There is no decency and moral obligation anymore anywhere. Why allow bad people to run over "the right decision"??Everytime???
Why didn't one of these Americans speak out before now? Why have they spoken now?
Who is and who is not a neocon?
How in the world do we consciously purge Neocon from the American vocabulary? Neocons are anti America.

I keep saying, tho nobody listens, that although Wolfowitz said and acted as if "They will be pleased to see us" that does not prove Wolfowitz actually believed "They will be glad to see us."
They certainly were given enough predictions that contradicted the premise.

But the history has been written. Tho Wolfie et al are liars, this time he didn't lie. Tho Wolfie et al are often brilliant, in this case he was astonishingly stupid. But sincere & well-intentioned of course. Why? Because he said so.

"How come we learned so much of this dispute only after the war?"

That's because we have such a crackerjack mainstream media providing all the news and commentary our rulers want us to have. When birdcage liners like the Posts (Washington and NY) represent journalism we do not have a functionning democracy. We have an ill-informed, ill-prepared populace run by authoritarian elites. America today.

I watch a week-daily program on Link TV called Mosaic, which is news from the Middle East translated into English. On Thursday's program an Israeli new show had on Norman Podheretz, i.e., father of the neo-CONS. He seemed very sure that USrael would indeed attack Iran.

Link TV is Dish TV channel 9410, Direct TV 375, it's on Comcast too I think. But you can watch it online at LinkTV.org

The show is invaluable so I would suggest that anyone interested in the Middle East tune in.

i am waiting, not very patiently, for the day when those in the best position to know will no longer feel restrained to share what they know, will come forward, will speak out in public forum, and will place ALL of the lies on the table, right next to the clear, unvarnished truth... our nation desperately needs this healing... i just hope our constitution surives long enough for it to happen...

http://takeitpersonally.blogspot.com/

As pre-war intel comes in for a belated second look, I'm reminded of another set of loose links that have not yet been jiggled.

Powell's UN presentation
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/02/20030205-1.html
included a selection of audio intercepts which were ominous-sounding but strikingly devoid of context. Colonel who? What modified vehicle? Omigod!

My impression at the time was that these were just so much sideshow carnival barkery ... but who was zooming who in these cases?

Are sources and methods still such compelling concerns that we can't see the tree, or at least the branch, from which these cherries were harvested?

I respect Col. Lang's service to our country. I used to read his blog but began finding the tone of some of his comments and those of his readers rather ugly. I just checked it out again, and it's pretty much the same. Many fascinating insights but an undercurrent of AIPAC conspiracy paranoia which in some of his readers' comments degenerates into the Jewish banker conspiracy theory of history. I don't think he's an anti-Semite (although some of his readers clearly are), but on the other hand he doesn't seem to have much clarity about where this kind of thinking can end up.

AIPAC paranoia??? AIPAC is lying their asses off on their website, as I have pointed out, repeatedly here. Not only are the slimey pieces of shit lying to us on their website, like that last bit of horseshit they ran about Iran blocking inspections of Nanatz, but they are in turn removing the propaganda, and not archiving it, so their slimey lying crap can be denied after they've managed to get their Congressional whores in Washington to spill American blood in Iran. Its interesating you show up to drool your AIPAC defending horseshit, but only when the links to AIPAC's lies have scrolled off of the homepage. You never show up when irrefutable proof of AIPAC's lies are posted.

Pretty hard to defend blatant lies and propaganda, isn't it Birnbaum?

http://www.antiwar.com/roberts/?articleid=11027

"...President Bush, the Republican Party, and the Democratic Party have proved to the entire world that the American people have no voice. The American people have no more ability to affect their government’s policy than inmates in a gulag would have.

What do people in other countries think when they hear Bush prattle on about "freedom and democracy" while he ignores opinion polls and election results and detains people without warrants, tortures them, and puts them before military tribunals in which they are denied even knowing the evidence against them? Bush has contrived a situation for defendants in which no defense is possible. In Bush’s America, people can be executed on the basis of hearsay and secret evidence. If this is "freedom and democracy," what is tyranny?

Recent polls show that the majority of the American people are no longer fooled, no matter what politicians say and media report...."

We are not fooled, Birnbaum. Not.

Many experts warned against the invasion. Iaea's El Baradei, Scott Ritter, General Zinni, Madeline Albright, Jimmy Carter, Cia analyst, Flynt Leverett and many more.

I just do not buy Senator Clintons and others statments "if only we knew then what we know now". How could a soccer mom in Ohio hear so many experts on the Diane Rehm show ,Democracy Now, etc warn against the invasion based on questionable intelligence.

This repeated claim is hogwash!

As I said, the tone can get rather ugly.

The underlying model is roughly what Oliver Stone promulgated in the movie JFK: The American people are good, and if for some reason we have done something bad, we must have been manipulated into it by a hidden cabal. In his case of course the something bad was Viet Nam, and the manipulation included the assassination of a President.

In this case, it's the Middle East and Iraq. Our country is no longer ours, it's been taken away from us, they're working to "get their whores in Congress to spill American blood in Iran," but we're awakening at last, "we are not fooled." "We" of course being "real Americans."

Shades of black helicopters. Or Joseph Goebbels.

And this is what I meant when I said that Col. Lang seems a bit naive, at best, about where this kind of thinking and talking can lead.

How do you feel about AIPAC's recent lies about Nanatz, Birnbaum?

Or does your ignorant horseshit demand that you ignore the facts?

It amazes me that I can repeatedly link to AIPAC's website, and by doing so prove irrefutably that AIPAC is engaged in a campaign of propaganda using lies to convince Americans that an invasion of Iran is warranted and essential........

.......yet these people like Birnbaum refuse to recognize the lies, or admit to the complicity of Israel in driving this nation towards war in both Iraq and Iran.

It cannot be denied that AIPAC is blatantly lying, as I have shown here repeatedly. Yet heres Birnbaum, casting the usual horseshit about anti-semitism and conspiracy theories.

Move to Israel, Birnbaum. Spill YOUR OWN blood for Israel's lies.

Powell should have known better. No matter because we didn't go to war with Iraq because of intelligence. Powell surely knew we were going into Iraq by January 02. He should have known in January 00 or whenever it was he signed on to the Bush campaign and made it possible for Bush to win. Without Powell Bush loses. (He lost anyway but all those other close races would have fallen to Gore without Powell.)

Cheney made a half hearted effort to take the SOS job from Powell and a full on effort to undermine and humiliate Powell from Inauguration day forward. Yet Powell took his little vials to the UN and pretended they were real and that they were a reason to go to war. He might have been stupid enough to believe the 'intelligence' but he couldn't have been stupid enough to think they were a reason for war.

It wasn't the CIA's bad intellegence that is making people die, it was Colin Powell. Powell could have easily stopped the madness in its tracks by just quitting. He and he alone could have derailed the this political war and he didn't. This is Powell's war.

Either he was for it all along or he was against it. I suspect the latter which is far worse. He sold out himself and his country for a quiet cushy life among the equestrian set in suburban Virginia and some harebrained notion of loyalty.

Powell is just one of the criminals. There are many that are now speaking out that didn't when it could have made a difference. Wilkerson comes to mind.

But almost worse are these posturing pieces of shit like Hillary, that justify their complicity by claiming that they were hoodwinked and that "everybody thought Saddam had WMDS". Not only did Hillary sign on to the obvious lies, she is now lying to justify signing on to the lies.

Then you have Obama, selling us the same kind of Israeli nurtured horseshit about Iran that we were sold about Iraq.

One thing about it, the scum in Washington is growing on both sides of the aisle, and if we fumigate, we better make sure we get it all. Just cleaning out the Oval Office ain't gonna cut it.

Juan Cole had a post about Feith's "Vlemmo" scam. http://www.juancole.com/2007/05/bushies-just-made-it-up-saddam-al-qaeda.html

This passage stuck out for me:

"Feith had been investigated by the FBI earlier in his career as a possible Israeli intelligence asset and was raised in a fringe, far-rightwing Zionist family. His father was a member of Betar, the organization devoted to teachings of fascist Zionist thinker Vladimir (Ze'ev) Jabotinsky and to "Greater Israel" expansionism. Persons in this tradition often believe that Israel extends into Iraq itself."

It would be interesting to know whether Feith believes in a "Greater Israel." I have long suspected that at least some of the "brains" behind this fiasco in Iraq had a "Greater Israel" in mind. According to the Old Testament, God promised Abraham land that includes most of Iraq. I've often wondered how much of the blowback we're experiencing is due to the fact that most Muslims are no-doubt familiar with the God's promise to Abraham themselves and may see us as a proxy for Israel. Even if the warmongers were not motivated by this kind of radical Zionism.

Gen Franks was likely right in thinking Feith dumb -- which is saying something given how dumb he turned out to be -- but Alexander Cockburn's magazine, which is the source of the claim above that he was investigate by the FBI as a possible Israeli agent, simply isn't a credible source. That Cole references it without question isn't exactly a mark in his favor.

Powell, while striking me as a more honorable sort, is also of the mindset that the ends justify the means, having previously lied us into what (at the time) seemed like the right move (lying the public into Gulf War 1, along with Dick Cheney). I suspect that is why they are a bit puzzled by not being able to con the public another time, or at least, pull if off despite dissent. Lets not forget that it was Clinton, not GWB, that pissed off bin-Laden, and that while the number of Iraqis killed (about 1 million each?) are now about equal, Clinton caused deaths had a higher percentage of children.

None of this comes as a surprise, none of it at all.
Everything joves handsomely with Wolfowitz and Feith's jarring hostility toward what is termed "the reality-based community". These nimrods are no more capable of creating empires than they are making pigs fly but in their world wishing and demanding makes it so...until the blindfold falls off.

Unfortunately most of the American public is still blindfolded and balanced on the head of a pin, otherwise these two and several of their minions would be standing trial right now.

Birnbaum....and every American...needs to read the US-Israeli neoconservative manifesto

"A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm,

commonly referred to as the "Clean Break" report, was prepared in 1996 by a study group

led by Richard Perle for Benjamin Netanyahu, the then-Prime Minister of Israel.[1]

The report explained a new approach to solving Israel's security problems in the Middle East with an emphasis on "Western values". It has since been criticized for advocating an aggressive new policy and advancing right-wing Zionism.

Sidney Blumenthal's summary of the report:[4]

"Instead of trading land for peace, the neocons advocated tossing aside the Oslo agreements that established negotiations and demanding unconditional Palestinian acceptance of Likud's terms, peace for peace. Rather than negotiations with Syria, they proposed weakening, containing, and even rolling back Syria. They also advanced a wild scenario to redefine Iraq. Then King Hussein of Jordan would somehow become its ruler; and somehow this Sunni monarch would gain control of the Iraqi Shiites, and through them wean the south Lebanese Shia away from Hezbollah, Iran, and Syria."

"With several of the Clean Break paper's authors now holding key positions in Washington, the plan for Israel to transcend its foes by reshaping the Middle East looks a good deal more achievable today than it did in 1996. Americans may even be persuaded to give up their lives to achieve it."

the 'Clean Break' paper

"called for Israel to take steps to reorder the entire Middle East. Netanyahu did not follow their advice, but Feith, Perle and Wurmser were soon urging the Bush administration to pursue those same goals. The Ha’aretz columnist Akiva Eldar warned that Feith and Perle 'are walking a fine line between their loyalty to American governments ... and Israeli interests'."[7]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Clean_Break:_A_New_Strategy_for_Securing_the_Realm

"Many fascinating insights but an undercurrent of AIPAC conspiracy paranoia which in some of his readers' comments degenerates into the Jewish banker conspiracy theory of history. I don't think he's an anti-Semite (although some of his readers clearly are), but on the other hand he doesn't seem to have much clarity about where this kind of thinking can end up.
Posted by: larry birnbaum"

Never seen that there, Larry. I think you are a liar. Do you call Ze'ev maoz, Norman Finkelstein, Lenni Brenner and norm Chomsky anti-semites, too?

If the State of Israel and the Likud party loses it's meal ticket here, it's because of lying mendacious propagandists like you. You are the real anti-semites and the destruction of the state of Israel and bloodshed will be on your hands.

......but Alexander Cockburn's magazine, which is the source of the claim above that he was investigate by the FBI as a possible Israeli agent, simply isn't a credible source. That Cole references it without question isn't exactly a mark in his favor.

Posted by larry birnbaum

So, Birnbaum, how about we cite the Washington Post. Or are the facts still getting in the way of you finding the path out of Horseshit Alley? What is it with you people? You always have to attack the messenger because its the only way you can spread yuour pure unadulterated horseshit, and defend the indefensible?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A60497-2004Sep3?language=printer

Or hey, maybe CNN is more to your liking?

http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/08/27/fbi.spy/

Don't like CNN, birnbaum? Well just ask, there are plenty of other sources. I guess, when you make some BS comment like the one I quoted above, your ego just tells you that everyone is too ignorant to rebut, and they will just buy into your crap. Well, those days are over Birnbaum, eyes are opening up, Israel and AIPAC's unquestioned propaganda is beginning to be seen for what it actually is, an act of espionage and disinformation being employed by the agents of a foreign government.

BTW, I notice you are avoiding comments about AIPAC's lies that have been repeatedly exposed here. That speaks volumes about your true allegiance.

Let me be blunt, Birnbaum. You got booted from Col. Lang's the minute you opened your AIPAC fed bullshit spewing mouth. He doesn't take crap from little Keyboard Kommandos like you and no one here does either. Peddle your lame accusations of anti-semitism somewhere else. It's already a meaningless accusation. Most of us are pro-peace in the ME and pro-American, not pro-Palestinian or pro-Israeli. We are anti-AIPAC, anti-Zionist and anti-Likud, and damn proud of it. Deal with it. But do it somewhere else, please. Your sprurious charges of anti-Semitism just aren't even amusing enough to justify your continued presence here. You have nothing to add to the conversation.

http://www.counterpunch.org/green02282004.html

An excerpt......

Douglas Feith: Hardliner, Security Risk

Bush's appointment of Douglas Feith as DoD Undersecretary for Policy in early 2001 must have come as a surprise, and a harbinger, even to conservative veterans of the Reagan and George H.W. Bush Administration. Like Michael Ledeen, Feith is a prolific writer and well-known radical conservative. Moreover, he was not being hired as a DoD consultant, like Ledeen, but as the third most senior United States Defense Department official. Feith was certainly the first, and probably the last high Pentagon official to have publicly opposed the Biological Weapons Convention (in 1986), the Intermediate Nuclear Forces Treaty (in 1988), the Chemical Weapons Convention (in 1997), the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty (in 2000), and all of the various Middle East Peace agreements, including Oslo (in 2000).

Even more revealing perhaps, had the transition team known of it, was Feith's view of "technology cooperation," as expressed in a 1992 Commentary article: "It is in the interest of U.S. and Israel to remove needless impediments to technological cooperation between them. Technologies in the hands of responsible, friendly countries facing military threats, countries like Israel, serve to deter aggression, enhance regional stability and promote peace thereby."

What Douglas Feith had neglected to say, in this last article, was that he thought that individuals could decide on their own whether the sharing of classified information was "technical cooperation," an unauthorized disclosure, or a violation of U.S. Code 794c, the "Espionage Act."

Ten years prior to writing the Commentary piece, Feith had made such a decision on his own. At the time, March of 1972, Feith was a Middle East analyst in the Near East and South Asian Affairs section of the National Security Council. Two months before, in January, Judge William Clark had replaced Richard Allen as National Security Advisor, with the intention to clean house. A total of nine NSC staff members were fired, including Feith, who'd only been with the NSC for a year. But Feith was fired because he'd been the object of an inquiry into whether he'd provided classified material to an official of the Israeli Embassy in Washington. The FBI had opened the inquiry. And Clark, who had served in U.S. Army counterintelligence in the 1950's, took such matters very seriously.....more seriously, apparently, than had Richard Allen.

Feith did not remain unemployed for long, however. Richard Perle, who was in 1982 serving in the Pentagon as Assistant secretary for International Security Policy, hired him on the spot as his "Special Counsel," and then as his Deputy. Feith worked at ISP until 1986, when he left government service to form a small but influential law firm, then based in Israel.

In 2001, Douglas Feith returned to DoD as Donald Rumsfeld's Undersecretary for Policy, and it was in his office that "OSP", the Office of Special Plans, was created. It was OSP that originated--some say from whole cloth--much of the intelligence that Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld have used to justify the attack on Iraq, to miss-plan the post-war reconstruction there, and then to point an accusing finger at Iran and Syria.....all to the absolute delight of Prime Minister Ariel Sharon.

Pastor Hagee speaks at AIPAC saying Israel has no choice but to strike Iran

http://www.matthewyglesias.com/archives/2007/03/nice_bedfellows_youve_got_ther/

You'll need you tin foil hats for this one...

"So you see, John Hagee, who wants to see Israel adopt a hawkish foreign policy that he believes will result in its destruction at the hands of a Russo-Arab alliance is a friend of the Jews. By contrast, everyone who thinks a little pressure to make peace could wind up helping Israel in the long run is an anti-semite."

Some Neo-con Jews in positions of power
(and the positions they hold or recently held)

1). Paul Wolfowitz -- Deputy Defense Secretary, Bush's foreign policy campaign advisor. Appointed to the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency in 1973. Mark Green in his article Serving two flags: Neo-Cons, Israel and the Bush administration www.counterpunch.org noted: �Wolfowitz�brought to ACDA a strong attachment to Israel�s security, and a certain confusion about his obligation to U.S. national security.� Investigated in 1978 for passing classified documents to Israel through an American Israeli Public Affairs Committee intermediary. There was no indictment.

After the terrorist attacks of 9/11 Wolfowitz argued strongly for war with Iraq rather than with the center of power and training for Al Qaeda, Afghanistan.

2). Richard Perle -- One of George Bush's Foreign Policy Advisors. Chairman of the Pentagon's Defense Policy Board. A close personal friend of former prime minister of Israel Benjamin Netanyahu. in 1996, Perle was behind the report A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm written for the incoming Israeli Likud Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu.

In 1970 Pearle was recorded by the FBI discussing classified information with the Israeli Embassy. In 1981 he worked for an Israeli defense contractor. Also in 1981 he was appointed Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Policy an agency that monitors defense technology exports.

3). Douglas Feith -- Headed reconstruction in Iraq. Was Under Secretary of Defense and Policy Advisor at the Pentagon. He is a close associate of Perle and served as his Special Counsel.

Feith was fired from a position with the National Security Council in 1972 due to an investigation into his passing documents to the Israeli Embassy. In 1986 he opened a law firm in Israel Feith and Zell and later obtained a pardon for the Jewish arms dealer Marc Rich from president Clinton. During the late 80's and early 90's he wrote op-ed pieces in Israeli newspapers arguing for the Palestinians moving to Jordan and that the West Bank was a part of Israel. He also argued for regime change in Iraq. He is a founding member of One Jerusalem, an Israeli organization that wants no compromise with the Palestinians on any part of Jerusalem.

4). Elliott Abrams -- National Security Council Advisor. He previously worked at Washington-based "think tank" Ethics and Public Policy Center. He is associated with "think tanks" PNAC, AEI, CSP, JINSA, and with the Likud government in Israel. Close associate of Richard Perle, Bill Kristol, Marc Paul Gerecht, Michael Ledeen and Paul Wolfowitz. In his boo he calls for Jews to marry Jews and retain their ethnic cohesion. Convicted of lying to Congress in the Iran/Contra affair he was sentenced to 2 yrs. probation, 100 hours of community service and a $50.00 fine. He was given a Christmas pardon by Bush 1.

5). Abraham Shulsky-- Prot�g�e of Richard Pearle and friend of Paul Wolfowitz. He was appointed head of the Office of Special Plans which was under Feith and Wolfowitz. This office eventually became more powerful in relation to Iraq than the CIA or the Defense Intelligence Agency. It supplied the major portion of the fraudulent intelligence that was used by the Bush administration to justify the War in Iraq. It is believed that the OSP worked closely with Mossad to exaggerate Iraqi weapons estimates.

6). Stephen Bryen In 1978 he was investigated for offering classified documents to the Israeli Embassy's Mossad chief in front of a representative of the American Israeli Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC). From 1979 to 1981 Bryen served as executive director for the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs. He was hired by Richard Pearle during the Reagan years for the position of Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense. In 1988 Richard Pearle and Stephen Bryen temporarily got permission to export sensitive technology used in anti-ballistic missiles (klystron technology). Two senior Department of Defense colleagues said the attempt to export the technology was "standard operating procedure" for Stephen Bryen. They recalled numerous instances of US companies being unable to get export licensure for certain technologies only to find (US derived) copies being sold by Israel.

The investigation was closed after the Senate Foreign Relations Committee refused to grant access to the Justice Department's files and after Plilip Heymann, the Jewish chief of the Justice Department's Criminal Division (very active in the campaign to free Israeli spy Pollard) closed the investigation.

7). Michael Leeden Executive Director of the Jewish Institute of National Security Affairs 1977-1979. During the years of Ronald Regan Leeden was considered an agent of influence by the CIA and suspected of espionage by his superior at the Defense Department, Noel Koch. Consultant to Abraham Shulsky's Office of Special Plans that supplied fraudulent intelligence to the Bush Administration regarding Iraq.

(and Scooter Libby)

Some Jews in the United States Government
8). Michael Chertoff--Secretary of Homeland Security

9). Robert Satloff -- U.S. National Security Council Advisor; Satloff was the executive director of the Israeli lobby's "think tank," Washington Institute for Near East Policy.

10). Dov Zekheim -- Under Secretary of Defense and Comptroller. Ordained Rabbi.

11). Richard Haass -- Director of Policy Planning at the State Department and Ambassador at large. He is also Director of National Security Programs and Senior Fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR).

12). Robert Zoellick -- U.S. Trade Representative, a cabinet-level position.

13). Mel Sembler President of the Export-Import Bank of the United States. A Prominent Jewish Republican and Former National Finance Chairman of the Republican National Committee.

14). Joshua Bolten -- Bush's Chief Policy Director, banker and former legislative aide. Prominent in the Jewish community.

15). Steve Goldsmith -- Senior Advisor to the President, and Bush's Jewish domestic policy advisor.

16). Adam Goldman -- White House's Special Liaison to the Jewish Community.

17). Joseph Gildenhorn -- Bush Campaign's Special Liaison to the Jewish Community.

18). Christopher Gersten -- Former Executive Director of the Republican Jewish Coalition, husband of Labor Secretary Linda Chavez.

19). Daniel Saul Goldin -- Head of NASA, National Aeronautics and Space Administration.

20). Mark Weinberger -- Assistant Secretary of the Treasury.

21). Samuel Bodman -- Deputy Secretary of Commerce.

22). Bonnie Cohen -- Under Secretary of State for Management.

23). Ruth Davis -- Director of Foreign Service Institute, who reports to the Office of Under Secretary for Management. This Office is responsible for training all Department of State staff including ambassadors.

24). Lincoln Bloomfield -- Assistant Secretary of State for Political Military Affairs.

25). Jay Lefkowitz -- General Counsel of the Office of Budget and Management.

26). David Frum -- White House speechwriter

27). Brad Blakeman--White House Director of Scheduling

28). I Lewis Libby--Chief of Staff to Vice President Cheny, former lawyer for Marc Rich (Jewish arms dealer), whom Bill Clinton pardoned, member of Rockefeller�s Council on Foreign Relations.

29). Adam Goldman White House liaison to the Jewish Community (2001-03)

30). Cliff Sobel--Ambassador to the Netherlands

31). Stuart Bernstein--Ambassador to Denmark

32). Nancy Brinker--Ambassador to Hungary

33). Frank Lavin--Ambassador to Singapore

34). Ron Weiser--Ambassador to Slovakia

35). Martin Silverstein--Ambassador to Uruguay

36). Jay Lefkowitz--Deputy Assistant to the President and Director of the Domestic Policy Council

37). Blake Gottsman--President's personal aide

37). Daniel Fried--Special Assistant to President and Senior Director for European and Eurasian Affairs

38). Stephen Friedman--Senior White House Economic Adviser, member of the Council on Foreign Relations and Rockefeller's powerful Trilateral Commission .

40). Max Kampelman--Geneva Arms Talks negotiator

39). Marc Grossman -- Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs. He was Director General of the Foreign Service and Director of Human Resources at the Department of State.

40). Henry Kissinger -- One of many Pentagon Advisors, Kissinger is on the Pentagon's Defense Policy Board.

41). James Schlesinger -- One of many Pentagon Advisors, Schlesinger also is on the Pentagon's Defense Policy Board.

42). Ari Fleischer -- Former White House Spokesman for the Bush (Jr) Administration 2001-2003. Prominent in the Jewish community.___________

I'm glad Lawrence Wilkerson has the tenacity to defend himself and Powell. However, I still think Powell is sitting on a key piece of information that could help us better understand how this whole thing went down. Steve, I wonder if you would consider using your influence to get Powell on the record about the run up to the war in Iraq?

One more thing: If everyone knows Feith is an idiot, how on earth did he continue to get high-level positions? Even if he had well-connected friends, don't you think his sheer lack of knowledge would reflect negatively on them at some point?

I hate these "Jews in the US government" posts. They really just play into the hands of those that use the accusation of "anti-semitism" to rebut any criticism of AIPAC or Israel.

The issue is NOT about Jews. It is about politicians and organizations that place Israel's interests above our own. Certainly, someone can be Jewish, yet still hold a stronger allegiance to the United States than they do to Israel. Just because a representative might be Catholic, are we then going to claim they favor Italy's interests over our own?

This thing about "Jews" and "anti-semitism" just clouds the true issue, which is one of allegiance. It is not an individual's religion that is the barometer of their patriotism, rather it is their actions that are the true indicaters of their allegiance.

I'm glad Lawrence Wilkerson has the tenacity to defend himself and Powell. However, I still think Powell is sitting on a key piece of information that could help us better understand how this whole thing went down. Steve, I wonder if you would consider using your influence to get Powell on the record about the run up to the war in Iraq?

One more thing: If everyone knows Feith is an idiot, how on earth did he continue to get high-level positions? Even if he had well-connected friends, don't you think his sheer lack of knowledge would reflect negatively on them at some point?

Could we please leave the Jew counting to Malek?

Many truly unpleasant remarks above. People tell you what they are.

Still throwing horseshit, eh Birnbaum? Well, what else can you do, seeing as how you can't argue facts?

Birnbaum, I don't think you have any room to complain. In fact, I'm surprised you still have the balls to come back here. You impugned an honorable man, Pat Lang, for no other reason than that he doesn't agree with giving Israel—a foreign country—carte blanche access to our councils of state. You've exposed yourself as an agent of influence, a disinformation agent.

It is truly a shame that many Jewish-Americans who've reached positions of power and influence seem to place the interests of a foreign country ahead of those of their own nation. It is equally a shame that Jewish-Americans, the vast majority of whom are fine, loyal citizens, are tarred by the actions of these people.

Birnbaum, Israel is a foreign country. Its interests do not necessarily coincide with the best interests of our nation. One need only reference Jonathon Pollard, who rightly still languishes in a federal prison despite the best efforts of the Israeli government and a few unsavory Americans. One might also reference the Liberty in determining how Israel views the United States.

Birnbaum, you are, as are some of the high-level politicians cited, clearly a person of conflicted loyalties. Which makes you essentially stateless persons. It seems the diaspora is more important than allegiance to the United States. It is a pity that you'll never understand the greatness of this nation and can never be truly loyal to it. Loyality is like a marriage, where forsaking all others is the most important ingredient.

I guess I'm really weary of Lawrence Wilkerson running around trying to get Colin Powell off the hook, but, especially weary that he's given a platform. A platform of any kind.

Please stop.

It's really amazing how Powell has been fawned on over through the years, especially by the press and even now, casual observers of public matters buy into the Wilkerson line about Powell and how he was scamed by that charlatan George Tenet.

The fact is, Colin Powell shouldn't have been there to be scammed. For that matter George Tenet shouldn't have been there for the scamming.

Both men knew that an invasion of Iraq was wrong and a catastrophe in the making.

Both men should have resigned long before and went public with their objections and should have revealed what they'd seen on the inside.

But Powell's the main character here. He's the one with the high name recognition. He's the one worshipped by the celebrity press.

Colin Powell rose to the top of the military because he was an intelligent man who knew how to PROTECT his superiors. In the Bush administration he remained a loyal soldier.

Whether it's people like Tenet who're loyal to remain a 'part of it' or Powell who salutes and says yes sir, the nation is not served when high public officials forget that their only real loyalty SHOULD be to the American people.

I remember hearing that Tenet and Feith both teach now at Georgetown University. What in the world is that university thinking?

All these people who conceived and executed the take over of our government changed the laws that would have impeded their coup.

Now everything is in place for the next step and the new Congress has not restored Habeas Corpus, is doing nothing to stop the illegal eavesdropping programs or the privatization of government functions to allow passing under the radar of Congressional oversight.

They draw attention to one subject while they advance a pawn to facilitate a total hi-jacking of government at the time of their choosing. If you ask the question of what their main objective is I think the answer must be - Staying in Power.
Everything else depends on that. Cheney has nothing to loose. He has lost his health, his reputation and credibility. All he has left is the power of brute force which seems to be his favorite tool, and the semi-clandestinely of his operations.

Youtube has a student video of what will surely be an unforgettable moment for Andrew Card.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dp4MYii7MqA

This is the kind of reception they should all receive each time they leave what should be house arrest by popular protest.

A transcript of the forum on May 7th is available at http://tinyurl.com/2f995q.

Sorry for the long quote below but it's worth reading for the evaluations on the WMD intelligence by both Lang and Goodman.

'Lang: Well, I had the advantage of being around in DIA in the first Gulf War, and for several years thereafter, before I left to go into business, and I knew, with great certainty, having participated, along with my friends and companions out at CIA, in the total destruction of the Iraq nuclear program, to the point that—I won't say how we did that, but it was a very thorough job. And that went on for a couple years, and it wasn't any doubt at all, that it was just wreckage, and the only thing left were a bunch of people, maybe 5,000 scientists, engineers, technicians, who were very smart folks who had nothing to work with. And we knew that was just gone.

And then, if you talk about the biological weapons program, that was never more than research, in my opinion. It was research... Every Arab country plays around with biological warfare research. It's kind of a prestige item. It shows "we're big people," you know that "we're doing that kind of stuff."

And then there was the chemical weapons thing. Well, you know, people are frightened of chemical weapons with good reason. In this room here, some sarin would wipe us all out easily. But this is not really a strategic weapon. In fact, this is really a battlefield tactical weapon. Even the most persistent kinds are not persistent for a very great period of time. And it isn't the kind of thing you can threaten the life of a great country with, really. It's harassment basically. Even a real job in the subway in Tokyo, but you know, including in the subway in New York City; yet this is not something which threatens the life of the United States.

So, people started talking about how this guy had these weapons programs, I knew for a fact that the BW [biological weapons] thing, and the chemical thing, even though I'd been away for a few years—I'd been hanging around the Middle East all that time, since I left—and I knew very well that these things did not fill the bill for the terrible, terrible threat that was being portrayed. And the nuclear program, we'd smashed it up so totally that I didn't see how they could be doing more than maybe trying, after '98—that's when the inspectors left. And after they'd left, maybe they were trying to resume some kind of furtive thing. But this is a big enterprise, making nuclear weapons. This is not something you do in your garage. And you have to have an awful lot of equipment, and people, and stuff.

So, my impression was, when I started to listen to this, and the drumbeat got higher and higher, and heavier and heavier all the time, that there's something really screwy about this. There's something here that doesn't add up. In fact, in terms of what the realities could possibly be, what they could be doing.

So, I became increasingly suspicious as time went along after 9/11. Here we kept hearing this more and more and more. And then it became increasingly clear after a while, that the intelligence was being driven, the analysis of information and the evaluation of the information, was being driven by policy, rather than being a free-standing object intended to limit policy, which is the way I always did it. (People always thought I was pretty limited anyway.)

And, in fact, I thought there was something very basically wrong. But I'll shut up there, because other people will have other things to say, and I could go on for a couple hours.

The CIA Caved In to the Administration

Goodman: Well, let me make three points, to join what Pat was saying.

Number One, you have to realize that the best source of intelligence that the CIA had, was the fact that they had operational people on the United Nations inspector teams. They had a significant number in every round of inspection. And they were there to collect intelligence, not only in terms of WMD, but on Saddam Hussein, and on a variety of Iraqi chiefs.

When the UN inspectors left, and tried to get back in after Desert Fox, the Clinton bombing attack on Iraq in 1998, Saddam Hussein said no. What that meant was the CIA lost the very best intelligence collection, the clandestine collection that it had. The reason why this is important, is, they went from 1998, when they had some collection, and were very cautious about what they said about chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons—and if you look at all of their intelligence throughout the '90s, up to '98, they were extremely cautious—they went in 2002, all of a sudden, with no additional collection, the CIA claims they have high confidence—and Tenet talks about high confidence in this book.

So, I knew that was nonsense. They had no reason to be confident, and they had no reason to claim that they had any specific information, because for four years, they had nothing.

The second point that's important—and remember I was at the War College then, so I still had all the clearances I had when I was at the CIA—I called up NSA colleagues from times past when I worked on the Soviet Union, and I basically asked them, without telling me anything in terms of sources and methods, what were they picking up that would give them any indication that Iraq was working on either chemical weapons, biological weapons, or nuclear weapons?

Now, the background of that was, I knew from my Soviet experience, there was no way that Iraq, or any other country, could be moving things around without certain circuits pulsing, that NSA [the National Security Agency] had access to, particularly in the Middle East. NSA knew there was nothing in terms of nuclear weapons.

So, if NSA says there was nothing—and I consider NSA a very fine professional outfit, and in some ways, it's the most professional outfit in the intelligence community—it was clear to me that there was nothing there.

Then, the third thing that's very important, and gets to the heart of the corruption of the tradecraft of the CIA—and this is what I blame Tenet for, as much as anything else: Not only did they politicize the intelligence, but they didn't honor any of the basic tradecraft of how you go about doing intelligence analysis. The fact of the matter is, the CIA had made a decision—I think they made it in August/September of 2002—basically to cave in to the Administration and to give them what they wanted.

The White House, according to the Downing Street memo, had decided to fuse the issues of terrorism and WMD, to make a case for war, and [then head of British MI6 Richard] Dearlove, the author of that memo, has said that the agency was fixing its intelligence to that policy. And the clearest indication of that was the very good intelligence the CIA was collecting on the fact that Iraq had nothing. And that was intelligence from Saddam Hussein's son-in-law, remember, who defected, went out to Jordan in the middle of the 1990s, somewhere around '94 or '95; he was debriefed by the Jordanians, and debriefed by the CIA, and he told them, since he was the head of the Iraqi military mobilization department, he was responsible for destroying a lot of the chemical and biological stocks and missiles—they didn't have a nuclear program after '91—and he told them all of this.

The CIA didn't put any of this information in its finished intelligence products.

Number two, the CIA was doing a very good job in recruiting a former foreign minister of Iraq by the name of Sabri, until the White House said, lay off of Sabri, we don't want his information any more. As Tyler Drumheller says in his very useful book, this isn't about WMD any more, this is about regime change. Well, Sabri was telling us everything we needed to know about what Iraq did not have.

And also the CIA had a very curious character who I'm not going to get into by the name of Charlie Allen, who's now over at the Department of Homeland Security, who was very controversial at CIA, but he came up with something very interesting in the 2002 period. It was Charlie Allen's idea to go around the country, to find Iraqi-Americans who had relatives in Iraq who worked in the weapons area, who were scientists, engineers, technicians. Send them back to Baghdad and Iraq, before the war started, to see what they could find out from family members, who had access. These people came back, and they reported, and they said, "All of these programs have been shut down."

And again, the CIA had never printed any of this material in the President's daily brief, in the National Intelligence Estimates, in any kind of intelligence assessment.

So, what the CIA did, and it's a violation of the Holy Grail—I mean, this is the worst possible thing you can do, they ignored all of the intelligence that you could argue, you could make one series of assumptions from, and they trumped up the intelligence that for the most part was single source, or primary source. And any good investigator or reporter—Knut is one of the best investigative reporters, and he'll tell you that you don't go into print with one source—and that's exactly what the CIA did. They found the source that told them what they needed to know. And when I testified against Bob Gates in 1991, when he was confirmed as CIA Director, I said the CIA and Gates and Bill Casey were guilty of judge-shopping in the courthouse. That's what exactly what George Tenet did. It's what John McLaughlin did. It's what Paul Pillar did, it's what Robert Walpole did, and it's what Alan Foley did. And it's totally unconscionable, and it needs to be corrected.'

The mobile bio weapons labs were on their very face a joke. An almost impossibility and even if possible in some limited sense of absolutely no strategic significance. The biggest joke however was branding bio weapons as weapons of mass destruction. This was the silliest sort of rhetorical game. There are nuclear weapons and then everything else.

Saddam's Iraq had no navy, no air force, and a ill equipped ill trained poorly motivated army. As for it's nuclear program Saddam still had some old radium dial watches stuffed in a drawer somewhere I'm guessing. I suppose that's a bit to flippant but .the UN inspectors proved again and again what common sense dictated. That the poor weak Iraqi regime could not possibly marshal the resources to build a workable nuclear weapon. In any case how was this imaginary weapon going to be delivered, by camel?

No 'facts' about bio weapons labs could possibly have been material at all in the decision to invade Iraq. Only because the great Colin himself brought this pile of stool into UN chambers was it believed to be of any importance at all. After watching his performance I kept thinking of the first Conan movie where James Earl Jones was the cult leader and in one of the funnies lines in movie history someone said " I thought it was just another snake cul.t"

The US had been taken over by not just another snake cult but the bestest one ever.

It appears that Birnbaum has fled the commentary. It is a shame that the "anti-semitism" card cannot be as easily trumped in the MSM and Washington DC as it can be on a blog such as this. It is astounding how little substance people such as Israel/AIPAC apologists like Birnbaum can actually bring to the discourse. Show them a few facts, quote a few sources, ask for a rebuttal, and poof, they dissappear. It is particularly telling when one notes their total absence when actual irrefutable campaigns of misinformation are exposed, such as the attention I recently drew to AIPAC's blatant lies, as posted on their website recently about Nanatz. Its not the first time I have linked to the AIPAC website, and exposed the blatant and irrefutable disinformation that AIPAC engages in. And not one single time has Birnbaum or his ilk offered an explanation, justification, or rebuttal to the obvious existence of an active and irrefutably deceptive propaganda program being waged by AIPAC designed to affect public opinion in regards to the threat that Iran poses.

Oh well. At least more people are speaking up on the blogs, and nipping this "anti-semitic" horseshit off a lot quicker, and a lot more effectively.

Gen Franks was likely right in thinking Feith dumb -- which is saying something given how dumb he turned out to be -- but Alexander Cockburn's magazine, which is the source of the claim above that he was investigate by the FBI as a possible Israeli agent, simply isn't a credible source. That Cole references it without question isn't exactly a mark in his favor.

Posted by larry birnbaum at May 26, 2007 05:01 PM
>>>>>>>>>>>

On the contrary, the article was entirely credible.

It was a recounting of the FBI interviewing Stephen Green. The FBI was seeking to know what Green knew about certain people...Feith, Perle, Wolfowitz and some others. And Stephen Green is completely credible. Besides the information about the prior investigation of Perle and Feith and Wolf have been published by many sources. And verified by many other people including goverment officials who were in goverment at the time the investigations took place.

I think you are wasting your time bashing real experts like Lang, Cole and Green. If you have something real, show it otherwise you just sound silly.

POA writes: "I hate these "Jews in the US government" posts. They really just play into the hands of those that use the accusation of "anti-semitism" to rebut any criticism of AIPAC or Israel."

I quite agree. The problem for progressives, however, is that the honest and true criticism of Israel and AIPAC...and the "Jews in the US Government" posts...are often, in their effect, like two streams that empty into the same river.

Honest criticism of the Lobby is necessary, but it is important to be aware that it also gives fuel to the true anti-Semites who use these arguments as proof of their own.

This is equally a problem for patriotic Jewish Americans who have strong feelings for Israel.

POA writes: "AIPAC paranoia??? AIPAC is lying their asses off on their website, as I have pointed out, repeatedly here. Not only are the slimey pieces of shit lying to us on their website, like that last bit of horseshit they ran about Iran blocking inspections of Nanatz, but they are in turn removing the propaganda, and not archiving it, so their slimey lying crap can be denied after they've managed to get their Congressional whores in Washington to spill American blood in Iran."

There is no question that AIPAC has a strong position and pushes it very hard, even in an underhanded ways, see: McCollum. As I've said many times, I oppose AIPAC and its positions.

However, the question in my mind is...in what sense does AIPAC CONTROL the actions of some 500 lawmakers and hundreds of career policymakers? If AIPAC is "running the show," it's only because all of these other folks have relinquished the power they have. AIPAC has no power other than through these people. This is a fact that seems to escape you. It also seems to escape you that any number of other groups in the US are pushing the same agenda. For example, the religious right. And yet, by comparison, one hardly ever hears about them on these comments.

The fact that AIPAC "lies" on its site is laughable. First, as I've said before, about .000001% of the American public, if that, reads the AIPAC site; and those who do have many other sources of information on, say, Iran's nuclear program. So the notion that AIPAC is controlling public opinion on, let's say, Iran, just isn't credible. They do a much better job with the lawmakers.

Second, the notion that "information" on the AIPAC is a "lie" or turns out not to be true, or is pulled down and not archived so it can be later denied is equally laughable. So what? Every group pushes the facts that support its arguments. Period. Web politics is nothing but one big argument. How often does Kos publish information that doesn't further his political views or aims? But since you bring up this point, I will say this:

A while back you brought up the squib on the AIPAC site that quoted the NY Times on Iran's progress toward a nuclear weapon. And then you said (rightly) that if one read the entire Times article, there were lots of qualifiers about the obstacles that still remained, etc., etc. So I DID read the article, at your suggestion: AIPAC quoted the articles LEAD three or four paras, the most important part of the article from a news standpoint. You wanted us to pay attention to the LESSER important part of the article, the paras down below. Arguably, you were distorting the Times article more than AIPAC. And, in fact, the WaPo, which you now seem to like or trust, has followed up with at least one front page article, quoting El Baradei, on how Iran is making faster progress than expected, how it's hard for the IAEI to get access to the sites, etc. So my point is, AIPAC is playing it up...and you're playing it down...but I'd say you're distoring here as much as they are.

As to Publius, here is what Birnbaum said, "I respect Col. Lang's service to our country. I used to read his blog but began finding the tone of some of his comments and those of his readers rather ugly. I just checked it out again, and it's pretty much the same."

Here is what you said, apparently as a rejoinder: "Birnbaum, I don't think you have any room to complain. In fact, I'm surprised you still have the balls to come back here. You impugned an honorable man, Pat Lang, for no other reason than that he doesn't agree with giving Israel—a foreign country—carte blanche access to our councils of state. You've exposed yourself as an agent of influence, a disinformation agent."

By Web standards, what Birnbaum said was pretty mild. Also, it expressed his personal reactions. He never put forward the proposition that Israel should have carte blanche? Where do you read that? In what sense did he "impugn" Lang's "honor"? By finding some of his remarks "ugly"? More importantly, how has Birnbaum "exposed" himself as an "agent of influence" or a "disinformation agent?"

As to LWM's comment that Birnbaum got "booted," I suppose he has some words from Lang to that effect. Care to quote them?
Starting your sentence with "Most of us are..." simply shows the
need some commenters have to cleanse these threads of anyone who strongly disagrees with them. You don't like what Birnbaum says? Too bad.

Well here is a summer project for everyone.

Federal Bureau of Investigation
J. Edgar Hoover Building
935 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW

Write a letter to Robert Meuller and demand he investigate the neos and/or politicians of your choice ..and be sure to cc it to the politican.

Fed'ex them both and require a signature of receipt.

AMAZING!!!! Its a weekend MP!

So, MP's argument boils down to....

"Although I don't like AIPAC, it really is no big deal that they are lying to the American public. So what?"

Well, MP, your assertion that you aren't in AIPAC's camp is a lie. Anyone that cares to can go back to your early posts, and marvel at your apparent metamorphosis.

And your apparent rationalization about the lies being confined to the AIPAC website is just yet another example of your obvious attempts to marginalize the impact AIPAC has on American politicians and on our foreign policies. The AIPAC website is merely a gauge of AIPAC's disinfornmation program. It is ignorant to think the same deceptions are not being sent out in newsletters, marketed at conferences, dispersed to the media, and handed to the bought and paid for Washington politicians as talking points to advance the propaganda.

And as far as your insinuation that these AIPAC deceptions are not actual "lies", I note you completely avoid comment on the latest lie I pointed out on the AIPAC website, about the Iranians blocking the IAEA's access to Nanatz.

You tell us, MP, why did they not archive that article, as they do with 99.9% of the articles they put on their website? The fact is, when actual BLATANT lies have been posted at that site, they do not get archived. They simply dissappear. Why?

"As to LWM's comment that Birnbaum got "booted," I suppose he has some words from Lang to that effect. Care to quote them?"

One can easily draw the conclusion that MP has some sort of "inside information" here about whether or not LWM's assertions are accurate.

Think about it.

Posted by MP at May 27, 2007 02:04 PM
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

birnbaum can say whatever he wants but....let me say about Lang...I read him about once a week and think he has the experience and background in the ME to be accurate in what he says ...

Also,....if you read thru Lang's reponse to comments it is clear he doesn't suffer fools lightly and insults any and all commenters that stray off into la-la land on what he post.

What birnbaum is doing though is using a left handed way to imply that Lang is somehow fostering some anti-semitic site.
I have seen criticism of Israel on there but not the anti jewish rants he alludes to. It seems more that birnbam doesn't like Lang's "more realistic" take on the Israeli part or position among all the ME actors. That is the part he should address if he wants to instead of the mild but not so subtle smearing of Lang.

But I agree we should stick to specific people in our criminal witch hunts, be they jewish or non jewish, instead of diluting it with "these people" and 'those people" and etc...publishing list of jews in goverment does nothing constructive....the list of those in gov who should hang for our current FUBAR is divided about equally between jews and gentiles.

MP has it exactly right except he doesn't go into the RW christian take over of that group. It is mainly made up of far right jews (neocons) and "christian zionists" who have not and are not acting in the interests of either Israel or US. That this absolutely bizarre group has so much influence is preposterous but it is not because they "represent" the Jews in US who are barely 2% of the population. Congress critters don't kowtow to 2% of the pop; they react to the power and noise makers of the Right wing.

That some of the Israli pols like Sharon were right wing "strong men" don't mean that even the majority of Isralis or of US jews are. Sharon was elected by a people that were scarded by Arafat's second infatada just like the US reelected that RW idiot we have based in fear he spewed. The movers and shakers of the neo-cons like Feith are brilliant at using and corrupting everything they touch. They brought a power mode and access to AIPAC and rightwingers, especially those that want to hasten Armageddon, are riding high.

What we need to do is to figure out how to disenchant the Congress critters from obeisance to AIPAC.

AIPAC is evil; its bad for Israel; for Jews; for the US and for democracy.
sam

That still does not excuse Powell and Wilkerson about the WMD vans. As I laid out in my post here,
Stupider than Screen Sided Submarines the falsehood did not need a personal inspection to see how crazy the idea was.

Worse they had careful drawings showing that these were not enclosed, air conditioned, level five containment structures, but plain ole canvas, colored dark brown, sitting in the Iraqi sun.

How stupid does a concept have to be before assurances fail to overcome what just looking at the picture can tell.

Buying into MP's assertion of his own chagrin at the machinations of AIPAC and Israel is naive. Virtually all his posts qualify his feigned chagrin with a "yeah but" that inevitably seeks to rationalize and justify the influence AIPAC has on American politicians and our foreign policies in regards to the middle east. His defense of Birnbaum's scripted horseshit should tell us all we need to know about MP's motivations and allegiances. As I have commented before, I cannot stand dishonest framing of debate. And MP's assertions of opposition to AIPAC epitomizes the concept of argument based on false premise.

MP is a master at skirting around direct queries about his more outrageous bullshit, such as his recent crap about the AIPAC conference, the reception Cheney recieved, and his assertion that the WP regularly runs articles about "the plight of the Palestinians".

He has also regularly sought to minimize the relevance and viability of the two presidential candidates that have vocally opposed AIPAC, Kucinich and Ron Paul.

So while voicing an opposition to AIPAC, (an opposition completely polar to his original stance here), he is usually engaged in an insinuated defense of AIPAC's techniques, as well as engaged in an attempt to minimize the percieved influence AIPAC and Israel has in shaping American foreign policy.

Colin Powell "SOLD his Soul" to become a Political Player as a US Army Major in the Americal Division in 1968 when faced with investigating "alleged" US Atrocities.

He knew nothing and saw nothing...the Perfect Sgt. Schultz Defense. Google it for the details.

POA writes: "So, MP's argument boils down to....

"Although I don't like AIPAC, it really is no big deal that they are lying to the American public. So what?"

ME: I don't say it's "no big deal." I say that they don't control American foreign policy except to the degree that duly elected US lawmakers and the rest of the government let them.

Well, MP, your assertion that you aren't in AIPAC's camp is a lie.

ME: Prove it.

Anyone that cares to can go back to your early posts, and marvel at your apparent metamorphosis.

ME: I'm willing to look at anything I've posted earlier, if anyone finds it worth their time. If I've changed or refined my views, I would say that that is the product of this ongoing discussion and, therefore, a GOOD thing.

And your apparent rationalization about the lies being confined to the AIPAC website is just yet another example of your obvious attempts to marginalize the impact AIPAC has on American politicians and on our foreign policies.

ME: No; I'm marginalizing the impact the AIPAC website has on PUBLIC opinion. I think they have a big impact on politicians--unfortunately. But that doesn't let the politicians off the hook.

The AIPAC website is merely a gauge of AIPAC's disinfornmation program. It is ignorant to think the same deceptions are not being sent out in newsletters, marketed at conferences, dispersed to the media, and handed to the bought and paid for Washington politicians as talking points to advance the propaganda.

ME: True--but my point had to do with the public. I also don't think it's possible for AIPAC to buy and sell all the Washington politicians. That imputes to them a power they simply don't have. Ultimately, in terms of political Darwinianism, all politicians care about is getting elected and re-elected, and AIPAC doesn't have the power to elect a majority of the politicians. Even MJ Rosenberg will tell you that. The Jewish establishment doesn't have THAT much money, especially as compared to the other establishments. And they certainly don't control that many votes. All the Jews in America comes to about 2-3% of the voting public--and AIPAC represents a tiny fraction of that 2-3%. You see, THIS is the source of Birnbaum's plaint: This argument parallels very closely the ridiculous arguments about Jewish bankers controlling everything, starting all the wars, etc.

And as far as your insinuation that these AIPAC deceptions are not actual "lies", I note you completely avoid comment on the latest lie I pointed out on the AIPAC website, about the Iranians blocking the IAEA's access to Nanatz.

ME: I didn't read about the latest "lie." However, I did explore your comment about the NY Times article and found it wanting.

You tell us, MP, why did they not archive that article, as they do with 99.9% of the articles they put on their website? The fact is, when actual BLATANT lies have been posted at that site, they do not get archived. They simply dissappear. Why?

ME: This line of argumentation is very similar to the dubious points you make about 9/11. First, I don't know if they haven't archived it. Second, I don't know if they archive ALL articles. Third, it's possible they made a mistake and forgot to archive it. Fourth, it's possible their technology accidentally deleted it. Fifth, it's entirely possible that they read your post; realized the errors of their ways; and didn't want even a trace of this untruth sitting on their site where unsuspecting and trusting cow farmers might read it and drive their tractors to D.C. demanding war with Iran. In short, I don't know; nor do I think it's a revealing question if we could ever answer it accurately.

As to this: "One can easily draw the conclusion that MP has some sort of "inside information" here about whether or not LWM's assertions are accurate. Think about it."

ME: I will think about it. LWM made an ASSERTION--that Birnbaum had gotten booted. That suggests that HE has "inside" knowledge, not me. I merely asked him to back up his assertion, because I thought it was extraordinary.

Carroll writes: "What birnbaum is doing though is using a left handed way to imply that Lang is somehow fostering some anti-semitic site. I have seen criticism of Israel on there but not the anti jewish rants he alludes to. It seems more that birnbam doesn't like Lang's "more realistic" take on the Israeli part or position among all the ME actors. That is the part he should address if he wants to instead of the mild but not so subtle smearing of Lang."

I read Lang irregularly, but liked him a great deal when he appeared a great deal on TV during the run up to the war. I don't know if Birnbaum is correct about the rants, but it's also possible that you missed them or interpreted them differently. I would ask Birnbaum to supply the ugly comments he references, either by Lang or his commenters. However, I don't see any evidence HERE--as Publius claims--that Birbaum has dishonored Lang. Lang apparently doesn't cut others slack; why should others cut him slack? He ain't infallible after all.

Again, as far as Web discourse goes--especially of the POA variety--Birnbaum's comment on its face was mild. I myself would insist that Birnbaum back up his comments, but frankly if I did that with every baseless comment on these threads, I'd be working full time.

Sam writes: "What we need to do is to figure out how to disenchant the Congress critters from obeisance to AIPAC."

Yes. I try to support other voices within the Jewish community, such as MJ's IPF.

Again, as far as Web discourse goes--especially of the POA variety--Birnbaum's comment on its face was mild. I myself would insist that Birnbaum back up his comments, but frankly if I did that with every baseless comment on these threads, I'd be working full time.

Posted by MP

ROFLMAO!!!!! Tell us about the Washington Post again MP. Or lets hear your depiction of Cheney's reception at AIPAC.

And I did ask Birnbaum to back up his comments. Thats when he slithered out of the conversation.

POA writes: "So while voicing an opposition to AIPAC, (an opposition completely polar to his original stance here), he is usually engaged in an insinuated defense of AIPAC's techniques, as well as engaged in an attempt to minimize the percieved influence AIPAC and Israel has in shaping American foreign policy."

My point about AIPAC is this: It's a creature of the AMERICAN political system in its current incarnation. It wields power the same way--and with as much interest in "the truth"--as other powerful lobbies. I'm NOT defending those techniques, but they are what they are. However, I'm not sure it's fair or right to complain when one group works the system and not when the others do the same.

In terms of what I'm reading, including from Steve, it appears that American foreign policy has more influence on Israel than the other way. For example, it appears that during the Lebanon War, Washington wanted Israel to expand the conflict to Syria and Israel did not. Israel has been carrying on long-term discussions with Syria, and Washington has been opposed to these and, at one point, wanted Israel to cut them off. AIPAC wanted the American embassy moved to Jerusalem, and Rabin objected, successfully.

AIPAC is evil; its bad for Israel; for Jews; for the US and for democracy.
sam

Posted by sam dobermann at May 27, 2007 03:18 PM
>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Yes AIPAC is evil.

Not being jewish my concern is more for my country than Israel. But also, any Jew not fighting AIPAC and Israel in what is going on in Isr-Pal has more to lose than I do. If AIPAC and the right wing Jews and their fellow neos get their way with Iran the US will be hurt, but ultimately the Jewish community in this country will be tarred with the same brush as AIPAC and will be finished politically and in the eyes of the public for all intents and purposes. The "christian" zionist will slither out of all responsibility for their part when the tide turns and be the first ones to dennounce the Jewish influence.

No matter what other motives others besides AIPAC and Israel may have for attacking Iran..the conservation about cutting Israel out of America is going to only become more so. While I am all for getting Israel and AIPAC meddling out of our goverment and congress I don't want a war with Iran to get that job done.

Better to ratchet up the pressure and criticism and action against these people and their congress gofers by calling a spade a spade.

Yes. I try to support other voices within the Jewish community, such as MJ's IPF.

Posted by MP

Yeah right. Its interesting you have never mentioned them here. Nor have you ever mentioned "Peace Now" or "Americans for Peace Now".

In MP's world, you constantly defend that that you are opposed to, and don't mention that that you support. Kinda bizarre, but there you have it.

POA writes: "Yeah right. Its interesting you have never mentioned them here. Nor have you ever mentioned "Peace Now" or "Americans for Peace Now"."

I can't count the number of times I've mentioned MJ or IPF.

In local government any town USA there is a pervasiveness to slow down things, make it impossible for hard working employees to get promoted, etc. This is their M.O. And I believe that the USA govenment does exactly that. They want to hold their positions so they make it hard for good, talented workers to gain on them.

"However, I'm not sure it's fair or right to complain when one group works the system and not when the others do the same"

Oh, give us a break. "Fair", my ass. How do you dream this shit up? Care to tell us what role the NRA, the AMA, the tobacco industry, or any of the other lobbys had to do with contributing to the LIES that facilitated the invasion of Iraq? Or how are these lobbys helping to exagerate the threat posed by Iran? Why is it you have to always lay these asinine beds of straw around your arguments. The statement "However, I'm not sure it's fair or right to complain when one group works the system and not when the others do the same" has to be one of the stupidist statements I have yet seen you make. But hey, keep it up, stupid beats dishonest, any day of the week.

"I can't count the number of times I've mentioned MJ or IPF."

Posted by MP

Thats sure the truth. Just like we can't count the number of times martians have abducted our president.

I`d be interested in knowing how much folks like Mr. Birnbaum get paid to spread that misinformation & propaganda. Seems one might make a decent income given how much it is done. Hello IRS.

"...there is an eroticism of money..." - Neue Zurcher Zeitung

I appreciate the points you have raised, MP. It did bother me that Larry Birnbaum suggested I am anti-Semitic (he quoted my words back in a later post, e.g.). I am NOT!

My problem is with the neo-conservative "movement" and the strong arm tactics they and their followers (both Jewish and Gentiles, yes) believe in as their modus operandi. They believe in, and promote, war to achieve their ends. That, in and of itself, is to me outrageous. That's what makes me livid...gets me going. And, while the AIPAC is but one group (the most powerful) it's the most successful in promoting neo-con beliefs and agenda. Now then....MP, you said:

"However, the question in my mind is...in what sense does AIPAC CONTROL the actions of some 500 lawmakers and hundreds of career policymakers? If AIPAC is 'running the show,' it's only because all of these other folks have relinquished the power they have. AIPAC has no power other than through these people. This is a fact that seems to escape you."

You are right in the sense that no one is a "victim". That those who "go along to get along" have made a conscious choice to BE "controlled"....to BE played....to BE "gamed" and USED by the AIPAC and neo-cons. It isn't a fact that has escaped us, really. Many of those who post here have been equally outraged, e.g., by the Jewish and non-Jewish Democrats who have "caved" in to .....or been bought off by .....the AIPAC and its influence/threat.

You need only witness the Don Imus flap (okay it's not the best analogy really) to take note of the "politically correct" times we are living in. If you don't believe the AIPAC Israel lobby can very powerfully destroy and go after anyone who challenges them -- using "anti-Semitism" front and center as always -- then you either are not familiar with the London Review of Books' John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt's essay on 'The Israel Lobby'....or, you aren't being completely honest with us.

Also, it is a well-known (and not anti-Semitic) fact that many of the most powerful and brilliant CEO's of industry, corporations, scientists, and so on happen to be Jewish. Just happen to CONTROL ....a whole lot. Could, say, end someone's career if you "crossed" them and they chose to.

What happened, I ask you, to The New York Times coverage -- to name just one newspaper, one piece of the MSM...in the run up to the War on Iraq? Who owned and ran the NYT? What about Judy Miller? Lewis Libby and what he fed her? What was their "agenda". Who were THEY beholden to? And, what of Doug Feith? Richard Perle? Fred Kagan and on....and on....and on. Would Birnbaum suggest that in naming them and their deeds anyone who does so is "anti-Semitic"??? WTF? As Jack Nicholson said, maybe the fact is "You (or he...or one) can't handle the Truth!" (about the AIPAC, etc.)

Thanks for giving me the chance to say this (and, to Steve). I've wanted to for a while now.

Carroll writes: "If AIPAC and the right wing Jews and their fellow neos get their way with Iran the US will be hurt, but ultimately the Jewish community in this country will be tarred with the same brush as AIPAC and will be finished politically and in the eyes of the public for all intents and purposes. The "christian" zionist will slither out of all responsibility for their part when the tide turns and be the first ones to dennounce the Jewish influence."

Publius makes the same point here: "It is truly a shame that many Jewish-Americans who've reached positions of power and influence seem to place the interests of a foreign country ahead of those of their own nation. It is equally a shame that Jewish-Americans, the vast majority of whom are fine, loyal citizens, are tarred by the actions of these people."

This is a long conversation, but essentially this is one way anti-Semitism works. I would ask Publius, WHY is it that the "vast majority" of Jews are "tarred" by the actions and views of a few? By your statement, are you threatening, predicting, hoping, or simply saying "this is the way it is"? You see, the fact that Christian right wingers can do whatever they want and they're still good ole 'Mericans...but if a few Jews do the same...well, they will be "finished politically" -- whatever that means -- shows to me that a basic anti-Semitic perspecctive is at work.

(The double standard is profound. Publius mentions Pollard. But what about Webster or Hansen or Aldridge who, arguably, did much more harm to the US than Pollard, never mind the fact that W, H, and A are three to Pollard's one.)

The fact that Publius could call Birnbaum "stateless" because he had the temerity to call a Pat Lang's comments "ugly" is pretty chilling when you think about it. And if the US were to adopt a looser definition of "traitor," things will get much worse than they already are.

Carroll, I'm NOT calling you or Publius anti-Semitic. But this discussion says a lot about why oppressed minorities do what they do and why they tend to look at larger events and ask, "Is it good or bad for the Jews?" Again, it's a MUCH longer discussion, and I trust you can overlook any exaggeration and get my drift.

Many, many years before Colin Powell became Secretary of State for GWB, I knew precisely what kind of person he was -- Powell's role in the cover-up of the responsibility of higher-up officers for the My Lai massacre and his subsequent quick rise in professional stature at the Pentagon (as reward for the cover-up), told you all you needed to know about him.

That he was ever touted as a man of honor has always been a bitter and very sad joke.

(The double standard is profound. Publius mentions Pollard. But what about Webster or Hansen or Aldridge who, arguably, did much more harm to the US than Pollard, never mind the fact that W, H, and A are three to Pollard's one.)

Well, MP, perhaps Publius didn't bring them up because they have nothing to do with AIPAC or Israel, which is what we are talking about.

But hey, keep that straw coming. We wouldn't want you to to be at a loss for words now, would we?

"WHY is it that the "vast majority" of Jews are "tarred" by the actions and views of a few?"

Well, thats simple. Because whenever we point to the actions of "a few", some asshole comes along and claims we are being "anti-semitic", and paints us as accusing all the jews.

Sandy, thanks for your comments. Here's what I'd say (I'm not responding to everything):

My problem is with the neo-conservative "movement" and the strong arm tactics they and their followers (both Jewish and Gentiles, yes) believe in as their modus operandi. They believe in, and promote, war to achieve their ends. That, in and of itself, is to me outrageous. That's what makes me livid...gets me going. And, while the AIPAC is but one group (the most powerful) it's the most successful in promoting neo-con beliefs and agenda.

ME: I would agree with you--some quibbles, but not worth mentioning. The Christian right wing, by all accounts, seems to hold the cards with respect to what Republicans can and can't get away with. Jews ain't too powerful in the red states.

Now then....MP, you said:

"However, the question in my mind is...in what sense does AIPAC CONTROL the actions of some 500 lawmakers and hundreds of career policymakers? If AIPAC is 'running the show,' it's only because all of these other folks have relinquished the power they have. AIPAC has no power other than through these people. This is a fact that seems to escape you."

You are right in the sense that no one is a "victim". That those who "go along to get along" have made a conscious choice to BE "controlled"....to BE played....to BE "gamed" and USED by the AIPAC and neo-cons. It isn't a fact that has escaped us, really.

ME: If it's a conscious choice that fact means they have power.

Many of those who post here have been equally outraged, e.g., by the Jewish and non-Jewish Democrats who have "caved" in to .....or been bought off by .....the AIPAC and its influence/threat.

ME: The biggest helping of blame should be heaped on the Republicans who were in power through most of the critical moments. The Dems were given a fait accompli and an impossible situation with no good options and have a slender majority in both houses and not the votes to override vetoes.

You need only witness the Don Imus flap (okay it's not the best analogy really) to take note of the "politically correct" times we are living in. If you don't believe the AIPAC Israel lobby can very powerfully destroy and go after anyone who challenges them -- using "anti-Semitism" front and center as always -- then you either are not familiar with the London Review of Books' John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt's essay on 'The Israel Lobby'....or, you aren't being completely honest with us.

ME: Not sure if you're saying that the Lobby deep sixed Imus. If so, they were speaking out for some nappy headed hos who were essentially powerless to fight back. And Gwen Ifill. Anyway, not sure if this is your point. I am familiar with M&W. I think their paper was a good corrective, but given how smart and well-educated they are, I was surprised that they said that Israeli citizenship is based on "blood."

Also, it is a well-known (and not anti-Semitic) fact that many of the most powerful and brilliant CEO's of industry, corporations, scientists, and so on happen to be Jewish.

ME: And? I haven't looked recently, but I think most of the country's big wealth is in non-Jewish hands. But even if Jews "happened" to control most of the wealth, what of it? Should they become less ambitious, less educated, less hard-working, less willing to participate in society to let everyone else catch up? Sandy, I'm struggling with your point here.

Just happen to CONTROL ....a whole lot. Could, say, end someone's career if you "crossed" them and they chose to.

ME: See above. All powerful people have power, sometimes they use it benevolently and sometimes not. Again, nott sure about your point.

What happened, I ask you, to The New York Times coverage -- to name just one newspaper, one piece of the MSM...in the run up to the War on Iraq? Who owned and ran the NYT? What about Judy Miller? Lewis Libby and what he fed her? What was their "agenda". Who were THEY beholden to? And, what of Doug Feith? Richard Perle? Fred Kagan and on....and on....and on.

ME: What happened to the WaPo? I don't think Graham is a Jewish name, but I could be wrong. How about Clear Channel? Or the Wall Street Journal? Or the LA Times? The only member of the MSM that got it right in the run up to the war as far as I know is Knight Ridder. Are you saying that the ENTIRE MSM is owned by Jews? Or controlled by AIPAC?

Would Birnbaum suggest that in naming them and their deeds anyone who does so is "anti-Semitic"??? WTF? As Jack Nicholson said, maybe the fact is "You (or he...or one) can't handle the Truth!" (about the AIPAC, etc.)

ME: Not sure about Birnbaum, but I'd say no. But if you said their being Jewish was an important factor in what they wrote or didn't write, I'd ask you to prove it. BTW, in that movie, Nicholson was the BAD guy.

POA writes: "Oh, give us a break. "Fair", my ass. How do you dream this shit up? Care to tell us what role the NRA, the AMA, the tobacco industry, or any of the other lobbys had to do with contributing to the LIES that facilitated the invasion of Iraq? Or how are these lobbys helping to exagerate the threat posed by Iran?"

None. But all these groups use the same AMERICAN system to get their way...through lies, money, and tough persuasion. That's been my point all along. You just want to ignore it.

POA writes: "Well, thats simple. Because whenever we point to the actions of "a few", some asshole comes along and claims we are being "anti-semitic", and paints us as accusing all the jews."

I guess these "assholes" are correct. If we're going to get tarred anyway, what the heck.

POA writes: "Well, MP, perhaps Publius didn't bring them up because they have nothing to do with AIPAC or Israel, which is what we are talking about."

No, Publius was talking about Birnbaum. Let's take a look:

Publius writes: "It is truly a shame that many Jewish-Americans who've reached positions o