IMO. But that's just impressionistic--my view."<<<

Obviously you know nothing about the heartland. A dairy farmer from Minnesota could do a better job of formulating foreign policy than most of the so-called moderate Senators, "conservatives" or Exec branch flunkys.

Heartlanders are more informed than many DC Insiders staffing senate offices and MSM press corpse.

Get real.

Just another "conspiracy theory".......

"As an American air strike in Iran is essential for our existence, we must help (Bush) pave the way by lobbying the Democratic Party (which is conducting itself foolishly) and U.S. newspaper editors. We need to do this in order to turn the Iranian issue to a bipartisan one and unrelated to the Iraq failure." -- Gen. Oded Tira, who headed up all Israeli artillery units

Said Netanyahu, Israel "must immediately launch an intense, international public relations front first and foremost on the U.S. The goal being to encourage President Bush to live up to specific pledges he would not allow Iran to arm itself with nuclear weapons. We must make clear to the (U.S.) government, the Congress and the American public that a nuclear Iran is a threat to the U.S. and the entire world, not only Israel."

Remind me, was it general Jack D. Ripper or general Curtis Mayfield who was the fictional character?

POA writes: "Well, I'm sorry MP, but when someone aids a deception that costs hundreds of thousands of lives, then they should certainly be called to task."

I agree with this.

"Two people rob a bank. One helps plan the hiest, the other commits it. Judge MP only convicts one person, and acquits the other. Was he acquited because of true innocence, or because of his religious beliefs and history, that judge MP happens to share?

No, but that is not the charge, either. The charge is that the "aider" is the true culprit and the doer is somehow the hapless victim of the aider who was the true mastermind.

Sorry, I can't agree.

POA writes: "Well, using that premise, you have to wonder at Israel's motives, don't you? I mean, I don't know about you, but I despise anyone that manipulates the mental illness of another so that they can acquire personal gain."

You see, this is closer to your actual argument. The poor US is "mentally ill," vulnerable--who knows? unable to tell right from wrong--not in control of its own actions--and the despicable Israelis come in to manipulate them to do their bidding.

Sorry, but I don't agree with this. It's a pathetic argument. And, if you dig deep down into it there's assumption about America's basic purety...and Israel's basic evilness and willingness, even eagerness, to prey on the helpless.

Rich wrote: "Obviously you know nothing about the heartland. A dairy farmer from Minnesota could do a better job of formulating foreign policy than most of the so-called moderate Senators, "conservatives" or Exec branch flunkys. Heartlanders are more informed than many DC Insiders staffing senate offices and MSM press corpse. Get real."

It's possible they could--but this wasn't my argument. (Bill Buckley used to argue that he'd prefer to be governed by the first 100 names in the phone book instead of the Harvard faculty --or something close to that.)

My argument was this: The fear Americans feel is largely homegrown, not exported from Israel.

winnipeg--

appreciate your tone. However, I don't earn a salary as an academic, precisely BECAUSE I don't feel a need for "being right," and don't have much patience for self-righteousness--hence my comments.

Or, put another way, 'I don't know from self-RIGhteousness???'

You seem to temper your tone there, so thanks for that. The point of my posting on this at all was precisely, in your own words, to prompt/ask 'you'/others to "take your own admonishment to heart." Hope you can understand that much of what it'll take to find common ground in this debate and in these wars is for BOTH sides to do exactly that.

Obviously I don't know the backgrounds of the folks posting--and was merely matching the attitude to gain some recognition of that very fact.
Posted by: rich at January 12, 2007 11:54 AM

thanks, rich. on this we agree completely.

MP:

I'm well-aware it wasn't your argument--but you felt free to slam Heartlanders as ignorant and fearful when not only is quite the OPPOSITE the case, but many are far more informed and MORE cosmopolitan than those in 'elite' circles on the East Coast, be that New England or New York City. The pretense the rubes start out hateful and can be fed a pack of transparent lies w/o glomming onto the process is just fantasy.

Further, what fears exist here--aren't lashing out but ARE fanned by the mass media AND fed by the hysteria of American and Jewish PR groups, consciously, but without conscience, to justify pitting America against Muslim nations.

Check out Easy E's link on the next thread up. It's yet ANOTHER SET of documented voices detailing how these things are accomplished. It takes a lot of WORK to gin up these "crises" and pour gasoline on both natural/justifiable fear and international circumstances that won't lead to war on their own.

That's clear as day--it's been documented backwards and forwards by diplomats, journalists, politicos, corporate newsletters, The Nation mag, Z mag, Chomsky--hundreds of others. NOTE that I didn't say ALL Jewish PR groups, NOR even Israeli-directed groups--but it's been documented that American and Jewish FACTIONS are willing to actively do the labor required to push events in a direction that will cost America dearly--and perhaps cost Israel its nationhood. THAT's my concern. Those who act in this way must have a heart and have a care for humanity. It's clear the rest of the world has acted with immense patience, but how long can that last?

WINNIPEGER--

Just a quick note: Nice to get this onto a productive level.

I've long-studied the virulent (& objectionable) anti-Semitic conspiracy theories leveled against Jewish people in Europe--and in America--and obviously they must be countered at every turn.

Major drawback of comment sections, threads, etc. is limited space to paint full nuance and complexity. Broad statements objecting to policy realities can appear more than they are.

MAJOR CONCERN: It is critical to BOTH

A) Counter, adamantly, real anti-Semitism where it exists; &

B) Insist that our own government (US) and close allies (Israel) apply policies & take actions that 1) are productive & effective, 2) adhere to lawful standards of conduct, 3) adhere to our Constitutional (e.g., Congress Declares War) and democratic values (respect for sovereignty), 4) eliminates political & other forms of blowback (i.e., abandons torture, death squads as tools), 5) do not engage in actions that would violate Nuremburg or Geneva Convention rules/ laws/ rulings.

I can agree there has been a careless, overly broad rhetoric on this board.

Attacking liberal allies of Jewish/Israeli people--who are morally obligated to critique misguided, counter-productive, well-documented policies--is not the answer. It is equally careless, and overly broad.

It HAS TO BE possible to take BOTH positions. They are NOT MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE.

And the thing is--> if WE dont' do that and have some impact--> then NO ONE ELSE WILL.

And THAT's REALLY THE ONLY REASON I POST ON THE ISSUE AT ALL.

rich,

thanks for the response. one minor point. you write:

"I can agree there has been a careless, overly broad rhetoric on this board."

and in a previous comment you said:

"The point of my posting on this at all was precisely, in your own words, to prompt/ask 'you'/others to "take your own admonishment to heart." Hope you can understand that much of what it'll take to find common ground in this debate and in these wars is for BOTH sides to do exactly that."

but can you also acknowledge that there is a near uniformity of opinion in these comment threads? in 4 months of reading and contributing, i don't think i have read one comment (other than mp's or an occasional right-winger passing through) that has been critical of the palestinians or the larger arab world. at the same time, israeli's are characterized as genocidal "maniacs' and "murderers" and worse. at times the rhetoric has been *truly* vile and offensive.

israelis have been directly blamed for 9-11 (the "dancing israelis"), jewish policy-makers and activists have been characterized and called "traitors," and jews have been accused of being "cry babies," who "bring misfortune upon themselves." we've been called "paranoid," "unamerican" and much, much worse in these threads.

imo, the debate here (aside from our recent dialogue) has been anything but constructive and i take blame for my part in fanning the flames. but i also ask you to understand that even if i ignored every offensive comment and never contributed at all, the tenor in these parts, thanks to some regulars, is vile, vengeful and dismissive of any contrary view.

this attitude can only exacerbate the conflict it decries. this attitude is precisely the problem in israel, palestine, within iraq, somalia, and on and on.

idealogues are nearly incapable of compromise, empathy or reconciliation. the hateful energy that is daily dumped into these threads is the SAME hateful energy that is perpetuating every war in the world...

and it is that hypocrisy that i find so ironic and appalling.

My two comments cited by you above don't contradict each other--I addressed that clearly in pointing out that combating anti-Semitism and combating ill-advised policies (be they US or Israeli) are not mutually exclusive.

Part of what you see, I think, comes from the FIRST obligation of every citizen of ANY democracy: take responsiblity for your own, FIRST. Demanding responsible policy from those govts (US & Israeli) is a PRIMARY obligation & imperative. We 'elected' them, they act in our name (supposedly); where foreign policy is a breach of trust and amounts to treason, well, it's a bigger danger to our survival than any external enemy. Pointing the finger elsewhere is scapegoating.

I dont' find the comments here uniform. Some of them I find shrill, others objectionable--but much of that arises from objectionable policies. Surely you can agree with that?

HAve you considered asking for exposition and explanation, to spell out the source and nature of their principled objection to Israeli policies--RATHER than wielding charges of "anti-Semitism" like a cudgel? RATHER than getting sucked into the back n forth?

Because taken in isolation and w/o that exposition, the overly-broad, heated charges you & I cite CAN appear to overlap with & be taken as anti-Semitic. But with a bit of context, it indicates anger with specific policies that don't have ANY adequate defense. And it's somewhat disingenuous to claim to miss that key fact. Your antagonists are angry about actual policies.

As for myself, I know that there are many many Jewish Americans who agree with my politics. (Many of them friends and associates.) There are many, though, who NEVER compromise, who NEVER listen to reason, and who clearly are intent upon pushing an narrative that--call it a version of history, or an ideology, or a PR line, or propoganda, or really just an unyielding insistence that ALL others are EVIL and Israel is a PURE victim merely acting in self-defense. THAT, in America, is pretty offensive, simply because merely carrying on a conversation in good faith is our first obligation to fellow citizens.

Help these guys find an effective rhetoric to get through to those they'd like to engage--one that distinguishes between actions and identity, etc.--and does so clearly for the listener.

I ask this of you because wielding charges of anti-Semitism against the innocent & non-hateful will have an enormous amount of collateral damage--much of it to Jewish self-interest.

Do you think there would be an intifada if Palestinians were allowed to keep land in the family, were allowed to vote, and weren't tortured? I don't think so. It's essential to recognize--and repair--hard policies that clearly result in increased anger, building resentment, and a populace that is compelled to take action for the sake of survival.

It's just human, political, common sense. OF COURSE not everything Palestinians do can be justified. In a democracy, civlians are responsble for govt policy. Where govt policy refuses any and all redress of grievance, where there is no justice, how is a group supposed to force responsiveness to just cases of grievance? Obviously suicide bombings are horrific, and obviously its a tragedy that innocent civilians have paid a price. Can you please explain what other recourse is available to families who've lost land, dignity, liberty, and lives? What other method is available to prompt changes in policy, justice, reconciliation, redress of grievances, and recompense? I just dont' see that there is another answer to that other than acceding to extinguishment. This does not slur Jewish people or even Israel, but rather policies. Not identity--but in a democracy, all citizens are responsible for their govt. That was true in Germany--and they weren't even a democracy at that point.

rich,

a couple of quick points before i head out for a show:

you wrote:

"There are many, though, who NEVER compromise, who NEVER listen to reason, and who clearly are intent upon pushing an narrative that--call it a version of history, or an ideology, or a PR line, or propoganda, or really just an unyielding insistence that ALL others are EVIL and Israel is a PURE victim merely acting in self-defense."

interesting that you know many, i don't know ANY american jews who fot this bill. quuite the opposite actually. myself included.

you wrote:

HAve you considered asking for exposition and explanation, to spell out the source and nature of their principled objection to Israeli policies--RATHER than wielding charges of "anti-Semitism" like a cudgel? RATHER than getting sucked into the back n forth?

the back and forth i definately regret, yes, but no i've NEVER thought of seeking an explanation from someone who espouses group hatred and prejudice. in my mind, no explanation is necessary. i don't make the leap from opposing any policy to hating groups of people. sorry.

you wrote:

Do you think there would be an intifada if Palestinians were allowed to keep land in the family, were allowed to vote, and weren't tortured?

in short, yes, i do.

and finally, you wrote:

"Obviously suicide bombings are horrific, and obviously its a tragedy that innocent civilians have paid a price. Can you please explain what other recourse is available to families who've lost land, dignity, liberty, and lives? What other method is available to prompt changes in policy, justice, reconciliation, redress of grievances, and recompense? "

that's simple. a policy of nonviolence. something the palestinians have never tried.

thanks again, rich. i really appreciate our dialogue.

Rich wrote: "I'm well-aware it wasn't your argument--but you felt free to slam Heartlanders as ignorant and fearful when not only is quite the OPPOSITE the case, but many are far more informed and MORE cosmopolitan than those in 'elite' circles on the East Coast, be that New England or New York City. The pretense the rubes start out hateful and can be fed a pack of transparent lies w/o glomming onto the process is just fantasy.

Further, what fears exist here--aren't lashing out but ARE fanned by the mass media AND fed by the hysteria of American and Jewish PR groups, consciously, but without conscience, to justify pitting America against Muslim nations."

If you felt I was slamming heartlanders or calling them rubes, I apologize. It was not my intention. Neither did I mean to say that ANYONE starts out hateful. Sorry if I conveyed that meaning to you.

and one more question:

you wrote:

"OF COURSE not everything Palestinians do can be justified."

then why is there ZERO criticism of the palestinians and arabs on this entire blog?

are there no "objectionable" arab or palestinian policies?

Winnepeger wrote:

"then why is there ZERO criticism of the palestinians and arabs on this entire blog?"

I've asked myself this question many times. The best I can come up with is this: They feel that the pro-Israel position--to simplify here--is SO well represented elsewhere that they have to spend all their time on the other side just to balance things out. This is a charitable explanation and clearly doesn't apply to many posters here--though it does to some.

I think Rich's characterization --"I dont' find the comments here uniform. Some of them I find shrill, others objectionable--but much of that arises from objectionable policies."--is too kind about a lot of what I read here--not just in the posts, but in the links inside the posts.

Balance has gotten a bad name. It shouldn't mean taking one from column A and one from column B--because many times column B (or C or D) doesn't have anything to recommend it. Balance should mean accuracy which, in a complex situation, often means a variety of perspectives. So if you lack balance, you are also, more importantly, inaccurate.

The other answer to your question is that most posters here aren't that interested in the I/P conflict per se or in finding a solution to it. That's why you never hear anything that sounds like a way to resolve a conflict between two parties in conflict. Suggestions that take into consideration the needs, rights, and fears of both sides.

OF COURSE, I'm not talking about all posters, but a lot of them.

I appreciate the exchange of views. I can't answer all latest points now--

Winnipegger:
It should be obvious WHY Palestinians don't receive a lot of criticism here:
1. The point about taking responsibility for our own actions FIRST really ends that complaint: I can point the finger all day at the other guy, but my responsibility is to and for my own country's actions. Pointing the finger is just scapegoating here. It continues the cycle of hate--and who benefits? Who is more at risk?

2. It's a David vs. Goliath fight. Appropriate levels of force are necessary to maintain post-conflict peace, a critical rule. Go over-the-top, lose the peace AND the next war.

3. You write: "that's simple. a policy of nonviolence. something the palestinians have never tried."

That seems disingenous, given what I've written. Would non-violence bring an end to Israeli policies? No way. Please re-read my previous post--where there IS NO recourse for redress of grievances within the political system or through the judicial system, what options are left??? Non-violence does not work in the absence of those components that define a democratic/civilized nation. Was violence renounced in 1948 by Begin? Or by Israel, ever? To win over a community, you offer a way out, you don't exacerbate the injustice. (& since those policies are choking the life out of neighborhoods, non-violence is obviously not an option.)

4. You say:
"in short, yes, i do" [think there would be an intifada if Palestinians were allowed to keep land in the family, were allowed to vote, and weren't tortured?]

But that is where you're wrong. And either way, the intifada doesn't justify those policies. HOW could you miss that? You've got plenty of reason to be angry--but at what? This is Politics 101. To deny there is Just cause for the intifada is Orwellian erasure. If Israel was facing another nation, instead of just a populace with few means of self-defense, they'd have to face an army--not rock-throwing children. You don't win over a community by breaking bones, torture, etc.

There are factions on both sides that will provoke violence and break any accord. The last breaking of the peace was an utter disaster, granted. The key is to police your own.

If there was some semblance of justice, there would be no need for an intifada. I'm gonna lose track of the details, so you're gonna have to some of the lifting from your end, but if the intifada had been handled with any political astuteness or justice, we wouldn't have seen the suicide bombings. Now, don't get all cranky.

There are obviously Israeli factions that would prefer to ratchet UP the violence, to wipe away 'problematic' populace for good. But it backfires every time. It doesn't win over subject populations, but creates a bottomless wellspring of anger--in fact, it poisons the well.

LOOK, Winnipegger--there is NO ONE more adamantly FOR the nation of Israel. But when your friends and allies keep trying to tell you something, and they won't give up trying to get through, even though it's obviously difficult and even painful to hear--maybe it's worth reeeeeeaaaaalllly putting some hard, self-reflective work into figuring out why they're doing so. Why they'd do all that work. Why they see it that way.

All this stuff goes back to why OUR Founding Fathers would fight a revolution against the British Empire--at great risk, and at great cost. The lesson is clear. It is obvious. Pushed to the brink, and faced with great injustice, a population will fight back if it is forced to. It will fight with muskets. It will fight with rocks. It will fight with children.

That it could EVER get that far, without prompting self-reflection on your part, without causing a willingness to understand & empathize the experience of the other side, wihtout driving an absolute imperative to search for an explanation, for common ground, for answers--well, that's truly tragic. It's also frightening. Any human, and any people would have to ask, chosen for what? Exceptional (USA)in what possible way? It's preferable not to create enemies as we defend ourselves, no?

"The other answer to your question is that most posters here aren't that interested in the I/P conflict per se or in finding a solution to it. That's why you never hear anything that sounds like a way to resolve a conflict between two parties in conflict. Suggestions that take into consideration the needs, rights, and fears of both sides."

Posted by MP

Thats because you call us "anti-semitic" when we suggest Israel should stop stealing Palestinian land, stop committing mass murder, adhere to all the UN resolutions it is in violation of, and work towards peace.

And BTW, MP, its really weasely of you to make vague insinuations like you did in that last sentence. "Not aaaalll the pooosters, but just...".

Get off it. Your schtick is getting old.

Damn, what sniveling horseshit. Has anyone else noticed that Rich's Paragraph......

"That's clear as day--it's been documented backwards and forwards by diplomats, journalists, politicos, corporate newsletters, The Nation mag, Z mag, Chomsky--hundreds of others. NOTE that I didn't say ALL Jewish PR groups, NOR even Israeli-directed groups--but it's been documented that American and Jewish FACTIONS are willing to actively do the labor required to push events in a direction that will cost America dearly--and perhaps cost Israel its nationhood. THAT's my concern. Those who act in this way must have a heart and have a care for humanity. It's clear the rest of the world has acted with immense patience, but how long can that last?"

.......received absolutely NO comment or debate. Instead we see a bunch of sniveling and false pretension.

And MP's steady mantra about AIPAC "being just another lobby"; have you noticed that his mantra has gone by the wayside since I have been quoting the AIPAC website? Suprise suprise.

Look, heres the deal. You want to see what happens when you try to engage a troll in true intellectual debate? Well, go read the "More on Bush's Not-So-New plan for Iraq", and read it in its entirety.

So here we see the same stuff. Rich, who is obviously alot more patient than Den or I for this kind of crap, makes a bunch of points, and they are simply discarded so we can read a bunch of oh poor me horseshit. Maybe it will sink in someday with this guy that his every post that includes this kind of crap only underscores why he is so poorly recieved by many of us. Here he had a civil debate with a poster, a debate he could have contributed to, made rebuttals, brought in facts, exercised his mind. But instead.....

And whats worse, its now turned into this sacharin mewling whine offered