Please, please, please don't talk about the "cackle".

Break a leg.

Well, I waited through 30 minutes and 6 "coming up's" to hear this....next time tell them to put you on first.

I would like to see a program with a longer discussion, more in depth where you could talk about all the people involved in the two camps.But I was glad to see the Freedom Watch war monger group was mentioned.

Between Steve, Pat and Hersh the lyrics of Iran are still...."clowns to the left of me, jokers to the right and here we are stuck in the middle with you".

Will Bush or won't he.

I betcha Steve never mentioned AIPAC, or Israel's role in this fearmongering. And, I would be willing to bet it was never pointed out that the IAEA has found no evidence of a nuclear weapons program in Iran.

I still say the U.S. bombs Iran. After all, Cheney is still the President.

Well, frankly Spencer stole the show tonight. He simply could not believe that we would get into another war. Basically, he was saying, "what for?"

And he was spot on. Now that Mohammed El Baradei is probably going to issue a report stating that Iran's nuclear program is being totally monitored by the IAEA, the nuclear threat has proved to be a false pretense for war, just like those used against Iraq. The rationale for war is once again in flux. So it's obvious that the the most marketable justification will be fixed around the predetermined course of action. Ergo, whatever justification is total baloney.

So what is the real, hidden agenda? And how does bombing Iran advance those mysterious, vital strategic interests that everyone alludes to, but no one identifies?

POA -- I did mention the IAEA. best,

Dan Abrams was great -- and clearly was in pain that he had to spend so much time on the Britney Spears custody issue. I wasn't able to stay on for the Iraq segment, though I wish I had.

best,

Steve Clemons

"POA -- I did mention the IAEA. "

Steve, do you feel its possible to responsibly discuss the various candidate's positions on Iran without mentioning the depth of loyalty that they may have towards AIPAC and Israel, determined by the amount of monies they have recieved by AIPAC, as well as the statements they have made at AIPAC engagements?

I won't hold my breath for an answer, because its not the first time I have asked it in one form or another, never to recieve an answer.

But, at best, it is completely irresponsible to address the public on issues of grave importance while ommitting a major part of the equation. I am not being accusatory, or adversarial, just realistic. It seems Israel is holding a sledge hammer over the heads of both the media, and insiders such as yourself. Your absolute silence on this only buttresses my argument, for obviously AIPAC and Israel play a MAJOR role in the current direction both Congress and the Bush monsters are headed in regards to Iran. Are you willing to DENY that fact? Apparently so, because your unwillingness to include Israel in the rhetoric is a form of denial in itself.

Pardon the intellectual intrusion of a mere "tradesman" in offering his two cents into a debate perhaps best left to the great minds of the Washington think tankers and the upper echelon of our tiers of leadership. After all, look what a great job you guys have done to date on determining responsible foreign policy.

Investigative journalist Seymour Hersh says that the "only thing" he's hearing from inside sources is how much President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney "really want" to go to war with Iran, and the president's refusal to speak to Iran's leaders shows how little commitment he has to diplomacy.

"He has no interest in talking to anyone he doesn't like," Hersh said of the president appearing on MSNBC's Countdown Monday. "If he would talk to them, I could say to you that there's some reason we may not go to war, but the only thing you hear from inside is that these guys really want to" attack Iran.

"The bottom line is, it's real easy, you hear the White House spokeswoman say, 'We're interested in a diplomatic track,'" Hersh said. "Well all he (Bush) has to do is start talking to them, and then you get diplomacy. He's not talking to them."

As the president's term draws to a close, Hersh said he was told that Bush's and Cheney's drive for war trumps their loyalty to their party and its future.

"Cheney and Bush don't give a rats ass about the future of the Republican Party," Hersh said, "when it comes to this."

more at -
http://rawstory.com/news/2007/Seymour_Hersh_No_reason_we_might_1002.html

Steve,
You rightly identify reasons a rational actor would NOT invade Iran, however, there are plenty of troubling signals as well.

One signal that can't be overlooked is Bush/Cheney's persistence in moving the goalposts for justifying just such an attack.

Same pattern as the run-up to Iraq: aluminum tubes are disproven; switch to chemical weapons; when chemical WMDs are discredited, switch to yellowcake and when that goes down too, throttle up hysteria amid false claims re a nuclear spectre--then send Bolton the TV podium to intimidate the French and Germans while you misuse the UN process to ram through the invasion.

Re Iran, Bush is switching from 1) false claims about Iran's nuclear program (& inspections, & purposes) to 2) false claims about Iran arms used in attacks on US soldiers to 3) falsely labeling the Revolutionary Guard a 'terrorist organization.'

These are important points, though clearly this is a real-life, not a black-&-white situation. Seems like Bush is looking for a rationale that'll work for various actors.

(We noted here that Hezbollah in S. Lebanon had a suite of social programs, a political component--and that it won major political capital in the most recent war/conflict, while Israel lost much political capital. Signature of political/military method/group, not terrorist.)

Ron Paul vs. the Neocon Cowards

by Dr. James N. Herndon 9/28/07

Let's say it straight out: Virtually every architect and supporter of today's neo-con-game of endless war is a coward.

Why? Because anyone who advocates a policy of military invasion, yet studiously avoids joining the soldiers on the battlefield, is, by definition, a coward.

What kind of a person believes that a cause is worth (someone else) dying for, yet not only refuses to face the "enemy," but remains, at all times, in the cool shadow of security? I'll tell you what kind - a coward.

What kind of a person can't wait to send America's youth to die in Iraq for a series of absurd, constantly evolving fabrications, yet finds it more prudent to receive lobbyists than to fire a rifle? I'll tell you what kind - a raw coward.

We've all heard the deranged platitudes: "Sorry I can't join ya over there...but I'll be stayin' here, representin' ya, makin' sure the homeland is secure, and that the economy stays on track. Believe me, I'm gonna be doin' everything I can to keep you and your buddies well-supplied - with everything you need for victory. So...God's speed. We'll all be thinkin' about ya. And prayin' for ya. You're all just fabulous!"

Another classic: "I've already served my country in the military. I've done my duty. Now, someone else can do his. I'm entitled to voice my support for this war. But, right now, I'm just too old to return to battle! And too busy with my job!"

And my all-time favorite? "Well...I haven't really had any military training. I think it's best to leave the actual fighting to professionals."

How much training does it take to blow a hole in an eight-year-old girl?

So...soccer mom, construction worker, US Senator, software engineer, grade school teacher, Vice-President of the United States, young, old...whatever you are. You think defeating worldwide "terrorism" is a life-or-death issue for America? Then put your courage where your mouth is.

Join-up, or shut-up.

Just look around. And listen. Listen to all of America's neo-conned, warriors-in-theory. Their numbers are legion. They're in Congress. They're in the White House. They're wearing the black robes of justice. They're walking the streets of America, safely preaching genocide. What do they all have in common?

There's never a doubt, and never a scratch. Cowards, each and every one.

I hereby issue a challenge: I challenge any supporter of our current Middle East blood fest to tell me exactly why he is still here - and not over there.

Do you hear a sudden eerie silence? Of course you do. It's the silence of cowards.

Have you noticed how the rationale for war these days is becoming less and less important? At this very moment, we are committing mass-extermination in Iraq - for no discernable reason whatsoever.

Except for one - profit.

When our nation's very existence rests in the balance (as the "War on Terror" drum-beaters repeatedly claim), precisely why is any kind of profit-taking permitted? Why isn't the military-industrial complex offering its materials and services at cost?

This is a question the cowards would rather not answer, because answering it would reveal the truth: If you take the profit out of war...there is no war. Today's cowardly patriotism resides only within the perimeter of profit - and safety.

And there's also a corollary, just for cowards: If you require those calling loudest for war to fire the first shot, the guns remain silent.

Our "War on Terror" has absolutely nothing to do with "terrorists." It has absolutely nothing to do with preventing another 9/11. (The proof? The neo-cowards' refusal to secure our wide-open borders, due to their love affair with slave labor.) It has nothing to do with a "Clash of Civilizations."

It has everything to do with making money. Lots and lots of money. (And let's never forget: There's oil in them-thar hills!)

And it has to do with a new type of "failure." Just as cowardice is now the new bravery, today, failure has also been rebranded. It's now called "success."

The more American soldiers who die, the longer that innocent blood is spilled, the longer the cycle of destruction and rebuilding, in other words, the longer the horror - the bigger the profit. A normal person believes that he is witnessing chaos in Iraq. Not at all. Success is everywhere in sight.

Of course, it's a coward's success. And a coward's profit.

With every gut-shot Iraqi child, limp in a grieving parent's arms, we see a bullet that is sold. And a profit that is made. With every suffering, limbless soldier, the military-industrial complex sees a reason to persist. And finds more profits to be made. With every tank that's ripped-apart, with every screaming, dying civilian, the White House imagines a "surge" that is working. And sees a profit for a friend.

A government that endorses mass murder for profit, and calls it war, deserves no latitude. It deserves a cage.

And so do we, if we stand by in passive assent. Every American deserves what he tolerates. The time for tolerance is over.

There’s only one candidate for President of the United States in 2008 who has the depth of understanding, and the character, necessary to place meaningful restraints upon our profit-centered system of cowardly warmongering – Ron Paul.

more at -
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig8/herndon4.html

Gee, I really liked that, Pauline. And, I'll bet Dan Rather would, too!

I think it is sheer nonsense to think Busholini isn't going to bomb Iran. Only an ostrich would think that.

Why have all these resolutions in Congress if they weren't revving it all up? They've known all along what the IAEA was going to say about Iran's nuclear program. They don't give a damn.

It has nothing to do with causes. It only has to do with their sadistic lust for power and because they can. They care nothing about anyone's suffering. They ENJOY it.

Get real. They don't have to care about the future of the party because they aren't going to bother with voting anymore. They aren't going to leave office. They've broken every law that stood in their way so far, and thumbed their nose at Congress, so why would they suddenly get righteious? Because Congress got so tough?

Puhleeze. The terror code is green, which means go right the hell on and do whatever the hell you want. You the Dick Tater.

Pathetic.

During post Gulf War I, while the world thought the war had ended, sporadic bombings continued and embargoes and no-fly zones meant that there was at best a siege if not continued war especially from the perspective of Iraq. The perception elsewhere was that there was no war since there were no ground engagements. If there were no subsequent ground war, which at present point is more a chaotic and costly occupation than a war, there would not be so much alarm as to what is being built up for Iran.

The administration thinks, and in the minds of many who are not pessimists about consequences, Iran resembles Iraq between the two wars. Surgical bombings, embargoes, support of terrorist type incursions do not count as aggressive acts of war and therefore ok. And just as Saddam could not (or would not) retaliate from military weakness/inferiority, Iran would bear the aggression without the ability to retaliate. And as a result of resulting weakening would eventually come to heel as it were.

It has never shown surgical bombings win the longer term conflict. Carpet bombing does but not anything short that simply result in time bought.
Aside from any consideration of fairness, justice, respect for culture life and environment, or legality, the thinking behind aggressive measures against Iran is wrong because it will not accomplish what it is supposed to do which is to increase security.

We all know that Cheney and his acolytes want to undertake regime change in Iran that has nothing to do with atomic bombs or threats to the "homeland." We all know this plan is nothing new and was the objective from day one. Iraq was supposed to facilitate the task.

The incomprehensible apathy of the American people that everyone opposed to these policies has railed against for so long received an explanation expressed by Chalmers Johnson on Antiwar.com. - the link is below.

Mr Johnson thinks that there are two things that can arouse a strong reponse from the people..taxes and a military draft. The administration avoided both of these, preferring to carry out their wars on the cheap in military personnel rather than arouse public opinion.
Mr Johnson, like Steve, thinks these insane attacks may be avoided...but

If this were a rational administration, anchored in reality reason would dictate caution and diplomacy but we know this is not the case.

Is there anything or anyone to prevent them from proceeding with their project?

Do listen:
http://antiwar.com/blog/category/antiwar-radio

When some commentators discuss the perceived similarities between the build up to the Iraqi war, and the current crisis with Iran, they concentrate on the White House strategies and tactics. But there are also similarities concerning the reactions within the political opposition, the news media, and the public in general.

Initially, most of the politicians from both sides, and the news media as well, react by saying, or thinking: "This can`t be true."
Later they realize that "Actually, it seems to be true."
And, thinking about it, listening to the arguments, they can`t see any alternatives.

So they support it. And years later they despair and get angry, seeing that everything has become a mess.

The White House has a considerable advantage in this. Especially during the long period when most "reasonable" people think that the prospect of going to war against a certain country would be madness (excluding the possibility as sheer apocalyptic speculations), the Cheney people can silently work out and modify their plans, without any disturbing discussions or serious opposition.

What interests me, as a non-insider, watching this from Europe, is this peculiar cognitive, moral and political metamorphosis that seems to take place within the American elite – the transition from: "this is crazy, and therefor it will certainly not happen", to: "this will happen, and I accept it".
This transitional movement in judging the events is, I think, more crucial then the blame game in the aftermath.

The United States is far from being a perfect democracy (and even less so after the efforts of energetic gentlemen like David Addington and John Yoo). But certain people, certain groups within the elite, but outside the White House – and among them a lot of people formally in "opposition" – have some power, and implicitly, some responsibility for the events.

These gentlemen and women share the responsibility with the White House for the tragedies later unfolding – exactly at that peculiar moment when they (collectively, it seems to me) go from "this is sheer lunacy" to "this has to be done".
Certainly, the origin of the current Iraqi nightmare may be detected to the dark mind of Dick C., the guts of George W., and a handful of neocon articles and books, but the responsibility also belong to all those who at some point voted so that their dreams could become a part of US foreign policy, or supported their arguments and actions in the news medias.

I don`t think, watching this from Europe, that there will be any significant change in American foreign policy in any foreseeable future. As long as the idea of American exceptionalism is a vital concept for the population; as long as 99 % of the population believe that Americans, in contrast to people in certain other countries, at least have good intentions, and as long as the policy makers and elite groups consider wars, not only as an extension of politics with other means, but as a normal instrument, beside diplomacy and the other options, things will probably get worse.

The journalist Seymour Hersh is among the happy few not responsible for the current crisis. He says (in the New Yorker):
"Now the emphasis is on “surgical” strikes on Revolutionary Guard Corps facilities in Tehran and elsewhere, which, the Administration claims, have been the source of attacks on Americans in Iraq. What had been presented primarily as a counter-proliferation mission has been reconceived as counterterrorism."

If this is true, it makes Hillary Clintons support for the Kyl-Lieberman resolution (calling for the Iranian Revolutionary Guard to be labeled a terrorist organisation), even more serious. In retrospect, history may note that Clinton in effect supported Bush both times he made decisions of tragic proportions in his foreign policy. And she is not alone in that. You may remember presidential candidates, former rivals of Mr. Bush, blaming him for going to war against Iraq instead of Iran, where there actually was a "smoking gun"?

Given the current chaos in the Middle East, extending the war to Iran would of course be madness. But during the coming months, I am afraid we`ll see that very few of those with a powerful voice has the political courage, moral judgement and sound instinct to speak clearly on behalf of the sane people among the population of America. Most likely, the White House will provoke the Iranians, and one event will lead to the next in an endless chain of provocations and replies. And this time, some of the European leaders (the Germans, in particular) may react just like the American elite, described above, reacted in the build up stage of the Iraqi war. The French and the British leaders may already have accepted the escalation.

History does not repeat itself. However, just like in the period between 1914 and 1945, we seem to live through an “age of the extremes.” The current leaders of Israel, Palestine, Iran, USA, as well as some influential non governmental groups and organisations, put things in motion in several nightmarish, unpredictable directions. And just like then, the "center" is drifting, unable to discover the fatal strategies and tactics being planned, and unable to react while they unfold in real, at some remote places, far from Washington. Lacking in political imagination and moral judgement, from time to time they even vote on behalf of the logic of the lunatics.

Steve Clemons thinks that Bush has not decided yet. He may be right. Bush could still be waiting for an answer from his Lord (read: his guts). Nobody should be in doubt as to what the guts of the President of The United States will advice him to do.

A big part of the problem is that the insiders almost unanimously accept Bush's framing of the issue: Iranian nukes, terrorism, threat to Israel, etc. If they don't feel comfortable using Bush's framing, then they concentrate on the horse race (will he or won't he bomb?, shouldn't we try more negotiations?).

What is urgently needed is an alternative frame to explain Bush's behavior. His agenda needs to be identified and labeled. For example, "Bush wants to attack Iran for [fill in the blank]." Control of Iranian energy assets is the most credible reason I can think of. Insiders like Steve Clemons must know what the real reasons are but remain silent.

Reframing should be a piece of cake, given the fact that most people now realize that Bush is a pathological liar. His phony pretenses for attacking Iran keep changing. As was the case in Iraq, the neocons are trying to find the most marketable pretext.

The real tragedy here is that virtually all of the insiders, particularly the Vichy Democrats, choose to collaborate with Bush by remaining silent.

Where are the Daniel Ellsbergs who know the real motivations and will reveal them?

Well said, PN. Well said. Sadly, we just sit here waiting for these madmen to destroy everything....while the Beltway Boys and the whole D.C. establishment buy them more time to "find the right time" to do their dirty deeds.

And, it isn't enough that the American people don't want it to happen. We aren't victims. We (myself included) are too complacent. As if it's a gamble or something.

We already know what they're going to do. To say otherwise is a LIE.

Revealing Bush's hidden agenda and framing the debate in terms of his true motivations is something that the administration must truly fear. If the hidden reasons were so noble and compelling, why wouldn't they have used them by now? The answer is that Bush can't make an honest, convincing case, because he knows that the American people would never support a war under those circumstances.

It's time for Washington foreign policy insiders who claim to oppose an attack on Iran to start leveling with the American people.

From what I read at Antiwar.com and AfterDowningStreet.org, thousands upon thousands of concerned Americans have taken to the streets in protest, sat in their state and federal reps' offices, signed petitions, made phone calls to Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, John Conyers....nearly all requesting them to AT LEAST BEGIN impeachment proceedings.

Bruce Fein has been eloquent in outlining WHY impeachment hearings COULD make a difference. When you put things ON THE %#$@ TABLE ....the general public...those busy people working hard to "put food on their families" (as W put it)...would at least BE MADE AWARE....and could START THE DISCUSSION...about what crimes have been committed....and WHY. Exposing all this to the public -- after all, those who read here and read up on things are no doubt the minority of Americans -- would GO A LONG WAY towards focusing the spotlight on Bush and Cheney and the NEO-CON agenda they are carrying out.

THEN....at least THEN....the discussion MIGHT be less about Britney Spears or MoveOn.org....and instead be about BUSH CHENEY INTENT AND MOTIVATIONS. People need to KNOW these things!

I believe....by now....with what is looming before us....that it is a WAR CRIME....for those who are KEEPING IMPEACHMENT OFF THE TABLE.

That is the means to change things. The ONLY means we have left.

Here's an eye-opener.

NEWS YOU WON'T FIND ON CNN

Iraq: The Hidden Facts

A Message (In English) From The Iraqi Resistance. Video and Transcript

"Bush does not respect his own people and we believe that because he knows that a political solution will not be reached with the Iraqi Resistance, he will leave to democrats a heavy burden by the time he leaves office. He cannot comprehend that a few good men have brought has project in the Middle East to a complete halt. Bush cannot stay in Iraq where he is caught between the fire of the resistance and that of Iran. And if he leaves after all these losses and humiliation the oil rich south of Iraq will be in the hands of Iran. And this is what US strategy cannot accept. "

See also: A Message From The "Iraq Resistance" : "We are simple people who chose principles over fear."

The Hidden Facts

Free people of the world, we believe it is time to provide you with another updated report on the status of the war as we in the resistance factions perceive. We have several indications from the fields and from within the puppet government in Baghdad that the tactics used by the occupation forces have developed, yet the strategic aims that drive them, remains the same and in order to clarify the nature of such developments we must return to the facts.

The invasion of Iraq was based on lies mainly as we all must not forget, that the previous government was stocking weapons of mass destruction and had links to the infamous Al-Qaida. After the initial stages of this war, the world discovered the scale of the White House deception. To avoid accountability and responsibility, the declared reasons gradually shifted to spreading democracy and taking the war to them; as if the Iraqi people were responsible for the events of 9/11. Buying time, while testing different tactics to achieve any levels of success that maybe marketed as a victory or achievement, became a priority.

The project then collapsed, and the Pentagon woke up to a new reality. The Iraqi people did not welcome an invasion, as some traitors have guided. And the Iraqi Army which could not engage such a superior force with its outdated equipment in a classic battlefield, has handed over the cities to the occupier.

Large urban societies would require enormous financial support and the funds found in IraqÂ’s Banks would eventually disappear in the hands of looters. New funds would be required. Bush cannot simply ask for more funds from the US tax payer. But now that Bush controls Middle East Oil, he has no option but to increase the international price of oil, to cover the increasing cost of occupying our Country. This decision was the next mistake, we in the resistance were praying for. The additional revenues that would be available for Bush would also be available for other oil producing states, mainly Russia, Venezuela, and Iran. Each would benefit from the extra revenues in enforcing their position in the international arena. Russia today after five years is stronger and is rebuilding its previous glory. Iran, which aided US intervention in Afghanistan then Iraq succeeded in using US power to weaken two fronts; build a larger and more powerful army, fund its nuclear ambitions, and support any organization in the Middle East that is opposed to Israel and the US, regardless of sect or agenda, in an attempt to extort the US into giving any concessions a defeated and cornered White House could spare. Venezuela today nationalized many of its industries reviving its economy and having more to say, when it comes to oil pricing. China has a growth rate that is confidently reaching the 4th. As for Europe, it is lost in between. With a Euro currency too strong to allow a considerable rise in exports, a union which requires restructuring before accepting new members, a birth rate that is at its lowest due to strains and taxations on its working class, and energy requirements that increase along with costs, the future of Europe and its weak governments is not so promising. Europe, must find ways to enforce its own will and interests and work in conjunction with Russia to restore world stability and balance. As for the fragile sheikhdoms that export oil in the Arabian Gulf, we assure you that they are exporting at maximum output. They are also in fear of Iran which could easily cause havoc by firing a few missiles across the Gulf. This will devastate the stock markets, and booming property based industries which add up to their financial back bone. They also cannot publicly assist the Iraqi Resistance until the US simple evacuates to avoid being labeled as funders of terrorism.

In Iraq, Bremer disbanded the Iraqi Army, giving us more men and eagerness to free Iraq of its occupiers. And the amount of weapons stocks we stored will last us for fifty years if not more.

The White House faced with all this, decided that a puppet government would assist in reducing the financial and administration strains in Iraq, Bush then turned to the Kurdish Parties and the Persian backed militias for assistance. But, at what cost? Neither Turkey will accept an independent Kurdish state on its southern borders, nor Iran, will stop at simply aiding the US and easing its burden by controlling the south of Iraq and have the US concentrate their efforts on central Iraq. On the contrary, the puppet governmentÂ’s ministries of influence such as the Interior and Defense, were handed over to the Iranian backed militias. Clarifying even more the secret arrangement between the US and Iran. Here the White House believed that by trying to enforce sectarian violence amongst Iraqis the level of attacks on US troops will be reduced, but this tactic, as we also predicted, has also failed. Iraqis have a high rate of intersect marriages, and that deprives anyone the ability to divide such a society by sect. Also the amount of killings and sadistic brutality of these militias has left the US and its puppet government in Baghdad exposed internationally. Today these militias, have become the major source of instability in Iraq.

We must also not forget that the atrocities at Abu-Ghraib prison and the use of chemical weapons on our civilians added to the failure. The Pentagon then increased the numbers of security contractors who have a high price tag, and gave them more field duties, this way if any are killed, there figures are not disclosed as is the case with the green-card soldiers. Also today the number of security contractors in Iraq is almost equal to the amount of military personnel. As for the Islamic Party which claims it represents the Sunnis in the puppet government; they have played all their cards with no positive gains, and more pressure is being enforced on them by us, to withdraw, and deprive it from its legal status. We know they will pull out sooner or later for they have nothing to offer to the Iraqi people. And staying in power will do more harm.

The Pentagon and under order of Rumsfield resorted to a new tactic. If Iraqis are not accepting what the US wants, they must simply leave Iraq. In essence, change people of Iraq. Make them refugees in neighboring countries until they dissolve in their host societies. And when these counties complain, bully or bribe them into silence. True, it will effect our people and create an imbalance in the composition of our society, but again to our advantage. Our people who leave as refugees will be safer, and when they find jobs whatever they may be, in neighboring countries, they provide the minimums for their families and acquire the working skills required to rebuild Iraq after victory.

Free people of the world as this conflict develops we are more sure of our predictions and analysis. And the foreign players in Iraq today have reached the state where their interest are no longer common. There is more to disagree on and conflict is present. And looking at all the details of the timeline of this conflict as we have explained, we do not see one correct decision or action taken on the part of the US. Not one single positive achievement. This by far, is the most costly pack of lies any criminal has come up with. This is why Bush today, is alone and isolated in his own little world. All his generals and strategists cannot offer him a solution. His people do not believe in him and his army of looters and thieves is lost, tired, and disoriented. The true reasons of this war as we all know is oil, world domination, corporate government, and the guarantee of existence to the so called state of Israel.

Here we must not forget that the Iraqi Resistance, and despite all the reservations that some might have, has set a unique example that will be studied by historians and analysts for years to come. Most importantly it has taught the world of oppressed nations and societies that a self sufficient resistance movement in our modern times is possible, and can destabilize the most powerful opponents let alone local governing bodies that cooperate with imperial powers. They are much easier to remove and eradicate and this reverses the known equation. One free man, can change the outcome of a day.

The Resistance has proved to the world that it is through morality and determination that you can achieve and gain your rights and that ideological pretext that is marketed by the US media as being the cause of this war, is nothing but another lie. Religions have coexisted for thousands of years in peace, why is it now a problem. Idealogic and religious fanaticism on all sides is only the excuse and not the reason which is economic gain and influence. The Resistance has also proved that the highly consumable capital based economies cannot fight long wars, and their greed for energy to sustain a specific lifestyle will eventually grind humanity into a global market of exploitation and slavery only to be followed by total collapse. Capitalism as is tested more and more with less energy available will eventually fail.

In all what we have stated, we are proud to say that the Iraqi Resistance has and continues to redefine the meaning of the word conquest .

We also extend our hands again and again to those troops in Iraq who are still holding on to their morality and humanity, to those who do not want to be part of this crime, that the doors of our mosques and churches will always remain open for. And we in the resistance will honor your humanity and will assist you in discreetly taking you out of Iraq into neighboring countries where you will not be prosecuted and labeled as deserters. We know there are many amongst you who want to leave, but we can only help if you gather the courage to express sorrow, remorse, and detachment from this crime.

We have smuggled out tens and tens of honest men who thought they were coming to Iraq for a cause. Only a few cases such as US Marine Wassef Ali Hasoun who was captured then during interrogation it was clearly evident that this man was not a criminal and thus, we could not harm him. We undertook the task of taking him out of Iraq to safety. We are usually more heavy handed with punishment, when we find people of Arab or Iraqi origin who aid the US.

Another is a supplies driver by the name of Mohammad Ali Sanad, who was working for a Kuwaiti company that was supplying goods to US Bases. During interrogation and extensive dialogue it was clearly evident that this man was sorry for what he did, even the transport company he worked for, known as “Faisal al Neheet” stopped its cooperation with the occupation, closed its offices in Baghdad, and left. He was also released and these are only two examples that we can declare only because the cases went public, as we do not intend to jeopardize the lives of others we helped.

We also extend our appreciation and respect to all the honorable people around the world, the heroes of dignity and freedom, the brave men and women of the anti-globalization and Peace movements. We in Iraq are thankful and grateful for all what you have done and your continued efforts to end this conflict and confront the white collar criminals of corporate governments. May God bless you all and continue to engulf you with patients and resolve.

To the American people we say, you have finally awakened and the millions of honorable people amongst you have now realized that the Iraqi people are not your enemies, and they are not responsible for your grief. It is your troops which occupied our country, and not us yours. The arrogant war criminal who rules in your name has humiliated your nation & military honor and we believe, that a democracy that is not willing to fight for its own freedom, is no better that a raw dictatorship. Your great efforts to remove the ware criminal from the White House has changed the equation in your government tremendously. But it to great disappointment that Bush is insisting even more in his arrogance to go against your will in ending this war. Bush does not respect his own people and we believe that because he knows that a political solution will not be reached

with the Iraqi Resistance, he will leave to democrats a heavy burden by the time he leaves office. He cannot comprehend that a few good men have brought has project in the Middle East to a complete halt. Bush cannot stay in Iraq where he is caught between the fire of the resistance and that of Iran.

And if he leaves after all these losses and humiliation the oil rich south of Iraq will be in the hands of Iran. And this is what US strategy cannot accept. BushÂ’s last attempt and revenge will be to pull out of Iraq and plan its disintegration into 3 geographically carved states. Then strike the strategic assets of Iran, to bring its already strained economy down to collapse.

Thus the democrats will be left with a Middle East that is even more unstable than it is now. And despite our knowledge that when it comes to strategic interests both parties do not conflict and it is only the methods that bear the difference, The democrats have a chance to end this conflict in a face saving solution for the US, by first declaring that they recognize the factions of the Iraqi resistance as the representatives of the Iraqi people and the Iraqi Republic. After which a negotiating team would be arranged to negotiate your troop withdrawal, compensation of Iraq, and matters of future interest. It is only through the Iraqi resistance, that a solution may be born.

Finally we say to Bush and those behind him. You can go all you want with your plans, strategies, and executions, and we with ours. Lead your troops into battle with every high tech gadgetry and equipment, military science as ever developed, and we will go as primitive and creative as we can, creating the necessary gap that continues to deprive you of the upper hand. Attack with all your force if we leave you a trace, for so many traces were left for fool & arrogant. Hide all you true casualties and we will deprive you of new recruits. Raise the oil prices more and strengthen other aspiring nations & we will deprive you of ours, then raise the cost of occupation till we break your bones in Baghdad and Babylon.

Wander the shelves of history in search of methods to adapt, and we will confront you with a form of variable, adaptable, and reversible asymmetric warfare that will set the standard for years and years to come.

And may the best man win !

The Nineteen Twenty Revolution Brigades

Media Office

Baghdad, on the 8th of September 2007

Where are the Daniel Ellsbergs who know the real motivations and will reveal them?

Posted by: JohnH at October 3, 2007 01:26 PM
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Agreed 100%. Sadly, the complicit Corporate Media is at core of the problem and will prevent any alternative framing and true revelation of motivations. Keeping the citizenry uninformed generates more profits for the 'complex' and furthers their ambitions of global hegemony. If the 'sheeple' only knew the consequences of fascism and imperialism. And that democracy is history.

http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/07132007/transcript2.html

BRUCE FEIN: ".....I think Bush's crimes are a little bit different. I think they're a little bit more worrisome than Clinton's. You don't have to have--

BILL MOYERS: More worrisome?

BRUCE FEIN: More worrisome than Clinton's-- because he is seeking more institutionally to cripple checks and balances and the authority of Congress and the judiciary to superintend his assertions of power. He has claimed the authority to tell Congress they don't have any right to know what he's doing with relation to spying on American citizens, using that information in any way that he wants in contradiction to a federal statute called the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. He's claimed authority to say he can kidnap people, throw them into dungeons abroad, dump them out into Siberia without any political or legal accountability. These are standards that are totally anathema to a democratic society devoted to the rule of law.

BILL MOYERS: You're talking about terrifying power but this is a terrifying time. People are afraid of those people abroad who want to kill us. Do you think, in any way, that justifies the claims that Bruce just said Bush has made?

JOHN NICHOLS: I think that the war on terror, as defined by our president, is PERPETUAL WAR. And I think that he has acted precisely as Madison feared. He has taken powers unto himself that were never intended to be in the executive. And, frankly, that when an executive uses them, in the way that this president has, you actually undermine the process of uniting the country and really focusing the country on the issues that need to be dealt with. Let's be clear. If we had a president who was seeking to inspire us to take seriously the issues that are in play and to bring all the government together, he'd be consulting with Congress. He'd be working with Congress. And, frankly, Congress, through the system of checks and balances, would be preventing him from doing insane things like invading Iraq.

BRUCE FEIN: In the past, presidents like Abe Lincoln, who confronted a far dire emergency in the Civil War than today, sought congressional ratification approval of his emergency measures. He didn't seek to hide them from the people and from Congress and to prevent there to be accountability. And, of course, Congress did ratify what he had done. Secondly, sure, times can be terrifying. But that also should alert us to the fact that we can make mistakes. The executive can make mistakes.

Take World War II. We locked up 120,000 Japanese Americans, said they were all disloyal. Well, we got 120,000 mistakes. They lost their property. They lost their liberty for years and years because we made a huge mistake. And that can be true after 9/11 as well. No one wants other downgrade the fact that we have abominations out there and people want to kill us. But we should not inflate the danger and we should not cast aside what we are as a people. We can fight and defeat these individuals, these criminals, based upon our system of law and justice. It's not a-- we have a fighting constitution. It's always worked in the past. But it still remains the constitution of checks of balances.

BILL MOYERS: A fighting constitution--

BRUCE FEIN: It's a fighting constitution that enables us-

BILL MOYERS: What do you mean?

BRUCE FEIN: That with the-- with the consent of Congress and the president working hand in glove with consistent with due process of law, we have the authority to suspend habeas corpus in times of invasion or rebellion. It has enabled us to defeat all of our enemies consistent with the law.

BILL MOYERS: Congress did not stand up to George Bush for five years when it was controlled by Republicans. And I don't see any strong evidence that the Democrats are playing the role that you think the Congress should be playing.

BRUCE FEIN: That is correct. But it doesn't exculpate the president that Congress has not sought immediately to sanctions his excesses.

BRUCE FEIN: --exactly right. And Bill, this could not happen if we had a Congress that was aggressive, if we had a Congress the likes of Watergate when Nixon was president and he tried to-- obstruct justice and defeat the course of law. We have a Congress that basically is an invertebrate.

BILL MOYERS: But why is Congress supine?

JOHN NICHOLS: They are supine for two reasons. One, they are politicians who do not-- quite know how to handle the moment. And they know that something very bad happened on September 11th, 2001, now five years ago, six years ago. And they don't know how to respond to it. Whereas Bush and Karl Rove have responded in a supremely political manner to it and, frankly, jumped around them. That's one part of the problem.

BILL MOYERS: Jumped around Congress?

JOHN NICHOLS: Jumped around Congress at every turn. I mean, they don't even tell them, they don't consult with them. They clearly have no regard for the checks and balances. But the other thing that's-- in play here-- and I think this is a-- much deeper problem. I think the members of our Congress have no understanding of the Constitution. And as a result, they-- don't understand their critical role in the governance of the country.

They-- it-- when the Republicans are in charge, they see their job as challenging-- or as supporting the president in whatever he does, defending him, making it possible for him to do whatever he wants. When the Democrats are in charge, they seem to see their role as trying to score political points as opposed to what ought to be sort of a-- common ground of--

BILL MOYERS: --because the fact of the matter is approaching an-- election year, you don't really think, do you, that the Democrats want to experience a backlash by taking on a Republican president in an election-

JOHN NICHOLS: Well, it--

BILL MOYERS: --or that the Republicans want to impeach an administration that they elected in 2000 and reelected in 2004? There is a political element here, right?

BRUCE FEIN: There's always going to be a political element, Bill. But in the past, there's always been a few statesmen who have said, "You know, the political fallout doesn't concern me as much as the Constitution of the United States." We have to keep that undefiled throughout posterity 'cause if it's not us, it will corrode. It will disappear on the installment plan. And that has been true in the past. When we had during Watergate Republicans and remember Barry Goldwater, Mr. Republican, who approached the president and said, "You've got to resign." There have always been that cream who said the country is more important than my party. We don't have that anymore.

BILL MOYERS: It seems to me the country is ahead of Congress on this. How do you explain all this talk about impeachment today out across the country?

JOHN NICHOLS: People don't want to let this go. They do not accept Nancy Pelosi's argument that impeachment is, quote/unquote, off the table. Because I guess maybe they're glad she didn't take some other part of the Constitution off the table like freedom of speech. But they also don't accept the argument that, oh, well, there's a presidential campaign going on. So let's just hold our breath till Bush and Cheney get done.

When I go out across America, what I hear is something that's really very refreshing and very hopeful about this country. An awfully lot of Americans understand what Thomas Jefferson understood. And that is that the election of a president does not make him a king for four years. That if a president sins against the Constitution-- and does damage to the republic, the people have a right in an organic process to demand of their House of Representatives, the branch of government closest to the people, that it act to remove that president. And I think that sentiment is afoot in the land.

BILL MOYERS: This is the first time I've heard talk of impeaching both a president and a vice-president. I mean, this-- as you saw in that poll, more people want to impeach Dick Cheney than George Bush. What's going on?

BRUCE FEIN: Well, this is an unusual affair of president/vice-president, where the vice-president is de facto president most of the time. And that's why most of people recognize that these decisions, especially when it comes to overreaching with executive power, are the product of Dick Cheney and his aide, David Addington, not George Bush and Alberto Gonzalez or Harriet Miers, who don't have the cerebral capacity to think of these devilish ideas. And for that reason, they equate the administration more with Dick Cheney than with George Bush.

BILL MOYERS: Bruce, you talk about overreaching. What, in practical terms, do you mean by that?

BRUCE FEIN: It means asserting powers and claiming that there are no other branches that have the authority to question it. Take, for instance, the assertion that he's made that when he is out to collect foreign intelligence, no other branch can tell him what to do. That means he can intercept your e-mails, your phone calls, open your regular mail, he can break and enter your home. He can even kidnap you, claiming I am seeking foreign intelligence and there's no other branch Congress can't say it's illegal--judges can't say this is illegal. I can do anything I want. That is overreaching. When he says that all of the world, all of the United States is a military battlefield because Osama bin Laden says he wants to kill us there, and I can then use the military to go into your homes and kill anyone there who I think is al-Qaeda or drop a rocket, that is overreaching. That is a claim even King George III didn't make--

BRUCE FEIN: --at the time of the Revolution.

JOHN NICHOLS: Can I-- can I--

BRUCE FEIN: That is clearly overreaching.

JOHN NICHOLS: Let me keep us on Cheney for a second here, because that is--

BILL MOYERS: You think Cheney should be subject to impeachment hearings?

JOHN NICHOLS: Without a doubt. Cheney is, for all practical purposes, the foreign policy president of the United States. There are many domestic policies in which George Bush really is the dominant player. But on foreign policy Dick Cheney has been calling the shots for six years and he continues to call the shots. Remember back in 2000, in the presidential debates, George Bush said America should be a humble country in the world, shouldn't go about nation building. And Dick Cheney, in the vice-presidential debate, spent eight minutes talking about Iraq.

Now the fact of the matter is that on foreign policy, Dick Cheney believes that the executive branch should be supreme. He said this back to the days when he was in the House during Iran-Contra. He wrote the minority report saying Congress shouldn't sanction the president in any way, President Reagan.

BILL MOYERS: And he's always taken an expansive--

JOHN NICHOLS: Right.

BILL MOYERS: --view of presidential power.

JOHN NICHOLS: And put these pieces together. If Cheney believes in this expansive power. You've got a-- unique crisis, a unique problem because the vice-president of the United States believes that Congress shouldn't even be a part of the foreign policy debate. And he is setting the foreign policy. I mean--

BILL MOYERS: I served a president who went to war on his own initiative, and it was a mess, Vietnam, Lyndon Johnson. There wasn't serious talk about impeaching Lyndon Johnson or Hubert Humphrey. Something is different today.

BRUCE FEIN: Yeah, of course, the-- difference is one thing to claim that, you know, Gulf of Tonkin resolution, was too broadly drafted. But we're talking about assertions of power that affect the individual liberties of every American citizen. Opening your mail, your e-mails, your phone calls. Breaking and entering your homes. Creating a pall of fear and intimidation if you say anything against the president you may find retaliation very quickly. We're claiming he's setting precedents that will lie around like loaded weapons anytime there's another 9/11.

Right now the victims are people whose names most Americans can't pronounce. And that's why they're not so concerned. They will start being Browns and Jones and Smiths. And that precedent is being set right now. And one of the dangers that I see is it's not just President Bush but the presidential candidates for 2008 aren't standing up and saying--

BRUCE FEIN: --"If I'm president, I won't imitate George Bush." That shows me that this is a far deeper problem than Mr. Bush and Cheney.

BILL MOYERS: That struck me about your writings and your book. You say your great-- your great fear is that Bush and Cheney will hand off to their successors a toolbox that they will not avoid using.

JOHN NICHOLS: Well, let's try a metaphor. Let's say that-- when George Washington chopped down the cherry tree, he used the wood to make a little box. And in that box the president puts his powers. We've taken things out. We've put things in over the years.

On January 20th, 2009, if George Bush and Dick Cheney are not appropriately held to account this administration will hand off a toolbox with more powers than any president has ever had, more powers than the founders could have imagined. And that box may be handed to Hillary Clinton or it may be handed to Mitt Romney or Barack Obama or someone else. But whoever gets it, one of the things we know about power is that people don't give away the tools. They don't give them up. The only way we take tools out of that box is if we sanction George Bush and Dick Cheney now and say the next president cannot govern as these men have.

BRUCE FEIN: Well, that's accurate but also we do find this peculiarity that Congress is giving up powers voluntarily. because there's nothing right now, Bill, that would prevent Congress from the immediate shutting down all of George Bush's and Dick Cheney's illegal programs. Simply saying there's no money to collect foreign intelligence-

BILL MOYERS: The power of the purse-

BRUCE FEIN: --the power of the purse. That is an absolute power. And yet Congress shies from it. It was utilized during the Vietnam War, you may recall, in 1973. Congress said there's no money to go and extend the war into Laos and Cambodia. And even President Nixon said okay. This was a president who at one time said, "If I do it, it's legal." So that it we do find Congress yielding the power to the executive branch. It's the very puzzle that the founding fathers would have been stunned at. They worried most over the legislative branch in, you know, usurping powers of the other branches. And--

BILL MOYERS: Well, what you just said indicts the Congress more than you're indicting George Bush and Dick Cheney.

BRUCE FEIN: In some sense, yes, because the founding fathers expected an executive to try to overreach and expected the executive would be hampered and curtailed by the legislative branch. And you're right. They have basically renounced-- walked away from their responsibility to oversee and check. It's not an option. It's an obligation when they take that oath to faithfully uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States. And I think the reason why this is. They do not have convictions about the importance of the Constitution. It's what in politics you would call the scientific method of discovering political truths and of preventing excesses because you require through the processes of review and vetting one individual's perception to be checked and-- counterbalanced by another's. And when you abandon that process, you abandon the ship of state basically and it's going to capsize...." (clip)

"BILL MOYERS: Well, what you just said indicts the Congress more than you're indicting George Bush and Dick Cheney.

BRUCE FEIN: In some sense, yes, because the founding fathers expected an executive to try to overreach and expected the executive would be hampered and curtailed by the legislative branch. And you're right. They have basically renounced-- walked away from their responsibility to oversee and check."
(quoted from an above post)

Yeah, this is the other aspect of the responsibility I mentioned in my own post above. The lack of real outrage, of revolt, in the Congress, from the central news media, in schools and universities, on the grass root level... when they see what Cheney, Addington and their men have done with the checks and balances in USA, is stunning, enigmatic, even frightening, when you watch this from a distance.

Beside the party strategies and coming election, one of the reasons why they don`t want to impeach Cheney & Bush, is probably that they themselves (democrats, as well as republicans) are heavily responsible for the extension and abuse of power. In the process, everybody would see that they were simply sleeping, or arguing with each other, while the President was transformed to a semi-dictatorial monarch.

Perhaps some decent republicans could take action? After seeing, and applauding George W. during 7 years of spending their political capital like a drunken sailor, the party has nothing left to loose. If they were courageous now, they may have gained the respect of the people, and the hope of winning the elections next time.

"What is urgently needed is an alternative frame to explain Bush's behavior. His agenda needs to be identified and labeled. For example, "Bush wants to attack Iran for [fill in the blank]." Control of Iranian energy assets is the most credible reason I can think of." posted by JohnH

Control of Iranian energy assets is the most credible reason you can think of for invading Iran, JohnH?!?

Tell me how Bush, (well, we know it’s not really Bush – he’s just the megalomaniac/sociopath they’ve got propped up in the window), Cheney et al, will control Iran's energy assets without emptying Iran of its 70,000,000 people – by murdering, imprisoning or physically displacing everyone – you know – ethnic cleansing, Israeli-style. Do you think the Iranians are simply going to lie down in the paths of the Israeli/American nukes and tanks and give up to those their leaders describe as the Great Satan? I won’t be holding my breath waiting for that to happen. This insane plan is a recipe for a world wide conflagration with the ultimate destruction of the United States of America at its epicentre.

Oil? It’s cheaper to buy oil than to kill for it. Trillions cheaper. (Just be prepared to pay for Iranian oil in Euros because Iran isn’t crazy about taking greenbacks for their oil anymore. They prefer paper that’s still worth something.)

So the reason Bush/Cheney are attempting to destroy Iran can’t be simply oil.

So if it's not about oil…and we know it's not about Iranian weapons in the hands of Iraqi militants because the Americans and Israel will never offer up enough proof to the world to justify the destruction of a whole country because somebody routed weapons to an insurgency through it. (Like Iran would be arming Saddam’s Sunni base, anyway…rolls eyes.)

And it’s not about their nuclear program according other posters here, seeing that the UN’s nuclear watchdog appears to have things in hand.

What’s left?

Who wants to say, “Israel! Israel! Israel!”?

The planned destruction of Iran is almost entirely about the demands and interests of Zionists and Israel’s hard right. To deny that is to deny Death.

So how many Americans are prepared to put the finishing touches on the destruction of their own country to further the interests of that “shitty little country”, Israel, by attempting to destroy Iran for them because Israel and AIPAC have told you to? (Remember, it only takes one person to “decide” and another one to release the bombs and then the rest of you will pay the price of that folly for the rest of your lives!)

Btw, did you know that a female Israeli officer is in charge of some of your (American) nuclear weapons?

From Eric Margolis: “Dr Lani Kass, Checkmate's formidable senior civilian official, a former Israeli military officer who had somehow morphed into a senior Pentagon advisor, dismissed my question, insisting no decision to attack Iran had been made.”

(Comforting I bet, to know that.)

And what about the Israeli Security Company that was (and is) "guarding" the nukes at Minot? What about the Israeli software companies that maintain the inventory control software that manages the nukes at Minot?

What were the names of the Americans who allowed that to happen? And what was their justification/reason?

My point is this: Your government is powerless to prevent what these Monsters demand. Your Congressmen and Senators have sucked so long at the Rich Tit of Power provided by these insatiably selfish money/bagmen that they’re incapable of mounting any resistance to them at all anymore. Face it – your country has suffered a coup – and no one has even noticed. Almost everyone with influence has been bought and paid for. (psst, where’s Al Gore when you need him?)

So much for American “democracy” and “freedom”. (said wryly)

I’ve never read “The Protocols of the Elders of Zion” but I’ve been led to believe that it’s a fantastic and unbelievable story about Jews taking over the world. As far as I’ve been able to determine, that’s the reason it’s used so often (and indiscriminately) as a weapon to undercut any and all criticism of right wing Israel and its’ maniacal Supporters. (think Dershowitz, here.) Throw out a dismissive accusation referring to the Protocols and you can effectively shut down any discussion on a blog in America, no matter how relevant and factual the criticisms of racist and war-mongering Zionism and its Bastion of smug, self-centred, racist superiority, Israel, your point might be.

Well, Zionist-centric Jews have taken over the United States of America. FULL STOP. And no matter what it has cost them, you can be assured that they’re now being paid back handsomely for their “investments” in your hollowed-out, amoral politicians and in their very own Zionist fellow-travellers, assigned to the halls of government, business, academia and the media.

Israel has carte blanche to do as it wishes. Bombs and bullets can’t be made fast enough.

“Mission Accomplished”

“Yer either wit us or agin us” – isn’t that what the Shrub said?

I wonder who wrote it and who was meant by “us”.

This is undoubtedly one of the best threads I have followed here in some time. Its a damn shame that these intellectually narcissistic asses in the think tank community don't have the balls to drop the insider mindset and get back to basic common sense and logical thinking, such as we see here on this thread, (particularly from our friend in Europe).

One thing I see missing from the discourse is the very real possibility that many of you are assigning sane motives, (albiet criminal), to personalities and organizations that do not require sane motives, legal or otherwise. When discussing the neo-con cabal, (as well as the current "leaders" that seem to be dictating Israeli policies), I do not use the term "monsters" lightly. I mean it in every sense of the word. These people are every bit as insane, murderous, and bigoted as Adolph Hitler was, and are far more dangerous, due to thier access to nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons. Imagine Adolph Hitler with nukes.

I can think of no other time in history when three different factions, all representing extreme religious zealotry, had such awesome destructive power, and were so directly pursuing conflict.

Do you doubt what I am saying? Listen to right wing talk radio, watch Fox News, and visit the far right wing blogs and websites. Then apply basic common sense and your powers of logic to ascertain motive, and where this is leading us. Yes, oil may be a part of the equation. But the over-riding issue, the prime motivation, is religious and ethnic hatred and zealotry. And never before in history have the motives of all the antagonists been driven by such zealotry, backed up by such power of weaponry.

We hear much these days about "anti-semitism", and it is decried as a detestable abberation, as true anti-semitism should be. But what of all the hatred we are being spoon fed about Muslims by the Christians and the Jewish leaders? There is a reason that the rhetoric no longer separates the Iranian people from the zealotry of the fanatics. There is a reason that we are being spoon fed terms like "islamofascist". Take a gander at the far right wing religious websites, and see the level of hatred and accusation that is being leveled against the Muslim people.

This hatred and zealotry is self perpetuating, contagious, dangerous, and escalating. The crazies are taking us to the brink, and God help us if one side or the other decides to push the wrong button. And, judging from the last seven years, I would say that "possibility" is acually an inevitability.

BTW, on my commute home, I listen to Michael Savage. Not because I subscribe to his leanings, but because it is entertaining. Tonight he had some "Jeff" somebody or the other on, who was from "Insight Magazine"(?). This Jeff dude claims that Wesley Clarke is doing speaking engagements in front of the major Jewish lobby organizations, and telling them that if Bush doesn't take care of the "Iran problem", then, if elected, Hillary will.

Monsters.

Like I said, God help us.

"Well, Zionist-centric Jews have taken over the United States of America. FULL STOP. "(arthurdecco)

Well, well.
You tell us that you`ve never read "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion". You would probably waste your time if you read it. Mysteriously enough, you have already reached the same kind of paranoid conclusions through different sources.

Israel is part of the story we are discussing. Born again christians is part of the picture. And so is oil. And neocon visions. And regional dominance. Etc. etc.

But some people can´t get no satisfaction with complex analysis containing multiple factors. They demand the Answer. The hidden agenda; one big factor that can explain why things happen.

"arthurdecco" argues against the theory that oil is the sole reason why the US may attack Iran. And than he comes up with his simplistic theory: the jews have taken over the US.

Congratulations. By arguing like that, you are among those creating a climate that makes it hard even to state the obvious fact: that Israel has considerable influence on US foreign policy.

I should not comment on such anti-semitic statements. But since this thread is fucked up anyway, I could not resist it. Sorry for that. Next time, I promise to shut up when someone is poisoning the atmosphere.

"I should not comment on such anti-semitic statements. But since this thread is fucked up anyway, I could not resist it. Sorry for that. Next time, I promise to shut up when someone is poisoning the atmosphere."

Posted by Paul Norheim

Well, enlighten us then, you jackass. Why is it that AIPAC is lyin' like theres no tomorrow about Iran's nuclear capabilities?

Tell you what, it is the mantra of "anti-semitism" that is poisoning the atmosphere. And the truth is, Israel HAS FAR TOO MUCH INFLUENCE on American Foreign policy. AND MANY OF US ARE SICK AND TIRED OF FINANCING ISRAEL'S WAR CRIMES, HUMAN RIGHTS ABUSES, AND WARMONGERING with AMERICAN BLOOD AND MONEY.

So take your charge of "anti-semitism" and shove it where the sun don't shine.

Mr. Norheim, Please read my post again. Carefully this time, rather than indolently. If you have any questions about anything I've stated, please ask me for clarification.

But refrain from knee-jerk responses and irresponsible accusations of anti-Semitism because you don't have the language skills to understand the subtleties of my post. You've confused anti-Semitism with what is actually my rabid aversion to criminal and racist Zionism.

(I know, I know - for some of you it's difficult to separate the two. Zionism = Jews for some of you.

Just not for me.)

If you would like to offer up some proof that what I have said in my previous post is untrue, please do so. It should be easy for you, based on the vitriol on display in your last post, to prove me wrong.

I await your civilized rebuttal. (Thuggery I won't abide!)

"I can think of no other time in history when three different factions, all representing extreme religious zealotry, had such awesome destructive power, and were so directly pursuing conflict." (Pissed of American)

POA, my comment was not directed against you. I had not read your comment when I wrote mine, posted two minutes later.

I agree with your main point about the three factions and the increasing religious zealotry. Given the poisoning of parts of the Muslim world in recent times, and the breathtaking expansion of born again Christianity in large parts of South America, Africa, and Asia (in particular through TV-evangelists), this will obviously have a major influence on geopolitical events in the 21. century. I think we are only witnessing the beginning of a radical change in the political atmosphere, that no one could imagine in the 1950s or 60s. And who knows if the Armagedon supporters will approach the jewish people with hate or with "love", twenty years from now? Both options are bad news, both for the Israelis, the Americans and the rest of us.

However, given the current atmosphere, I believe that comparing some of the actors on the current world stage with "Adolf Hitler", is a speciality that is best left to the Bush family and others who want to demonize their enemies. Even in marginal forums like this one, or perhaps especially in such forums, where you talk with intelligent people who know a lot about politics and history, I believe strongly in a language that is clearly distinguishable from the one you can watch on the horrible Fox News and other similar places. Just my opinion.

But back to your post. Yeah, I think you`re right. And given the increased religious hatred, the geopolitical conflicts of the future will contain a mixture of verses from religious texts, territorial claims and a struggle for energy resources, all at the same time. The State Department will have to hire a lot of experts in religious matters.

But today this religious zealotry is just as visible among people without a religion. At least here in Europe we have a lot of ideologues who are preaching on behalf of "free speech", "modern, liberal values", "human rights", "feminism", "gay rights" "tolerance", etc. etc. all excellent values, but with an intolerance in attitude that is not distinguishable from the "fanatics" they see as a threat to all these values.
Even if it resulted in a regional war, some of these people would consider it as their holy duty to put a drawing of Muhammad as a pig or a dog, in the face of a Muslim, just to test if that person agreed with the sacred, secular values, after being offended.

So, actually you have four main factions here, and I don`t think the fanatic atheists are better than the rest of the bunch.

To both of you:

I agree with the claims that Israel in many different ways have too much influence on US policy. This is obvious.

Also obvious: that the current Israeli treatment of the Palestinians is based on racism, more or less like the former Apartheid regime of South Africa.

But I have a problem with claims like: "Zionist-centric Jews have taken over the United States of America."

As I see it, this is a free gift to the Israeli government, AIPAC and the neocons that they don`t deserve.

with greetings and best wishes from a

Pissed Of European

My last formulation was perhaps a bit unclear:
"As I see it, this is a free gift to the Israeli government, AIPAC and the neocons that they don`t deserve."

What I meant, was that this is the kind of statement ("Zionist-centric Jews have taken over the United States of America") that may serve to justify the Israeli unwillingness to distinguish between anti-semitism and simply being critical against Israeli policy.

"What I meant, was that this is the kind of statement ("Zionist-centric Jews have taken over the United States of America") that may serve to justify the Israeli unwillingness to distinguish between anti-semitism and simply being critical against Israeli policy." posted by Paul Norheim

Who cares what excuse Zionists pull out of their ass to use as an excuse to ignore the outrage we're directing at their criminal manipulation of America's political class, Mr. Norheim? Facts are facts are facts!

It's precisely this kind of statement that needs to be repeated endlessly until it is acknowledged as true by all the players involved in this unfolding tragedy - the tragedy being the ultimate destruction of the United States.

If you can accept the fact that right wing Israel and its powerful and influential Zionist backers worldwide have an inordinate influence over American (and others') foreign policy – how could you think that by pointing that fact out we provide legitimate justifications for Zionists to hurl pell mell accusations of anti-Semitism at their critics?

In my opinion, yours is a facile and irrational argument – one I cannot accept. And it would be a good thing if you stopped accepting it too.

We have to stop allowing the belligerents to define the terms of our discussions if we ever hope to find real solutions to this very real problem.

Well I have to agree with Paul Norheim, that, first, we have to be careful not to use terminology that makes it easier to dismiss our objections as simply "anti-semitism". There is nothing to be gained by emulating the worst members of the human race who make outrageous remarks.

And secondly, it is naive to think that AIPAC has taken over our government. I think it is very convenient for our NeoNutzis and our all too Solid South RepubliKlans to claim their warmongering is all about defending Jews and Israel. That just sounds more politically correct than saying we want all that Ayrab oil, and we're using your kids to steal it, so we can make maximum profits. We don't want to have to pay a fair price for it and we want an excuse to gouge you with gasoline prices. We don't care how many get killed, because our bottom line is our religion.

I think the South and Fundamentalism is as much to blame for our current polcy as AIPAC.

I think it's BUSH and his family and CHENEY and his family together with the NEO-CONS and all their cronies to blame for our current policy.

The rest just fall in line and nod yes. Including most of the sorry, pathetic Democrats.

Why keep fighting the civil war? Put the "blame" where it belongs!

This is a mine field. But let me try.

There are two principal reasons why everyone, attackers as well as defenders of the Israeli government (and the lobby organizations in several countries, working on behalf of Israel) should try to distinguish between genuine criticism and anti-semitism.

The first one is the most important: anti-semitism is a deep rooted historical fact and a wide spread phenomenon, also today.

The second one is that when Israel acts in a way that is questionable (as it often does, like any government or state), it is crucial that we have a language that makes it possible to criticize that state or government, without hurting Jews in general at the same time, as a kind of “collateral damage”.

Then there is an additional, tactical one: if you are not rhetorically careful when you criticize Israel or the lobby organizations, you make it very easy for them to just quote you, to prove that you are an anti-semite, nothing more, nothing less, and this way your critique is less efficient.

Even the more reasonable among supporters of Israel should see the importance of this. If it is impossible to criticize the actions of that state without being labeled an anti-semite, the critique itself sooner or later becomes violent, nasty – it may even transform into anti-semitism, because every possible language is criminalized. And if an entity, a state or an organization, is treated as a holy cow, never listening to critique, that entity will go in a bad direction, even if it once was a victim or acting for a good cause.

The atmosphere for such a critique is very different, depending on where it comes from. In several European countries it is relatively easy to criticize Israel today, without being labeled an anti-semite by others than the Israeli ambassador in that country. The main news media does this all the time, just as it criticize Russia, Burma, Australia, Saudi Arabia, or Poland (I am not comparing here; just a random list of countries).
This is very fortunate, and in the long run I believe it serves both parties in the Middle East conflict. Even Germany is now, to some extent able to criticize Israel, and deserves that right, because it has examined its own guilt in the Holocaust in an admirable way through the decades after WW2. A few years ago, both Yasir Arafat and the Prime Minister of Israel (I can`t remember who it was at the time, but it was not Sharon!) in a certain situation wanted to talk to Germany, because both seemed to trust them more than they trusted USA or UK representatives, and that is quite remarkable.

In the Arab countries (and Iran) the critique of Israel is rhetorically mixed with the language of anti-semitism. For me it is hard to sit comfortably in a peaceful European country, demanding that the Arab and Iranian people should separate those two languages, because there are hundreds of thousands of victims of Israeli actions in some of those countries. But in the long run, one of the conditions for a more peaceful Middle East, is that also members of these countries are able to develop a language separated from the anti-semitic vocabulary. This is of course a utopian project, given the current Israeli aggression, arrogance, and – yes: racism towards the Palestinians.

In the United States, the situation is of course very different from the Middle East, or Europe. The readers and commentators at Washingtonote has first hand experience and knowledge in these matters. I can only watch it from a distance. The old historical factors are different than here: many Jews escaped European pogroms and the genocide of the Third Reich, settling down in America.

If I am correct, crucial things happened during the Reagan years which changed the whole picture, and contributed in shaping the current situation. Many conservatives in the GOP traditionally disliked the American Jews; they were “liberal intellectuals”, “leftist” etc. But during the 1980s, the Israel friendly born again Christians and the GOP became strongly connected. GOP needed their votes, and had to become a strong advocate of Israel to get those votes. And now, also the democrats need the votes of these conservative born again Christians, more than they need the votes of the “liberal Jews”. And than you have an absurd situation where nobody can criticize Israel, nor AIPAC, nor the lunatic Armageddon people, and this is also shaping the Middle East policy of your country.

As a result, the US Middle East policy, as far as I can judge, is shaped by two main components which are in conflict with each other.

In short: Oil & Israel. Recently, a third component became more important: terrorism.

Given this background, it is hard to separate domestic and foreign policy from each other. When the US supports Israel more or less unconditionally, with words, money and weapons, it is at the same time acting against its own interests in security (terrorism, anti-americanism) and energy (oil and gas), as well as in its effort to “establish a peaceful Middle East.” The last effort has not been credible for years. It has probably never been credible.

These are the contradictions of US Middle East policy. When you add into that the recent project of regime change, and democratization of the M.E. with military means (with the US Army trying to act like a Leon Trotsky or Lord Byron on behalf the oppressed people and victims of tyranny), the result is chaos and tragedies.

Let me add one thing here. Israel has several enemies. But if I was an Israeli citizen, I would be more suspicious towards some of my so called “friends” then my traditional enemies. The Christian Right, the fundamentalist type of people, are such “friends”. Their “friendship” with Israel and everything Jewish is a pure abstraction. The Jews and the state of Israel is for them simply one of the main dramatic components in the Armagedon event.

These people do not want to protect or defend Israel or Jews any more than Osama bin Laden or Ahmedinejad want to do that. In their view, the Middle East will and shall end in an apocalyptic blood bath, a Mega-Holocaust where the Jews will become victims again, just like the Arabs, that is, if they don`t see Jesus Christ and become born again in their last hour.

For the fundamentalist Christians, US foreign policy should serve this fantasy of Armagedon. They couldn`t care less about US “security” or “American interests”, if these goals are in conflict with their weird reading of the Bible.

The Israeli hard liners are of course well aware of this, but as long as the fundament Christians “support” provides American good will, money and weapons, they don`t care. This way, the Israeli hard liners and the fundamentalist Christians are each others “useful idiots”, with more sane citizens of both countries playing the role as hostage in this dangerous game.

I realize that it`s hard to get heard in the big news media when you criticize Israel and the strong US support of Israel, or AIPAC and the way USA is influenced by pro Israel hard liners. To have any chance of being heard by anyone, except people who already agree with you, as well as the destructive forces on the Israeli/Christian fundamentalist/hawkish side (they listen, eager to label anyone who doesn`t, support them as “anti-semits”), I can only see one workable strategy:

Developing a language that is not infected by the rhetoric of anti-semitism.

Being careful with regards to the old and nasty vocabulary, connotations, and tone. The majority of the American population are ignorant about what Israel is doing to the Palestinians. If you give the hard liners an easy chance to label you as someone who hate the Jews, you will never get heard by anybody else.

I think it is as simple – and difficult – as that.

From an Israeli I respect (at Counterpunch.com):

October 4, 2007

Two Knights and a Dragon
THE POWER OF THE ISRAEL LOBBY
By URI AVNERY

There are books that change people's consciousness and change history. Some tell a story, like Harriet Beech Stowe's 1851 "Uncle Tom's Cabin", which gave a huge impetus to the campaign for the abolition of slavery. Others take the form of a political treatise, like Theodor Herzl's "Der Judenstaat", which gave birth to the Zionist movement. Or they can be scientific in nature, like Charles Darwin's "The Origin of Species", which changed the way humanity sees itself. And perhaps political satire, too, can shake the world, like "1984" by George Orwell.

The impact of these books was amplified by their timing. They appeared exactly at the right time, when a large public was ready to absorb their message.

It may well turn out that the book by the two professors, John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt, "The Israel Lobby and US Foreign Policy", is just such a book.

It is a dry scientific research report, 355 pages long, backed by 106 further pages containing some thousand references to sources.

It is not a bellicose book. On the contrary, its style is restrained and factual. The authors take great care not to utter a single negative comment on the legitimacy of the Lobby, and indeed bend over backwards to stress their support for the existence and security of Israel. They let the facts speak for themselves. With the skill of experienced masons, they systematically lay brick upon brick, row upon row, leaving no gap in their argumentation.

This wall cannot be torn down by reasoned argument. Nobody has tried, and nobody is going to. Instead, the authors are being smeared and accused of sinister motives. If the book could be ignored altogether, this would have been done--as has happened to other books which have been buried alive.

(Some years ago, there appeared in Russia a large tome by Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, the world-renowned laureate of the Nobel Prize for Literature, about Russia and its Jews. This book, called "200 Years Together", has been completely ignored. As far as I know, it has not been translated into any language, certainly not into Hebrew. I asked several of Israel's leading intellectuals, and none of them had even heard of the book. Neither does it appear on the list of Amazon.com, which includes all the author's other works.)

* * *
THE TWO professors take the bull by the horns. They deal with a subject which is absolutely taboo in the United States, a subject nobody in his right mind would even mention: the enormous influence of the pro-Israel lobby on American foreign policy.

In a remorselessly systematical way, the book analyzes the Lobby, takes it apart, describes its modus operandi, discloses its financial sources and lays bare its relations with the White House, the two houses of Congress, the leaders of the two major parties and leading media people.

The authors do not call into question the Lobby's legitimacy. On the contrary, they show that hundreds of lobbies of this kind play an essential role in the American democratic system. The gun and the medical lobbies, for example, are also very powerful political forces. But the pro-Israel lobby has grown out of all proportion. It has unparalleled political power. It can silence all criticism of Israel in Congress and the media, bring about the political demise of anyone who dares to break the taboo, prevent any action that does not conform to the will of the Israeli government.

In its second part, the book shows how the Lobby uses its tremendous power in practice: how it has prevented the exertion of any pressure on Israel to for peace with the Palestinians, how it pushed the US into the invasion of Iraq, how it is now pushing for wars with Iran and Syria, how it supported the Israeli leadership in the recent war in Lebanon and blocked calls for a ceasefire when it didn't want it.

Each of these assertions is backed up by so much undeniable evidence and quotations from written material (mainly from Israeli sources) that they cannot be ignored.

* * *
MOST OF these disclosures are nothing new for those in Israel who deal with these matters.

I myself could add to the book a whole chapter from personal experience.

In the late 50s, I visited the US for the first time. A major New York radio station invited me for an interview. Later they cautioned me: "You can criticize the President (Dwight D. Eisenhower) and the Secretary of State (John Foster Dulles) to your heart's content, but please don't criticize Israeli leaders!" At the last moment the interview was cancelled altogether, and the Iraqi ambassador was invited instead. Criticism was apparently tolerable when it came from an Arab, but absolutely not coming from an Israeli.

In 1970, the respected American "Fellowship of Reconciliation" invited me for a lecture tour of 30 universities, under the auspices of the Hillel rabbis. When I arrived in New York, I was informed that 29 of the lectures had been cancelled. The sole rabbi who did not cancel, Balfour Brickner, showed me a secret communication of the "Anti-Defamation League" that proscribed my lectures. It said: "While Knesset Member Avnery can in no way be considered a traitor, his appearance at this time would be deeply divisive" In the end, all the lectures took place under the auspices of Christian chaplains.

I especially remember a depressing experience in Baltimore. A good Jew, who had volunteered to host me, was angered by the cancellation of my lecture in this city and obstinately insisted on putting it on. We combed the streets of the Jewish quarters--mile upon mile of signs with Jewish names--and did not find a single hall whose manager would agree to let the lecture by a member of the Israeli Knesset take place. In the end, we did hold the lecture in the basement of the building of my host's apartment--and functionaries of the Jewish community came to protest.

That year, during Black September, I held a press conference in Washington DC, under the auspices of the Quakers. It seemed to be a huge success. The journalists came straight from a press conference with Prime Minister Golda Meir, and showered me with questions. Almost all the important media were represented--TV networks, radio, the major newspapers. After the planned hour was up, they would not let me go and kept me talking for another hour and a half. But the next day, not a single word appeared in any of the media. Thirty-one years later, in October 2001 I held a press conference on Capitol Hill in Washington, and exactly the same thing happened: many of the media were there, they held me for another hour--and not a word, not a single word, was published.

In 1968, a very respected American publishing house (Macmillan) brought out a book of mine' "Israel Without Zionists", which was later translated into eight other languages. The book described the Israeli-Arab conflict in a very different way and proposed the establishment of a Palestinian state next to Israel--a revolutionary idea at the time. Not a single review appeared in the American media. I checked in one of the most important book stores in New York and did not find the book. When I asked a salesman, he found it buried under a heap of volumes and put it on top. Half an hour later it was hidden again.

The book dealt with the "Two States for Two peoples" solution long before it became a world-wide consensus, and with my proposal for Israel's integration in "the Semitic Region". True, I am an Israeli patriot and was elected to the Knesset by Israeli voters. But I criticized the Israeli government--and that was enough.
* * *
THE BOOK by the two professors, who criticize the Israeli government from a different angle, cannot be buried anymore. This fact, by itself, speaks volumes.

The book is based on an essay by the two that appeared last year in a British journal, after no American publication dared to touch it. Now a respected American publishing house has released it--an indication that something is moving. The situation has not changed, but it seems that it is now possible at least to talk about it.

Everything depends on timing--and apparently the time is now ripe for such a book, which will shock many good people in America. It is now causing an uproar.

The two professors are, of course, accused of anti-Semitism, racism and hatred of Israel. What Israel? It is the Lobby itself that hates a large part of Israel. In recent years is has shifted even more to the Right. Some of its constituent groups--such as the neo-cons who pushed the US into the Iraq war--are openly connected with the right-wing Likud, and especially with Binyamin Netanyahu. The billionaires who finance the Lobby are the same people who finance the extreme Israeli Right, and most of all the settlers.

The small, determined Jewish groups in the US who support the Israeli peace movements are remorselessly persecuted. Some of them fold after a few years. Members of Israeli peace groups who are sent to America are boycotted and slandered as "self-hating-Jews".

The political views of the two professors, which are briefly stated at the end of the book, are identical with the stand of the Israeli peace forces: the Two-State Solution, ending the occupation, borders based on the Green Line, and international support for the peace settlement.

If this is anti-Semitism, then we here are all anti-Semites. And only the Christian Zionists--those who openly demand the return of the Jews to this country but secretly prophesy the annihilation of the unconverted Jews at the Second Coming of Jesus Christ--are the true Lovers of Zion.

* * *
EVEN IF not a single bad word about the pro-Israel lobby can be uttered in the US, it is far from being a secret society, hatching conspiracies like the "Protocols of the Elders of Zion". On the contrary, AIPAC, the Anti-Defamation League, the Zionist Federation and the other organizations vociferously boast about their actions and publicly proclaim their incredible successes.

Quite naturally, the diverse components of the Lobby compete with each other--Who has the biggest influence on the White House, Who scares the most senators, Who controls more journalists and commentators,. This competition causes a permanent escalation--because every success by one group spurs the others to redouble their efforts.

This could be very dangerous. A balloon that is inflated to monstrous dimensions can one day burst in the face of American Jews (who, by the way, according to the polls, object to many positions adopted by the Lobby that claims to speak in their name.)

Most of the American public now opposes the Iraq war and considers it a disaster. This majority still does not connect the war with the actions of the pro-Israel lobby. No newspaper and no politician dares to hint at such a connection--yet. But if this taboo is broken, the result may be very dangerous for the Jews and for Israel.

Beneath the surface, a lot of anger directed against the Lobby is accumulating. The presidential candidates, who are compelled to grovel at the feet of AIPAC, the senators and congressmen, who have become slaves of the Lobby, the media people, who are forbidden to write what they really think-- all these secretly detest the Lobby. If this anger explodes, it may hurt us, too.

This lobby has become a Golem. And like the Golem in legend, in the end it will bring disaster on its maker.

* * *
IF I may be permitted to voice some criticism of my own:

When the original article by the two professors appeared, I argued that "the tail is wagging the dog and the dog is wagging the tail". The tail, of course, is Israel.

The two professors confirm the first part of the equation, but emphatically deny the second. The central thesis of the book is that the pressure of the Lobby causes the United States to act against its own interests (and, in the long run, also against the true interests of Israel.) They do not accept my contention, quoted in the book, that Israel acted in Lebanon as "America's Rottweiler" (to Hizbullah as "Iran's Doberman").

I agree that the US is acting against its true interest (and the true interests of Israel)--but the American leadership does not see it that way. Bush and his people believe--even without the input of the Lobby--that it would be advantageous for the US to establish a permanent American military presence in the middle of this region of huge oil reserves. In my view, this counter-productive act at was one of the main objectives of the war, side by side with the desire to eliminate one of Israel's most dangerous enemies. Unfortunately, the book deals only very briefly with this issue.

That does not diminish in any way my profound admiration for the intellectual qualities, integrity and courage of Mearsheimer and Walt, two knights who, like St. George, who have sallied forth to face the fearful dragon.

URI AVNERY is an Israeli writer and peace activist with Gush Shalom. He is a contributor to CounterPunch's book The Politics of Anti-Semitism.

Kathleen, You said: "we have to be careful not to use terminology that makes it easier to dismiss our objections as simply "anti-semitism". There is nothing to be gained by emulating the worst members of the human race who make outrageous remarks."

If this was directed at me, I'd appreciate a heads-up on what could be construed as "anti-Semitism" in my posts.

And if it wasn't, and instead was simply a cautionary appeal for Everyone to be careful about the words you choose to use when discussing the revolting and criminal policies of the Israeli government and their lobbying organizations world-wide - I have to ask you, “Why?”

Why should we have to turn down the heated rhetoric when it does nothing to help us achieve change in their illegal and immoral behaviour? Have you listened to the bellicosity directed by the Lobby towards Iran? Towards Syria? Towards the Palestinians, Hamas, Hizbollah? Towards even fellow Jews unhappy with Zionism’s criminal and racist intentions? I compare the hatred oozing through Zionist discourse to pus seeping from an untended wound. We need to clean the wound and bind it up to prevent further infection.

We should be increasing the volume of our outrage – not turning it down.

Uri Avnery admitted in the article provided by Sandy that if things keep on as they are, all Jews, not just Zionists, are going to be targeted and punished all over again for the sins of their so-called and self-proclaimed "leaders", who, of course are too insulated by their wealth, power and positions to ever suffer for their arrogance, hubris and naked aggression. Instead, it will be the Diaspora of decent, caring, contributing Jews that once again will pay the awful price due to their self-proclaimed leaders’ criminal transgressions.

Do you want to see that happen?

I certainly don’t.

It’s not time to turn down the volume, Kathleen. Instead, it’s time to turn it up! Let’s call a spade a spade. Let’s ignore the caterwauling screeching of “anti-Semite! Jew-hater! Self-hating Jew! emanating from these lying criminals, thugs and thieves!

The future of our world may depend on the success of our efforts.

Remember McCarthy? America trembled, quaked and quivered in front of that pathetic, drunken little man for years – held hostage by his bestial thuggery and verbal violence. Until one day one man refused to back down.

That was all it took to remove that embarrassing stain from American Political history - Steadfast courage in the face of what appeared to be overwhelming might.

Stand up, fer crissakes! Stand up and be counted! And stop kowtowing to these monsters who care nothing for America, Americans or even their fellow Jews!

Zionism has been shown to be a horrible mistake. Its time to rip the curtain down. To show everyone just how horrible a mistake it’s been. It’s certainly not time to watch our manners and edit our conversations so that we don’t offend these offenders!

Remember, we didn’t heat up the rhetoric – they did, with their all-out assaults on decent people like President Carter, on academics like Norman Finkelstein, Walt and Meirsheimer and Kevin MacDonald, and on any of us who disagree with their philosophy.

I, for one, have no intention of being careful “not to use terminology that makes it easier to dismiss our objections as simply "anti-Semitism"” because I no longer care if they accuse me of anti-Semitism. Their continued use of the phrase to stifle debate has made the term powerless.

And that is a true tragedy beyond all measurement.

arthrudecco... I said "We" have to be careful, not you. I'm not suggesting that we shouldn't speak our mind as bluntly as we choose, but why make it easy for them to dismiss our arguments?

Sandy... I'm not still fighting the civil war.. just observing that southern fundamentalists in their block voting patterns are just as culpable as AIPAC for our aggressive foreign policy against Muslims.

P.S. arthrudecco... I've been standing up, probably longer than you've been alive. Just because I choose to not use terms that can easilly be dismissed as anti-semetic, doesn't mean I mince my words when it comes to criticizing our gov't or put my money and my ass on the line.

All of us here has done everything we can think to do, but when you have a suppine, non-existent opposition Democrap party, it does present a challenge to figure out what else we can do. We are thinking aloud here and expressing our frustration and exasperation at this dilemna, not giving up. If you have some bright idea that we here have not yet tried, please enlighten us. Nothing would please us more than finding a way to stop this insanity, sincerely.

Kathleen, I agree with you that the Rapture folks are as pernicious in having their way with America's foreign policy as are the Neo-Cons (emphasis on con), the entire Israel Lobby, et al. They each have cleverly figured out a way to scratch each others' backs, politically....and the country has gone downhill ever since.

But, as someone who has lived in the South for many years, I know from experience (having lived most of my life in the North) that there are just as many Kool-aid-drinking evangelicals/fundamentalists up North (and all over the country) as there are down here. The Jerry Falwells, Pat Robertsons and their ilk have, unfortunately, a surprisingly broad appeal to people who think and believe that way. And, once they figured out they needed to venture into the politics of this country (to increase their own POWER), there's been no going back.

Karl Rove and his band of merry Swift-boaters and election de-frauders are just as busy in Ohio as they are in South Carolina, for example (even as we speak). And, trust me, there are also just as many bigots in the North....as there are in the South.

Let's all give a hearty welcome to the newest member of the anti-semite club.

"Nobel Peace Prize winner Archbishop Desmond Tutu Banned from St Thomas as an Anti--Semite for Criticizing Israel"

Tony Koran..

"The utterly charming thing about the Zionist Thought Police is their apparent inability to restrain themselves, even from the very excesses that will prove to be their own undoing. Having asked sane and rational people to believe that Jimmy Carter is a Holocaust denier simply for pointing out the obvious about the apartheid regime Israel maintains in the occupied territories, the same crew now want us to believe that Archbishop Desmond Tutu is an anti-Semite. No jokes! That was the reason cited for Tutu being banned from speaking at St. Thomas University in Minneapolis. “We had heard some things he said that some people judged to be anti-Semitic and against Israeli policy,” explained university official Doug Hennes.

http://articles.citypages.com/2007-10-03/news/banning-desmond-tutu/

And, Carroll, don't forget Jimmy:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/nathan-gardels/jimmy-carter-takes-on-isr_b_36134.html

Nathan Gardels| BIO

Jimmy Carter takes on Israel's Apartheid Policies and the Pro-Israeli Lobby in the US.

December 12, 2006 | 01:08 PM (EST)

There is not much room in American political life, whether Democratic or Republican, for trying to save Israel from its mistakes and the mistakes of AIPAC, its impressively effective lobbying arm in the United States. Former president Jimmy Carter is virtually the lone voice, along with his former national security adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski, willing to criticize Israel for its own good, in the name of American interests and for peace in the region.

Here is what Jimmy Carter had to say when I talked with him recently about his new book, Palestine: Peace, Not Apartheid.

Nathan Gardels: Otherwise revered figures like yourself or fellow Nobel Laureate Desmond Tutu are accused of anti-Semitism when you describe the Israeli occupation under which Palestinians live as "apartheid." Why is this description so inflammatory in the U.S. when it is so readily accepted everywhere else in the world?

Jimmy Carter: If you look at the record, the Israeli attorney general who served under the late Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin and even Benjamin Netanyahu have used this same phrase, "apartheid." But I didn't get it from him.

I'm talking about Palestine, not Israel. Everyone knows Israel is a democracy, with equal rights guaranteed under the law for both Arabs and Jews. But the persecution and rigid separation of the Palestinians from the Jewish settlers in the occupied territories is indeed as penetrating as anything that happened in South Africa. There are differences: This apartheid is not based on racism, but on the desire of a small minority of Israelis to acquire and hold Israeli land.

Now, people in the United States, including me, are naturally inclined to support Israel. I'm an evangelical Christian who teaches the Bible every Sunday at my church. I teach half the Old Testament and half the New Testament. We Americans identify the Hebrews, the Israelites, with ourselves.

But there is something else. The Israelis want to prohibit any sort of overt criticism of their abuse of Palestinians under this system. As I wrote in the Los Angeles Times recently, reluctance to criticize any policies of the Israeli government in the U.S. is because of the extraordinary lobbying efforts of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee and the absence of any significant contrary voices. For the last 30 years, I have personally witnessed and experienced the severe restraints on any free and balanced discussion of the facts due to their influence.

It would be almost politically suicidal for members of Congress to espouse a balanced position between Israel and Palestine, to suggest that Israel comply with international law or to speak in defense of justice or human rights for Palestinians. If they did so, they couldn't be re-elected. As a result of this AIPAC influence, there haven't been any serious peace talks sponsored by the U.S. in six years.

Gardels: Isn't the apartheid-type separation also out of fear of Israeli security?

Carter: I don't agree with that. It is not about security. Take Hamas, for example. It is usually accused of being the most radical group. But it declared a self-imposed cease-fire -- a hudna. Not a single Israeli life has been lost to so-called Hamas terrorism since August 2004. Since they have won political office, Hamas has stopped its terrorist activity.

Gardels: The neo-cons who took the U.S. into war in Iraq were fond of saying the road to Middle East peace was through Baghdad, not Jerusalem. Now the Iraq Study Group led by James Baker says the opposite -- the road to peace in Baghdad and the rest of the Middle East must go through Jerusalem.

Is the Israel-Palestine conflict still the key to peace in the whole region? Is the linkage policy right?

Carter: I don't think it's about a linkage policy, but a linkage fact. There is no doubt: The heart and mind of every Muslim is affected by whether or not the Israel-Palestine issue is dealt with fairly. Even among the populations of our former close friends in the region, Egypt and Jordan, less than 5 percent look favorably on the United States today. That's not because we invaded Iraq; they hated Saddam. It is because we don't do anything about the Palestinian plight. Without doubt, the path to peace in the Middle East goes through Jerusalem.

Gardels: Even if the U.S. did sponsor a major peace initiative, does Israeli have a partner for peace? It can't deal with Hamas, can it?

Carter: Mahmoud Abbas is the president of the Palestinian National Authority as well as the leader of the PLO (Palestine Liberation Organization.) Hamas has nothing to do with the PLO -- the only organization recognized officially by Israel in exchange for its recognition of Israel as a legal entity.

If they want to, right now, Israel can negotiate both with the Palestinian Authority and the PLO. Moreover, the Hamas prime minister has said he favors direct peace talks between Mahmoud Abbas, representing the Palestinians, and Israel. If they reach a peace agreement, and it is approved by the Palestinians at large in a referendum, then he says Hamas will accept it.
Further, in my talks with Hamas leaders, they've told me a hudna -- or (ITALICS) unilateral (END ITALICS) truce with Israel under Islamic law -- could last two, 20 or even 50 years.

Gardels: "No nation can make itself secure by seeking supremacy over others," Kofi Annan said in his final address as U.N. secretary-general on Monday.

Speaking with me during the Israeli war with Hezbollah, your former national security adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski said something similar: "Neocon prescriptions of security through supremacy, of which Israel has its equivalent, are fatal for America and ultimately for Israel. They will turn the overwhelming majority of the Middle East's population against the U.S. Eventually, the U.S. will be expelled from the region, and that will be the beginning of the end for Israel as well." Do you agree?

Carter: I wouldn't go that far. True, these policies have already turned the Middle East against the U.S. and Israel. But I wouldn't go so far as to say it will cause the downfall of Israel. It is not too late for Israel to have good-faith talks with the Palestinians or, for that matter, with Syria about the Golan Heights.

Having said this, there is no doubt in my mind that Israel will never have peace unless it agrees to something similar to the Geneva Initiative -- endorsed by myself, by Bill Clinton and by Jacques Chirac among many others -- which, in essence, completed the Taba talks which fleshed out the proposals that Ehud Barak and Clinton worked out during Clinton's last days in office. The Geneva Initiative was in fact put together by the same negotiators of Oslo and Taba.
The initiative provides for secure borders and overwhelming recognition by the Arab world for Israel and a sovereign, contiguous, viable state for Palestinians recognized by the international community. The dividing border would be based on the 1967 lines but with a mutual exchange of land, giving Israel some of its largest settlements, Jewish neighborhoods in East Jerusalem and the Jewish Quarter of the Old City.

An international religious authority would control central holy sites, with the Temple Mount officially under Palestinian sovereignty and the Western Wall and Jewish Quarter of the Old City under Israeli sovereignty. Israel would decide unilaterally how many Palestinian refugees would be admitted to Israel, and other refugees could return to Palestine or receive appropriate compensation as a fulfillment of U.N. Resolution 194.

Gardels: One of the paradoxes of the U.S. intervention in Iraq is that it has, in effect, helped complete the Iranian revolution -- that is, it has undermined moderate Sunni regimes and expanded Shiite influence throughout the Middle East. Do you see it that way?
Carter: There is no doubt that Iran's influence has become enormously elevated in the region. There is no doubt about the esteem with which they are now addressed by other countries in the area. They have been boosted in every way by the Iraq war, not least because the empowered majority in Iraq now is Shiite.

Gardels: Augusto Pinochet, the Chilean dictator, died over the weekend. So did Jeanne Kirkpatrick, Ronald Reagan's U.N. ambassador who famously called for tolerance of Latin America's dictators in her famous "Dictatorship and Double Standards" essay that distinguished between totalitarian leaders and Latin America's brand of authoritarianism. Kirkpatrick's argument was in response to your policy of promoting human rights in the hemisphere.
Do you feel vindicated now that Latin America has gone democratic and Pinochet has died in disgrace?

Carter: I never felt the need for vindication. Espousing human rights was, for me, part of my American heritage and American duty. But I do remember with anguish that, as soon as I left office, Reagan sent Kirkpatrick down to Chile and Argentina to tell those dictators that "Carter's human-rights policy is over." I know she was angry that Somoza had been overthrown in Nicaragua by the Sandinistas.

However, three or four years later, Reagan himself began to understand the importance of human rights and became less ideological. Ultimately, I know that the policies initiated under my presidency helped end the military regimes not only in Chile and Argentina, but in Brazil, Ecuador and other places.

Kathleen, I meant no disrespect in my response to your comments above. I admire your thinking. But please hear me when I say we have to stop worrying about the slurs, slimes and character assassinations that come with unedited, uncensored criticisms of Zionism and its adherents. We have to break through the walls of silence that have been constructed around this issue by those deathly afraid of untrammeled debate.

It's those who have had the wool pulled over their eyes by the never-ending Zionist propagandizing that we have to sway, Kathleen - not intractable Zionists - they're beyond convincing, beyond rational, beyond reason.

And we're not going to alter opinions by being polite to or respectful of advocates for the Israeli government and its entrenched lobbyists. I firmly believe we have to get in the faces of these clowns. Otherwise, who will listen in today’s confusing cacophony of competing interests made up of hundreds of right wing TV channels and millions of braying blogs?

That's my suggestion to you. Heat up the rhetoric. Develop a rhinoceros hide. Never lose sight of the real issues when they resort to obfuscation, insults and willful ignorance.

Hold these people accountable for their bad manners, non-existent debating skills, their delusional beliefs/opinions and their vicious and contemptible racism.

Do not give up and Do. Not. Back. Down!

Kathleen said: "P.S. arthurdecco... I've been standing up, probably longer than you've been alive. Just because I choose to not use terms that can easily be dismissed as anti-Semitic, doesn't mean I mince my words when it comes to criticizing our gov't or put my money and my ass on the line."

I believe you. Though it might surprise you to know I'm no spring chicken myself. I may have the moral indignation of a self-indulgent and idealistic teenager but I have the bones of a weary, nearly old man. (LOL)

Peace.

Ask the approximately two to three million Iraqis that have been MURDERED by the United States since 1991, (through either direct warfare, or the crippling sanctions), whether or not we should compare the neocons and the Bush family to Hitler. It is not the death toll that defines a Hitler, it is the mindset. Both Cheney and Bush definitely qualify.

And as far as this "anti-semitic" thing goes, the use of the term only has power if it's use accomplishes its goal; castigation and intellectual ostrasization by branding a person as bigoted, seeking to stifle criticism of Israel, its policies, and its lobbies. The idea that we should tone down the rhetoric is absolutely polar to the cause of being able to effectively neutralize the power of the term. In point of fact, we need to sharpen our rhetoric, and remove the stigma attached to criticism of Israel and its lobbies. The issue needs to become Israel's CURRENT POLICIES, AIPAC's (and numerous other Israeli lobbying organizations) damaging and unquestionable stranglehold on our politicians and American foreign policy, RATHER THAN a constant rehash of a holocaust that occured over a half century ago.

There is a very real holocaust occurring NOW, and it is Israel and the United States that is committing the acts that rise to the level of a holocaust. The monsters that are committing these acts and policies IN OUR NAME need to be exposed to the public forum, and the baseless accusation of "anti-semitism" cannot, should not, and will not deter many of us from taking on that task. I say screw Israel, and the pseudo patriotic Americans that have put Israel's interests above our own, using OUR treasure, and OUR blood, to commit what can only be called treason. Make no mistake, our so called "representatives" do not represent a huge portion of our population by sending billions of dollars to Israel. How many of your nieghbors, if asked, would opt to send that money to Israel in lieu of improving our educational system, updating our infrastructure, improving our nation's system of healthcare, taking care of our veterans, improving our children's ability to attain college educations, search for cures for cancer and a myriad of other deseases?

Its time to RAMP UP the rhetoric, and call a fucking spade a fucking spade. To hell with these bastards that use the accusation "anti-semite" at the drop of a hat. Note how smoothly this Norhiem character attempted to frame this thread as "anti-semitic", and how quickly he backpeddled and equivicated when some of us refused to be branded by his time worn and transparent attempt at character asassination. Now the understanding moderate, he still seeks to "tone down" the rhetoric, and not give these slimeballs the "excuse" to accuse us of anti-semitism, AN ACCUSATION THAT HE HIMSELF LEVELED IN THE BEGINNING OF THIS THREAD.

This guy is a MP incarnate, or, if not, he should be.

Thank you, Carroll and Sandy, for the links and quotes related to Desmond Tutu and Jimmy Carter. This has indeed been a very interesting thread. I knew about the Carter incident, but not that even Desmond Tutu has been labeled an anti-semite, and consequently denied acces to an American University.

This shows the absurdity of these activities, but perhaps also a glimpse of hope. There are certainly some Americans who respect your former President, and the former anti-apartheid fighter, both Nobel Prize winners. And when they hear that these two honorable men are accused of being anti-semites, they may have a closer look at the accusers.

After examining Carters views, which are very nuanced (wether you agree with him or not, it really does not seem like he dislikes Jews, or Israel, does it?), I believe that some people, also among evangelical Christians, will wonder: who are these guys labeling Jimmy Carter a Holocaust-denier and anti-semite?

The absurdity is even more evident in the case of the old anti-apartheid fighter Desmond Tutu.

But let`s say that Tutu (or Carter) had not been careful in their language, because they where so pissed off with AIPAC, Israel, the neo-cons, etc, that they just wanted to show their anger? Then every news paper and TV-station in America and everywhere else would quote sentences that seemed to be anti- or semi-anti-semitic - and they would be dismissed everywhere and by everyone.

Carter and Tutu are well aware of that.

I quote from the Tutu case:
"While a transcription clearly suggests his criticism was aimed at the Israeli government ("We don't criticize the Jewish people," he said during the speech. "We criticize, we will criticize when they need to be criticized, the government of Israel"), pro-Israeli organizations such as the Zionist Organization of America went on the offensive and protested campus appearances by Tutu, accusing him of anti-Semitism."

I am convinced that Tutu chose his words carefully, and that this statement has a chance of breaking through the wall of ignorance and ideological manipulation of the right wing lobby people.

Frankly, I am not optimistic. But if Carter and Tutu had not been careful in separating the rhetoric of criticism from the rhetoric of anti-semitism, they simply would have comitted political suicide.

Everybody should talk with their own voice. Some voices belong to ex-Presidents, some belong to bishops, some to “Washington insiders” like Steve Clemons, and many voices belong to angry young men or women (there are even a few not so young, but still angry, or stubborn voices here and there...). And this is how it should be. Still, I think it would be wise to separate between the language of critique and a language with connotations to the darkest parts of our common history.

POA

Since english is not my first language, I always take time writing my posts, as I am struggling with a foreign language (I even do that in my mother tongue) . And some of you guys & girls are writing fast! This has resulted in a couple of posts from me that seem to be responses to your posts. Also this time, this is not the case. I discovered your comment after finishing mine, and I will read yours carefully, and perhaps try to respond later tonight.

Cheers!

"But let`s say that Tutu (or Carter) had not been careful in their language, because they where so pissed off with AIPAC, Israel, the neo-cons, etc, that they just wanted to show their anger? Then every news paper and TV-station in America and everywhere else would quote sentences that seemed to be anti- or semi-anti-semitic - and they would be dismissed everywhere and by everyone."

What bullshit. Most media outlets have been doing EXACTLY THAT, particularly about Carter. Care to show me a mainstream article that defends Carter? He were branded as anti-semite anyway, and is still being branded as such.

"Still, I think it would be wise to separate between the language of critique and a language with connotations to the darkest parts of our common history."

And here once again you attempt to construct a dialogue around events that occured over a half century ago. SCREW THAT. Its NOT my "common history". I didn't march Jews into the ovens, and I have never been anti-semitic.

Heres the deal, Norheim, some of us FRANKLY DON'T GIVE A SHIT ANYMORE if you call us "anti-semite". Its pure unadulterated BULLSHIT, and deserves to be treated as such. And if you expect us to mealy mouth your handler's slimey timeworn tactics of character assasination, then to hell with you. This is one person you will not intimidate with your character assasination, or woo with your pseudo-moderate posturing. I want Israel OUT of the business of draining our coffers, I want AIPAC registered as a foreign agent, and I want these treasonous bastards in Washington to put our best interests above that of Israel's, and their bank accounts. PERIOD.

Norheim, I am not buying it, or you.

Thursday, October 04, 2007
Tutu Excluded
Double Standard at the University of St. Thomas
Bishop Desmond Tutu has stood all his life for nonviolent peace-making and an end to racism. Obviously, he would be upset about the Israeli mistreatment of the Palestinians, and has said so.

For that stance he was uninvited from speaking at the Catholic University of St. Thomas in Minneapolis.

(See also Richard Silverstein on this issue). The "quote" attributed to Bishop Tutu supposedly comparing Israel to Hitler and Nazi Germany was completely made up by the Zionist Organization of American (which has a long history of such cult-like lying and smearing) and the Jewish Telegraphic Agency printed it without fact-checking.

The Israel lobby strikes again, limiting what can be heard in public in the United States about those policies of Israel that are contrary to basic human rights norms.

And here is the kicker. UST is guilty of a whopper of a double standard. Two years ago, the university allowed Ann Coulter to speak on its campus.

Ann Coulter once said of Muslims, "We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity."

Coulter can speak at UST. But not Desmond Tutu.

http://www.juancole.com/2007/10/tutu-excluded-double-standard-at.html

http://tinyurl.com/2r2x7r

JTA Publishes ZOA Fraudulent Tutu Quote

October 4, 2007 at 12:45 am ·

Filed under Jews & Judaism, Politics & Society, Mideast Peace

Should they change JTA's name to Pump & Dump Telegraphic Agency? JTA has a very short piece about the University of St. Thomas cancelling Nobel laureate Archbishop Desmond Tutu's speech at the school because a Minneapolis JCRC flack told them he was anti-Israel. But here's the eyebrow raising quote from the story:

The uproar apparently was linked to a speech Tutu made in Boston in 2002. According to a news release from the Zionist Organization of America, Tutu said that "Israel is like Hitler and apartheid."

I don't have a copy of the ZOA press release in front of me. But the plain fact of the matter is that this "quote" is an utter fabrication. Tutu has never said that, not even close. Muzzlewatch, Rootless Cosmopolitan, and this blog have all in the past 36 hours published what Tutu actually said regarding Hitler in a speech about the Israeli Occupation. Would it have taken much research for the JTA writer to have actually checked to see whether Tutu actually said the words put into his mouth by the odious ZOA liars?

Once again, for those who missed it yesterday, here's what Tutu said in his 2002 speech:

But you know as well as I do that, somehow, the Israeli government is placed on a pedestal [in the U.S.], and to criticize it is to be immediately dubbed anti-Semitic, as if the Palestinians were not Semitic. I am not even anti-white, despite the madness of that group. And how did it come about that Israel was collaborating with the apartheid government on security measures?

People are scared in this country [the U.S.] to say wrong is wrong because the Jewish lobby is powerful – very powerful. Well, so what? This is God’s world. For goodness sake, this is God’s world! We live in a moral universe. The apartheid government was very powerful, but today it no longer exists. Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin, Pinochet, Milosovic, and Idi Amin were all powerful, but in the end they bit the dust.

Injustice and oppression will never prevail. Those who are powerful have to remember the litmus test that God gives to the powerful: What is your treatment of the poor, the hungry, the voiceless? And on the basis of that, God passes judgment.

We should put out a clarion call to the government of the people of Israel, to the Palestinian people and say: peace is possible, peace based on justice is possible. We will do all we can to assist you to achieve this peace, because it is God’s dream, and you will be able to live amicably together as sisters and brothers.

So as we've seen in the Nadia Abu El Haj and Khalil Gibran Academy campaigns, right-wing Jews have placed quotations around words they CLAIM their opponents to have spoken. And no doubt this is what they believe their opponents believe. But it isn't what they actually said. And that is called lying, duplicity and fraud.

I just wrote an e mail to JTA's managing editor, Ami Eden, asking him why I should have to tell him and his reporters not to trust the lies emanating from the offices of ZOA. Anyone with any experience working in this community knows that. Why would JTA allow itself to become a mouthpiece of Mort Klein?

Good evening, Pissed Off American!

And good evening, “arthurdecco”, “sandy”, “kathleen” and anybody else who care to read this rather outdated post (outdated not as an issue, but in the chronology of this blog).

I have read TWE for a while, but never commented myself. However, when I occasionally read the comments to Steve Clemons`s posts, I saw desperation, anger, and a lot of other reactions among the commentators, that to me seemed more appropriate, more “sane”, if you wish, then the business-as-usual kind of mood you watch on CNN, in the New York Times and other places – given the events during the last seven years or so. The lack of outrage and protest in general, has been a quite frightening and stunning phenomenon, watching all this from the other side of the Atlantic Ocean.

To put it simple: I agree with a lot that has been said here, and in general, I find the desperate way much of this is said, as appropriate. Given the circumstances, it often seems to be on the same critical level as the unfolding events.

When the Israel lobby issue came up, however, there were some reactions, and reactions to the reactions and so on. I responded with general statements, and I`ll try not to repeat them. But let me try to answer this issue as directly as I can:

I never thought that you, POA, are an anti-semite. If you look through the thread, you will see some comments from me that may cause such impressions, but this is due to the speed and chronology of the comments, and me being slow in writing and posting. (By the way: I`ve had a flue for some days, and got a sudden and severe headache yesterday, and this has also slowed me down.)

I did, however, react immediately to the first comment in the thread by “arthurdecco”. I smelled a kind of language that seemed too familiar, and yes, I dismissed it as “anti-semitism.”
I admit that.

Is “arthurdecco” really an “anti-semite”?

After reading his first post several times, I still react upon some of his particular statements (like the one I mentioned specifically in a couple of posts), as well as the tone and the aggression, seen as a whole. I could spend pages trying to explain what i mean by that, but I don´t think that will serve anybody. But reading his later posts on this thread, I`ve come to the conclusion that he is basically an angry guy like you, but perhaps slightly less careful with his choice of words. It has connotations, yes, but I do not think that his agenda as such is connected with “anti-semitism”.

For this, “arthurdecco”, I must apologize sincerely.

As for why I believe that one should be careful with this issue, i think I already have made my point several times, and I don´t want to repeat it.

But I still strongly disagree with you, POA, when you say that “anti-semitism” has become a useless word because of the abuses of that word from AIPAC, Israel and the rest of the fanatic groups on the right wing. In this issue, I don´t think I`ll ever be convinced that we should be careless about which words we chose when we criticize Israel or the lobbies.

Then the “Hitler-label”. To me, this is much less serious than the “anti-semitism” issue. Of course you may call anybody what you want. And if it does not hurt anyone except those who are responsible for the death of millions of people, I don`t care much as such. But still, I think the Hitler-analogy is an a-historical, cartoon-like, or Hollywood-like label that never fits any actors in our present world. I reacted strongly when Bush sr. and jr. and the media used it against Saddam Hussein (also a cold blooded murderer, wasn`t he?), because it only served to legitimate certain actions at certain times. Of course I react much less when you or others use it against Bush & Cheney (after all, you don`t do that to legitimate a war against a country). But I don´t like it - even when Georges Soros compares the current White House Administration with the Third Reich, or, for that sake, Desmond Tutu comparing the Israeli government with Hitler. These analogies are not historically appropriate, and even if we live in a cartoon-like world, I object a little bit. But if you think that you have to speak the same language as Bush jr & sr and the media to be heard, then fine – do it! I really don´t care much about that.

So, to me it seems that we agree a lot in substance, and disagree ( at least some of us) in form.

And again: Sorry "arthurdecco" for reacting to fast, and dismissing your opinions.

"...or, for that sake, Desmond Tutu comparing the Israeli government with Hitler."

Which he didn't do. But keep it up, Norheim. Why quit when you're behind?

Pissed Off American said:
"The "quote" attributed to Bishop Tutu supposedly comparing Israel to Hitler and Nazi Germany was completely made up by the Zionist Organization of American (which has a long history of such cult-like lying and smearing) and the Jewish Telegraphic Agency printed it without fact-checking."

Then forget my comment above about D. Tutu concerning this, and thank you for correcting it.

And heres the kind of rhetoric we can expect from our zionist "friends" in the JDL...

http://www.jdl.org/action/armchair/congress_israel.shtml

Armchair Activist: Congressional Haters of Israel

Posted June 22, 2002

The following is a list of US Senators and Members of the House of Representatives who voted "No" on the resolutions of May 2, 2002 that supported Israel. It is incumbent upon every American supporter of the state of Israel to work to defeat these individuals when they come up for reelection.

SENATORS VOTING "NO" (2)
Robert Byrd, Dem., West Virginia
Ernest Hollings, Dem., South Carolina

HOUSE MEMBERS VOTING "NO" (21) Neil Abercrombie, Dem., Hawaii David E. Bonior, Dem., Michigan
Rick Boucher, Dem., Viriginia Gary A. Condit, Dem., California
John Conyers Jr., Dem., Michigan Peter A. DeFazio, Dem., Oregon
John D. Dingell, Dem., Michigan Earl F. Hilliard, Dem., Alabama
Jay Inslee, Dem., Washington Jesse L. Jackson Jr., Dem., Illinois
Gerald D. Kleczka, Dem., Wisconsin Barbara Lee, Dem., California
Cynthia A. McKinney, Dem., Georgia George Miller, Dem., California
David R. Obey, Dem., Wisconsin Ron Paul, Rep., Texas
Thomas E. Petri, Rep., Wisconsin Nick J. Rahall II, Dem., West Virginia
Dana Rohrabacher, Rep., California Nick Smith, Rep., Michigan
Fortney Pete Stark, Dem., California

We will update this page whenever votes are cast concerning Israel in Congress.

Still, I think it would be wise to separate between the language of critique and a language with connotations to the darkest parts of our common history.

Posted by Paul Norheim at October 5, 2007 08:18 PM
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Well I will give this a go becuase I am one of the most outspoken ones about AIPAC and avenues of foreign influence in our government.

I would agree that saying things like "all jews are bad or evil or traitors or etc" is not the langauage of critique and is anti-semitic. But honestly I have not seen any true anti-semites on this blog, maybe one or two came and went long ago, but that's it. Just like a few racist Muslim haters came and went. They didn't get a good reception here.

It would be interesting for you to elaborate further on your definition of the language of critique. If you have read the Israel Lobby I think you would agree that W&M did an excellent job in handling the anti semite question.

But I also want to address something you said related to anti-semitic comments regarding authur's post.

If we are to have any discussion that is meaningful in this country we have to be coldly honest, and everyone has to acknowledge the whole truth.

The carnards frequently flung as accusations by jewish or zionist activist actually have some credibility of fact because they are based on "some" Jew's actions and statements over the centuries and continue to present day. True anti-semites seize on these and attribute them to "all" Jews.

For instance:

Here is a direct quote from Elliot Abrams, head of the Middle East desk of the National Security Council, who wrote in 1997 in his book Faith or Fear:.... "there can be no doubt that Jews, faithful to the covenant between God and Abraham, are to stand apart from the nation in which they live. It is the very nature of being Jewish to be apart--except in Israel--from the rest of the population."

Another example would be Eric ALterman, a jew himself, who published and condemed a whole list of Jews in the media and press owneship and journalism who always slant and in some cases lie favorably about Israel. Hence authur's very valid, factual comment on the general press and media attitude. A statement of fact, not an anti-semitic commment.

Now, if we, who aren't anti-semites are prohibited from pointing out an obvious fact...which is that "some" Jews and most often those in some position of political or financial power are in fact a danger or threat to the interest of the other 98% of Americans because of their seperate or higher loyalty beliefs...then we aren't really getting to the heart of our Israeli centric ME problem are we? Because that is what they about, some on purpose, some just misguided.

Most of us on here aren't professionl writers and don't have a lot of time to put into phasing what we want to say when we make a comment so we let it all hang out so to speak ( like I am doing now) on elements of this Israeli abberation in our government that seem absolutely no brainers and self evident. So we are blunt out of frustration you could say.

Now if your caution is saying the criticism we unleash against what we all agree is a very bad influence on our foreign policy is because you think it could inspire "hatred" of "the Jews" among normal non anti-semites there might be some minimal risk. But not enough that we should modify or turn down our criticism. I think that an outbreak of anti-semitism would be more caused by Israel's own actions since the lobby and Israel have linked themselves to ALL the Jews. And in the public's growing realization of the (willing) corruption of our own congress by AIPAC and other lobbies.

I think this for several reasons. Those of us in this fight over the Israeli ME policy influence started it off as a political issue of influence by "some individual jews and organized groups of jews".
We stuck to the real issue, those particular jews and those particular organizations and their interplay with the other fractions of neos and christian zionist. The inclusion of the "all the Jews" came from those jewish activist and their organizations themselves. Another reason I think your concern is overblown is the fact that if you read many liberal or in the peace camp Jewish writers you will see that they are saying the same things we are saying. And in some cases they are even more blunt about it and don't hesitate to name names and call a spade a spade and charge some jews of gross dual loyaly bordering on treason.

As I said I would like to hear more on what you consider the proper langauge. I might or might not agree but I do get your point on statements being misused.

However, we have all now been forced to the point of brutal honesty in this discussion. This is necessary because the uber zionist types and their organizations wouldn't let the discussion remain on the real issue,.. them and their very un-american organizations,.. not "the Jews". They behave as thugs and as we have seen it is impossible to be sensitive and langauge correct with these kinds of thugs because it just encourages them, they get bolder and worse, not better.

Whoever talks loudest and longest in this fight is going to win and I think most of us on here, as Americans, are determined to have the last word in the argument over whether the US creates it own policy that is fair to all or a foreign special interest group creates a policy that is detrimental to this country and a large part of the world.

It is sad if some Jews feel threatened by what radicals among them have caused but that can be solved by them simply speaking up for themselves, as many are doing. When they refuse to go along with being included in the delusions of a few fanatics the few will no longer have any power.

For the ones that initiated this fray and now cry foul at our own criticism and attacks on them, well.. what did they expect?...they pushed this fight over America on the country and have to accept the risk that go with it.

And for the record I think all of us on here have acknowledged time and again that there was no "sole" force in US invading Iraq. It was a combination of people and agendas, including, but not limited to US Israelis. This does not make any of them less guilty than the others.
However there is no doubt that Israel itself and the usual suspects, if not AIPAC, is now the main force behind an attack on Iran.

Yep, it's a dirty fight. A lot of innocent, well meaning people have suffered because of their honest criticisms of Israel and the lobby, some speaking out of concern for this country and some speaking out of concern for Israel.

Speaking for myself I intend to stay on these smear artist and filthly thugs by telling the truth and nothing but no matter who it scares or offends..the stakes are too high not to....so I doubt I will change the langauge I just used in this paragraph.

Thank you, Carroll, for taking the time to state our case...so well. You're a wonderful, thoughtful writer.

Posted by Sandy at October 6, 2007 01:53 AM
>>>>>>>>>>>>>

LOL, I am a lousy writer, but thanks for the kind encouragement and support.

"...arthurdecco, I must apologize sincerely." posted by Paul Norheim

Your apology is sincerely accepted.

Carroll, POA, et al. Thank you for your sanity.

Well my concern about language is simply that I want the merits of the arguements to get through and not be easilly dismissed as anti-semitic. Not an easy task when the truth is ugly.

I also think that if Israel continues in its unfair treatment of Palestinians, and other Muslim countries, they will create anti-semitism where it didn't exist before.

Sandy..;. I too have lived in the South, before the civil rights movement. While I'm not suggesting that there is no bigotry in the North, it was not sanctioned by law the way it was in the South and children in school were not taught that the Bible supports segregation.

I also was asked to sign a petition against ever having a Catholic president and was there when a synogogue was bombed in Atlanta. When Demz elected a Cathlolic, he was shot before the end of his first term.

I'm not suggesting that Israel and AIPAC don't exert undue influence over our foreign policy. I am suggesting that when whole areas vote in blocks for wars, it is not so much supporting Jews and Israel, but prejuduce against Muslims that is the motivating factor.

And welcome to the other "seniors". I remember when I wondered how old one had to be to be really a senior. Then my medicare card arrived and it was official. Now I'm a card-carrying senior.

Well my concern about language is simply that I want the merits of the arguments to get through and not be easilly dismissed as anti-semitic. Not an easy task when the truth is ugly.

I also think that if Israel continues in its unfair treatment of Palestinians, and other Muslim countries, they will create anti-semitism where it didn't exist before.

Sandy..;. I too have lived in the South, before the civil rights movement. While I'm not suggesting that there is no bigotry in the North, it was not sanctioned by law the way it was in the South and children in school were not taught that the Bible supports segregation.

I also was asked to sign a petition against ever having a Catholic president and was there when a synogogue was bombed in Atlanta. When Demz elected a Cathlolic, he was shot before the end of his first term.

I'm not suggesting that Israel and AIPAC don't exert undue influence over our foreign policy. I am suggesting that when whole areas vote in blocks for wars, it is not so much supporting Jews and Israel, but prejuduce against Muslims that is the motivating factor.

And welcome to the other "seniors". I remember when I wondered how old one had to be to be really a senior. Then my medicare card arrived and it was official. Now I'm a card-carrying senior. Not too old to fight, though.

I got up this morning - was provided with a cup of tea by my partner - turned on the computer to check on the ongoing conversation here - read the thread from the beginning to the end, and then posted the comments you see above.

It wasn't until I had moved on to other things that it finally occurred to me that no one has been posting from the "Dark Side" of this issue. (That's if we accept Paul Norheim's explanations for his original thinking, [and I do].)

So where are the Zionist apologists? Surely one or more of them has been monitoring this thread. Why no rabid interjections from this very well-organized collection of propagandizing kool-aid drinkers?

Could they finally be coming to the realization that they may have stepped too far over the edge with their demonizations of good and decent people who oppose Zionism's racist aspirations and policies?

…No, I didn’t think so either.

So what gives?

Kathleen said: "I'm not suggesting that Israel and AIPAC don't exert undue influence over our foreign policy. I am suggesting that when whole areas vote in blocks for wars, it is not so much supporting Jews and Israel, but prejuduce against Muslims that is the motivating factor."

Kathleen, who created the conditions that encourage the demonization and disparagement of and, yes!, prejudice directed toward Muslims?

Would that be Hollywood, the MSM and the braying think tanks infested with Neo's - Zionists and/or their apologists, all?

My bet? We won't hear from Norheim until the weekend is over. He vacations on the same cyber island MP does.

But hey, I've been wrong before.

Interestingly, I came across this obscure article this morning right after my posting spree here. It seems to support my thesis. I wonder why I have never seen this story in the MSM.

In it's entirety:

Falwell Confirms Lewinsky Affair Linked to Israeli Lobby Intrigue

By Michael Collins Piper

http://plungerspeaks.blogspot.com/

Television evangelist Jerry Falwell couldn't resist bragging and finally admitting the truth: he and former Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin "Bibi" Netanyahu did conspire--at a critical time--to trip up President Bill Clinton and specifically use the pressure of the Monica Lewinsky sex scandal to force Clinton to abandon pressure on Israel to withdraw from the occupied West Bank.

Falwell's confession didn't make national news--as it should have. Instead, the preacher's confession came buried in a lengthy story in the December 2005 issue of Vanity Fair. Entitled "American Rapture" the article (by Craig Unger) described the long-standing and still-flourishing love affair between American dispensationalist evangelicals such as Falwell and the hardline Jewish extremist forces in Israel then under the leadership of Binyamin "Bibi" Netanyahu.

The admission by Falwell confirms precisely what this author first revealed in a story published in The Spotlight on February 9, 1998 and later recounted in a lecture before the Arab League's official think tank, the Zayed Centre in Abu Dhabi, in March of 2003.

Although, following the lecture at the Zayed Centre, the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) of B'nai B'rith, a lobby for Israel, denounced as a "bizarre conspiracy theory" the assertion by Falwell that the public unveiling of the Lewinsky affair forced Clinton to pull back on pressuring Israel confirmed exactly what was reported in documented detail in The Spotlight in an international exclusive.

Regarding Falwell's recounting of how he worked with Netanyahu in undermining Clinton's pressure on Israel, Vanity Fair reported:

On a visit to Washington, D.C. in 1998, Netanyahu hooked up with Jerry Falwell at the Mayflower Hotel the night before [Netanyahu's] scheduled meeting with Clinton. "I put together 1,000 people or so to meet with Bibi [Netanyahu] and he spoke to us that night," recalls Falwell. "It was all planned by Netanyahu as an affront to Mr. Clinton." . . . The next day, Netanyahu met with Clinton at the White House. "Bibi told me later," Falwell recalls, "that the next morning Bill Clinton said, ‘I know where you were last night." The pressure was really on Netanyahu to give away the farm in Israel. It was during the Monica Lewinsky scandal . . . . Clinton had to save himself, so he terminated the demands [to relinquish West Bank territory] that would have been forthcoming during that meeting, and would have been very bad for Israel." (END OF VANITY FAIR EXCERPT)

What Falwell did not mention--at least as reported by Vanity Fair--is that his meeting with the Israeli leader took place on the very evening before the mass media in America broke open the Monica Lewinsky scandal with much fanfare. Nor did Falwell mention--as this author pointed out at the time-- was that one of Netanyahu's leading American media publicists, neo-conservative power broker, William Kristol, the first American media figure to publicly hint (in the days before the scandal was officially unveiled) that there were forthcoming revelations regarding a White House sex scandal that was about to be unleashed.

In addition, this author pointed out that at least six days before the first news of the Lewinsky scandal began breaking in the media at midnight on Tuesday, January 20, 1998, an advertisement appeared in the January 15 edition of the distinguished Washington Jewish Week newspaper accusing President Clinton of having "turned his back on Israel."

What made the advertisement so striking was that it used a rear view of President Clinton (first captured on video in 1996) that had never been published but which, in the wake of the Lewinsky scandal, became very familiar. It was a view of the president, his back to the camera, clearly taken from the video in which he was seen hugging the soon-to-be infamous Miss Lewinsky when she was in a receiving line at the White House some two years before. This was an image that Miss Lewinsky had bragged about among her associates prior to the time that the scandal broke. So clearly, Clinton's critics among the hard-line pro-Netanyahu forces in the United States--who sponsored the advertisement in question--were already tuned in to the fact of the Lewinsky-Clinton liaison and of the fact that it was soon to be unleashed against the president to undermine him.

This author can now reveal, for the first time, that two figures at the very highest level of the Clinton White House were personally given copies of The Spotlight's articles regarding these matters and that, at the time, they quietly acknowledged that the articles were "probably right."

The fact that Jerry Falwell's acknowledgment of how the Lewinsky affair was used as a club against Clinton--in tandem with "Bibi" Netanyahu's appearance at the White House, following the meeting with Falwell--was published in Vanity Fair is interesting in and of itself. That magazine is owned by the far-flung publishing empire of the billionaire Newhouse brothers ("Si" and Donald) whom Forbes dubbed the 25th richest family in America and who are known to be generous contributors to the Anti-Defamation League and other elements of the pro-Israel lobby.

http://www.iamthewitness.com/by_MichaelCollinsPiper3.htm

"My bet? We won't hear from Norheim until the weekend is over. He vacations on the same cyber island MP does." (POA)

POA: What is "MP"? (must be something creepy...)

I will take more time to read the responses later. I can`t promise any more comments today, but perhaps.. or hopefully tomorrow.
I still have this nasty flue, and have to get some other stuff done, but I`ll be back, as Arnold says...

Sorry: not a "flue" but a very bad FLU!

Geez, if only we could go back to the good old days, when you could impeach a President for lying about a blowjob.

Heck, using such lofty moral standards, we'd have this criminal Bush before a firing squad in no time.

arthurdecco.... I don't know who specifically created the anti-Muslim prejudice, but I would suggest that this anti-Muslim prejudice furthers the aims of a few different groups, fundamentalist Christians, Likudnik Jews and conservative Cathlolics. Conformists who are uncomfortable if anyone disagrees with their version of whose God is the real God are easilly herded.

Initially, I think we supoprted the formation of Israel because we didn't want all those Jews coming to the US and the UK after the end of the war. Then, defending Israel and Bethlemhem became the politically correct thing to say when we were really after Arab oil. Sorry to be so cynical but I don't think RepubliKlans give a good goddamn about Jews or Israel, or democratizing Arabs, except as it serves their personal wealth and power retention.

More on our favorite topic....

War Now!
9/9/2002

Uri Avnery is a longtime Israeli peace activist. Since 1948 has advocated the setting up of a Palestinian state alongside Israel. In 1974, Uri Avnery was the first Israeli to establish contact with PLO leadership. In 1982 he was the first Israeli ever to meet Yassir Arafat, after crossing the lines in besieged Beirut. He served three terms in the Israeli Parliament (Knesset), and is the founder of Gush Shalom (Peace Bloc). V

October 6, 2007
Two Knights and a Dragon
The Power of the Israel Lobby
by Uri Avnery
There are books that change people's consciousness and change history. Some tell a story, like Harriet Beech Stowe's 1851 Uncle Tom's Cabin, which gave a huge impetus to the campaign for the abolition of slavery. Others take the form of a political treatise, like Theodor Herzl's Der Judenstaat, which gave birth to the Zionist movement. Or they can be scientific in nature, like Charles Darwin's The Origin of Species, which changed the way humanity sees itself. And perhaps political satire, too, can shake the world, like 1984 by George Orwell.

The impact of these books was amplified by their timing. They appeared exactly at the right time, when a large public was ready to absorb their message.

It may well turn out that the book by the two professors, John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt, The Israel Lobby and US Foreign Policy, is just such a book.

It is a dry scientific research report, 355 pages long, backed by 106 further pages containing some thousand references to sources.

It is not a bellicose book. On the contrary, its style is restrained and factual. The authors take great care not to utter a single negative comment on the legitimacy of the Lobby, and indeed bend over backwards to stress their support for the existence and security of Israel. They let the facts speak for themselves. With the skill of experienced masons, they systematically lay brick upon brick, row upon row, leaving no gap in their argumentation.

This wall cannot be torn down by reasoned argument. Nobody has tried, and nobody is going to. Instead, the authors are being smeared and accused of sinister motives. If the book could be ignored altogether, this would have been done – as has happened to other books which have been buried alive.

(Some years ago, there appeared in Russia a large tome by Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, the world-renowned laureate of the Nobel Prize for Literature, about Russia and its Jews. This book, called 200 Years Together, has been completely ignored. As far as I know, it has not been translated into any language, certainly not into Hebrew. I asked several of Israel's leading intellectuals, and none of them had even heard of the book. Neither does it appear on the list of Amazon.com, which includes all the author's other works.)

* * *

The two professors take the bull by the horns. They deal with a subject which is absolutely taboo in the United States, a subject nobody in his right mind would even mention: the enormous influence of the pro-Israel lobby on American foreign policy.

In a remorselessly systematical way, the book analyzes the Lobby, takes it apart, describes its modus operandi, discloses its financial sources and lays bare its relations with the White House, the two houses of Congress, the leaders of the two major parties and leading media people.

The authors do not call into question the Lobby's legitimacy. On the contrary, they show that hundreds of lobbies of this kind play an essential role in the American democratic system. The gun and the medical lobbies, for example, are also very powerful political forces. But the pro-Israel lobby has grown out of all proportion. It has unparalleled political power. It can silence all criticism of Israel in Congress and the media, bring about the political demise of anyone who dares to break the taboo, prevent any action that does not conform to the will of the Israeli government.

In its second part, the book shows how the Lobby uses its tremendous power in practice: how it has prevented the exertion of any pressure on Israel to make peace with the Palestinians, how it pushed the US into the invasion of Iraq, how it is now pushing for wars with Iran and Syria, how it supported the Israeli leadership in the recent war in Lebanon and blocked calls for a ceasefire when it didn't want it.

Each of these assertions is backed up by so much undeniable evidence and quotations from written material (mainly from Israeli sources) that they cannot be ignored.

* * *

Most of these disclosures are nothing new for those in Israel who deal with these matters.

I myself could add to the book a whole chapter from personal experience.

In the late 50s, I visited the US for the first time. A major New York radio station invited me for an interview. Later they cautioned me: "You can criticize the President (Dwight D. Eisenhower) and the Secretary of State (John Foster Dulles) to your heart's content, but please don't criticize Israeli leaders!" At the last moment the interview was cancelled altogether, and the Iraqi ambassador was invited instead. Criticism was apparently tolerable when it came from an Arab, but absolutely not coming from an Israeli.

In 1970, the respected American "Fellowship of Reconciliation" invited me for a lecture tour of 30 universities, under the auspices of the Hillel rabbis. When I arrived in New York, I was informed that 29 of the lectures had been cancelled. The sole rabbi who did not cancel, Balfour Brickner, showed me a secret communication of the "Anti-Defamation League" that proscribed my lectures. It said: "While Knesset Member Avnery can in no way be considered a traitor, his appearance at this time would be deeply divisive." In the end, all the lectures took place under the auspices of Christian chaplains.

I especially remember a depressing experience in Baltimore. A good Jew, who had volunteered to host me, was angered by the cancellation of my lecture in this city and obstinately insisted on putting it on. We combed the streets of the Jewish quarters – mile upon mile of signs with Jewish names – and did not find a single hall whose manager would agree to let the lecture by a member of the Israeli Knesset take place. In the end, we did hold the lecture in the basement of the building of my host's apartment – and functionaries of the Jewish community came to protest.

That year, during Black September, I held a press conference in Washington DC, under the auspices of the Quakers. It seemed to be a huge success. The journalists came straight from a press conference with Prime Minister Golda Meir, and showered me with questions. Almost all the important media were represented – TV networks, radio, the major newspapers. After the planned hour was up, they would not let me go and kept me talking for another hour and a half. But the next day, not a single word appeared in any of the media. Thirty-one years later, in October 2001 I held a press conference on Capitol Hill in Washington, and exactly the same thing happened: many of the media were there, they held me for another hour – and not a word, not a single word, was published.

In 1968, a very respected American publishing house (Macmillan) brought out a book of mine, Israel Without Zionists, which was later translated into eight other languages. The book described the Israeli-Arab conflict in a very different way and proposed the establishment of a Palestinian state next to Israel – a revolutionary idea at the time. Not a single review appeared in the American media. I checked in one of the most important book stores in New York and did not find the book. When I asked a salesman, he found it buried under a heap of volumes and put it on top. Half an hour later it was hidden again.

The book dealt with the "Two States for Two Peoples" solution long before it became a world-wide consensus, and with my proposal for Israel's integration in "the Semitic Region." True, I am an Israeli patriot and was elected to the Knesset by Israeli voters. But I criticized the Israeli government – and that was enough.

* * *

The book by the two professors, who criticize the Israeli government from a different angle, cannot be buried anymore. This fact, by itself, speaks volumes.

The book is based on an essay by the two that appeared last year in a British journal, after no American publication dared to touch it. Now a respected American publishing house has released it – an indication that something is moving. The situation has not changed, but it seems that it is now possible at least to talk about it.

Everything depends on timing – and apparently the time is now ripe for such a book, which will shock many good people in America. It is now causing an uproar.

The two professors are, of course, accused of anti-Semitism, racism and hatred of Israel. What Israel? It is the Lobby itself that hates a large part of Israel. In recent years is has shifted even more to the Right. Some of its constituent groups – such as the neocons who pushed the US into the Iraq war – are openly connected with the right-wing Likud, and especially with Binyamin Netanyahu. The billionaires who finance the Lobby are the same people who finance the extreme Israeli Right, and most of all the settlers.

The small, determined Jewish groups in the US who support the Israeli peace movements are remorselessly persecuted. Some of them fold after a few years. Members of Israeli peace groups who are sent to America are boycotted and slandered as "self-hating-Jews."

The political views of the two professors, which are briefly stated at the end of the book, are identical with the stand of the Israeli peace forces: the Two-State Solution, ending the occupation, borders based on the Green Line, and international support for the peace settlement.

If this is anti-Semitism, then we here are all anti-Semites. And only the Christian Zionists – those who openly demand the return of the Jews to this country but secretly prophesy the annihilation of the unconverted Jews at the Second Coming of Jesus Christ – are the true Lovers of Zion.

* * *

Even if not a single bad word about the pro-Israel lobby can be uttered in the US, it is far from being a secret society, hatching conspiracies like the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. On the contrary, AIPAC, the Anti-Defamation League, the Zionist Federation and the other organizations vociferously boast about their actions and publicly proclaim their incredible successes.

Quite naturally, the diverse components of the Lobby compete with each other – Who has the biggest influence on the White House, Who scares the most senators, Who controls more journalists and commentators. This competition causes a permanent escalation – because every success by one group spurs the others to redouble their efforts.

This could be very dangerous. A balloon that is inflated to monstrous dimensions can one day burst in the face of American Jews (who, by the way, according to the polls, object to many positions adopted by the Lobby that claims to speak in their name.)

Most of the American public now opposes the Iraq war and considers it a disaster. This majority still does not connect the war with the actions of the pro-Israel lobby. No newspaper and no politician dares to hint at such a connection – yet. But if this taboo is broken, the result may be very dangerous for the Jews and for Israel.

Beneath the surface, a lot of anger directed against the Lobby is accumulating. The presidential candidates, who are compelled to grovel at the feet of AIPAC, the senators and congressmen, who have become slaves of the Lobby, the media people, who are forbidden to write what they really think – all these secretly detest the Lobby. If this anger explodes, it may hurt us, too.

This lobby has become a Golem. And like the Golem in legend, in the end it will bring disaster on its maker.

* * *

If I may be permitted to voice some criticism of my own:

When the original article by the two professors appeared, I argued that "the tail is wagging the dog and the dog is wagging the tail." The tail, of course, is Israel.

The two professors confirm the first part of the equation, but emphatically deny the second. The central thesis of the book is that the pressure of the Lobby causes the United States to act against its own interests (and, in the long run, also against the true interests of Israel.) They do not accept my contention, quoted in the book, that Israel acted in Lebanon as "America's Rottweiler" (to Hizbullah as "Iran's Doberman").

I agree that the US is acting against its true interest (and the true interests of Israel) – but the American leadership does not see it that way. Bush and his people believe – even without the input of the Lobby – that it would be advantageous for the US to establish a permanent American military presence in the middle of this region of huge oil reserves. In my view, this counter-productive act was one of the main objectives of the war, side by side with the desire to eliminate one of Israel's most dangerous enemies. Unfortunately, the book deals only very briefly with this issue.

That does not diminish in any way my profound admiration for the intellectual qualities, integrity and courage of Mearsheimer and Walt, two knights who, like St. George, who have sallied forth to face the fearful dragon.

Posted by Kathleen at October 6, 2007 09:44 AM
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Here's something for you to figure out regarding the South.

When I was a teenager my father was the Catholic mayor of our typical Southern town. Elected twice to that office before he refused to serve again. The fact that he was now catholic was mentioned by the usual few suspects but the paper did an editorial on how ridiculous that concern was and he won in a landside, twice.

The interesting story behind that is my mother's family was Episcopalian, my father's was Methodist. When my mother's youngest brother was in college at UNC he decided to become a catholic, and then decided to become a priest. So my mother converted, my father follwed suit, we all went to catholic church and at my uncle's insistence went to catholic schools, me all the way thru college and my brothers thru highschool.

My Godmother, a childhood friend of my mother and mother of two of my best friends was married to an Italian. He died and she remarried a Jew who riased my two best friends.

Now what this means I really don't know.

What I think it means is that most, not all but most, of the racism that occurs, today at least, occurs mostly in larger cities or areas with high concentrations of ethnic groups who huddle together with their own so to speak and become "blocks". Whereas in most of the country in smaller and medium size towns that do not have these "blocks" it is not an option for anyone and people of all varieties tend to become part of the overall community instead of relying on ethnic blocks for support or representation.

This doesn't touch on the primitve society of the pre civil rights in our history. Or religious fanatics, North or South, because I don't think anyone can logically explain, except as a cult like thingy, poeple who are suseptible to religious extemeism.

Kathleen, You need to read, "The Culture of Critique" by Kevin MacDonald.

http://www.csulb.edu/~kmacd/books.htm

It is a dispassionate, scholarly assessment of Jewish influence in America and elsewhere. Of course, precisely because it IS a devastating scholarly critique of past and present actions and intentions, it has been labeled anti-Semitic by those annoyed with it's attentions - with the irrefutable truths and proofs contained within it.

If you can stomach the dry, scholastic prose, it can make for a revelatory read. It certainly altered more than a few of my own middle-aged misconceptions and led me to search for more information on this troubling subject from a number of alternate sources, opposing and otherwise.

So far, nothing else that I have read has come close to contradicting in any meaningful way the conclusions that MacDonald arrived at in this seminal, but often purposefully ignored work.

The shrill and shadowy Dershowitz's of the world haven't got a leg to stand on when they label this book as "anti-Semitism" and its author as an "anti-Semite" and they know it. Otherwise, how do you think he could still be teaching university courses in California, when they have the power to refuse permission to speak to Peace Prize winners opposed to Israeli crimes against humanity?

"What interests me, as a non-insider, watching this from Europe......."

Thats an odd way to state your location. Most people would claim a nationality.

"Since english is not my first language, I always take time writing my posts, as I am struggling with a foreign language"

Really? Well, I was born and raised on the west coast of the United States, and never picked up a second language. Which is why I find your comment somewhat puzzling. Your command of English, exhibited by your first post here, surpasses my own abilities. I have seen no evidence of any misapplication of prose,punctuation, syntax, or composition. Now why do you suppose that is?

POA,

I live in Bergen, on the western coast of Norway (where the fjords are.) You may find it in a map. I am born in a small town up north (Mo i Rana, just south of the polar circle), but spent 9 years in Ethiopia (my parents were missionaries), several years in Oslo (the capital of Norway) and a few other places. So a bit mixed up. But I have never lived in the US - only spent a couple of weeks in New York/Boston last year, visiting my brother and his family.

If you`re still suspicious, I can`t help you.

Posted by arthurdecco at October 6, 2007 01:11 PM
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Hummm, I clicked on the chapter about Jewish criticism of gentiles....pretty interesting.
Very scholarly and heavily cited. I will have to get all the way into it later.

What strikes me as funny for this being called anti-semitic (the part I read at least, don't know about the rest) is that what he doing is a treatise on how the Jewish intellectual establishment believes they are superior to gentiles and all others just as there have been critical books by Jews on how the gentile establishment sees themselves as superior to the jews and blacks and others.

Probably those who call it anti-semitic are upset because the subject exposes the jew vrs. gentile superiority claim groups and those inclined to belive in their ethnic superiority basically birds of a feather.

So you are the photographer?

"Now why do you suppose that is?"

I am flattered.

Half of the explanation is that I am a writer, who have published three books in Norwegian (fiction, poetry, and one little non-fiction book, based on traveling in Eastern Africa.) To write well, you have to take time working on your prose. That`s why I hate to respond to a comment two minutes later. I look at what I have written, and get mad at all the mistakes I have committed.

And TWN has a spelling program that I use frequently.

And yes, I am also an amateur photographer, and for the last couple of years I have been more obsessed with taking pictures than writing. I have never written anythings about politics in English before, only chatting on photography blogs.

Well, your command of our written language is impressive. And don't be offended by my suspicious nature, it comes part and parcel with this subject of debate.

Here is a Norwegian example, illustrating the issue.

The author, Jostein Gaarder, wrote an angry article against Israel during the Israel-Libanon war last year, called "God`s chosen people", and was accused of anti-semitism in Norway, Israel and elsewhere.

I am convinced that he is not an anti-semite, but I also believe that 90 % of the trouble he got, was due to his lack of care, by not separating the Israeli state from the pre-Israeli Jewish traditions in a couple of sentences of his polemics in the original article.

Background:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_Norwegian_Jostein_Gaarder_controversy

His article (translated to English):
http://informationclearinghouse.info/article14532.htm

And here is his "Attempt to clarify", written a few weeks later.
http://sirocco.blogsome.com/2006/08/12/jostein-gaarder-clarifies-view-on-israel-jews/

I think this goes to the heart of the matter. And I regret that he did not take care to distinguish more strictly between Israel and the Jews in his first article. Gaarder is a world famous author, and his words would have greater impact if he – in just two or three sentences – had chosen his words more carefully.

However: the fact that a former Norwegian Prime Minister (from the Conservative Party) strongly supported Jostein Gaarder, shows how different the climate is here, compared to the USA.

Here is a Norwegian case that caused international outrage last year; it illustrates quite precisely the issue we are discussing. A world famous author, Jostein Gaarder, wrote an article called "God`s chosen people" during the Israeli bombing of Lebanon.

Background:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_Norwegian_Jostein_Gaarder_controversy

The article (translated to English):
http://informationclearinghouse.info/article14532.htm

And a later statement from the author, after the media storm:
http://sirocco.blogsome.com/2006/08/12/jostein-gaarder-clarifies-view-on-israel-jews/

The fact that a conservative former Prime Minister of Norway strongly supported the author against the accusations of anti-semitism, illustrates the difference between the climate here and in the US (well, you have ex-President Carter , but still...)

But if Gaarder had been just a bit more careful in a couple of sentences in his original article, I believe that he would have had a stronger impact.

arthurdecco... thanks for the link.. I'll read it.

Sandy... sorry to double post that article... we got so far down, I forgot you had already done it.

Carrol... I was raised as a Catholic in New England and then lived in the South as a newly wed when my husband was drafted, first in Fayetteville, N.C. where I witnessed my first cross burning and KKK meeting, while hiding in the woods with my husband and some of his friends. Residents were very proud of the old slave block in the center of town, which was a monument.

Then we were transferred to Atlanta, Ga. where I taught 3rd grade in a Catholic elementary school, an experience which finished my Catholoicism. I rode the "feeder bus" to work, a small bus that ran off the main line, picking up all the black maids and gardiners and Catholic kids. It was one thing to read about segregation in history books, it was quite another thing to first hand experience it. I was so offfended by it, the only thing I could think to do was ride the back of the bus myself. I had never heard of Rosa Parks... it was 1957. Some of the kids started sitting with me. When word got to the Mother Superior, I was told to stop. I said okay, but you'll have to send someone into my classroom every morning to teach catechism, because I can't do that and not ride the back of the bus. She dropped it but the busdriver had a quicky solution.. he just stopped picking me up. Surprisingly, I was asked to come back the next year to teach, because catholics were as rare as hens' teeth, but turned it down. Later when we moved to another part of town, we lived in an all Jewish garden apartment complex. When the synagogue was bombed, neighbors asked us why "we" did it? I could go on with many similar examples, but you get the point. I don't belong to any religion anymore because I think too many substitute going to church once a week for being good all week.

I'm sure there are exceptional situations in the small towns, but overall, when it comes to national politics where candidates are not personally known to most voters, vague fears of "Rome" or "Commies" or Muslims who don't worship the Bible come into play and are easilly exploited. I suppose its the soldidity of the mind set that troubles me.

And, you're right... people do tend to hang together in similar groups for language, food, etc. I think every group feels exceptional and superior in some way, Jews and Christians. Exceptionalism stirkes me as overcompensation for an inferiority complex and deep seated insecurity.

Thank you Paul, Carroll, and Kathleen for the interesting background information. I always find it fascinating to consider all these elements -- where we've lived, how we were raised, our life experiences, etc. -- vis a vis how they affect what we believe and how we "see" the world and what's going on in it.

It's so good to have you here, Paul Norheim. How I love your country and its beauty! Had the privilege of traveling in it for a couple of weeks years ago. Some of it reminded me so much of the upper peninsula of Michigan where we also lived for awhile.

It's important to hear voices and perceptions from outside America.

I can only imagine that people from other countries must look at us and the foreign policy decisions of these last years and think we must all be absolutely raving mad!

Posted by Kathleen at October 6, 2007 09:44 AM>>>>>

Oh! I'm just now finding this, Kathleen! Yes, we "seniors" at least have the benefits of having had many experiences!

The format of this blog (not complaining!) is such that I often forget to go back and look....scroll down and down....and try to find where some "old" discussions were taking place....to see if new things were added. Oh well!

arthrudecco..... Hmmmmmm, on the Jerry Falwell/Monica Lewinsky bit. That makes me wonder about her motivations, beyond her desperation to be featured in Linda Tripp's book on Clinton's women. I never understood how Lewinsky could be so close to Tripp and not know what Tripp's attitude was toward Clinton. Now, the scuttling of the peace process between Israel and Palestine sheds new light on possible motivations for Lewinsky's dogged pursuit of the Big Bubba.

Looks like RepubliKlans will cause a run on white sheets.

McCamy Taylor's Journal
War on Black Folks Round II: DOJ Resurrects the Southern Strategy for 2008 Elections
Posted by McCamy Taylor in General Discussion: Politics

Sun Oct 07th 2007, 04:59 PM
Another even numbered year coming up, another national election. That can mean only one thing. It's time for the Department of Justice to start indicting African-Americans, the darker the better. In 2006, I posted about this phenomenon in FBI Wages War on Black Folks: Southern Strategy Rises Again . http://journals.democraticunderground.com/...

The defeat of Harold Ford Jr. in Tennessee must have convinced the GOP that these dirty tricks work, because the FBI and the prosecutors at Justice have got quite a line up for the country this election season. I guess they want to be ready in case Obama is the democratic nominee.

First up, William Jefferson has been indicted, after being the target of an FBI sting. Keep in mind the the Ashcroft Justice Department fired one of its own back in the early days of the Bush administration for the crime of attempting to indict Jack Abramoff, who was so obviously guilty that no one had to waste a dime of tax payer money entrapping him. When they could no longer cover up for Abramoff, the DOJ started investigating him and his Republican Congressional partners in crime. Sort of. But prosecutors like Carol Lam who tried too hard were fired or hired away. Guilty Congressmen were encouraged to accept quick plea deals and disappear from the public view, like Bob Ney of Ohio.

Funny that the same DOJ which was so solicitous of Congressional Republicans was so eager to find a Black Democratic Congressman to prosecute. The FBI set up a sting operation for Congressman Jefferson and then raided his Congressional office (in violation of the law), something it knew would capture headlines all across the country.Then, they dragged the whole affair out over two election cycles for maximum political effect.

If you think William Jefferson was conducted like a media circus, check out what the FBI has been doing in the City of Dallas. For over two years, almost every African-American politician in that city's government was under investigation. Wow! That is some kind of racial profiling. After the 2006 elections, in which Democrats won in Dallas by a landslide, despite the on-going investigation, the feds got quiet. However, recently they dropped a bombshell:

http://www.star-telegram.com/news/story/25...

Fourteen people, including current or former elected officials, were named Monday in a 31-count federal indictment, alleging a bribery and extortion scheme at Dallas City Hall.

-- It accuses state Rep. Hodge of supporting Southwest Housing's projects. In exchange, the Potashniks paid her rent, some utilities and bought her new carpet at the SWH community in which she was living, according to the indictment.

Two years of valuable FBI time that could have been spent ferreting out terrorist cells to determine that some woman got new carpet and some free utilities. The Department of Justice sure has some screwy priorities. If the FBI had spent two years investigating Abramoff as tirelessly as they investigated the African-American Democrats in Dallas, we would have that whole sordid mess taken care of by now (and a lot fewer Republicans in Congress). If they had spent two years investigating the Ohio 2004 election, maybe we would know why the exit polls did not match the official tallies and why so many Democrats were stripped from the voting rolls by the GOP Secretary of State. If they had spent two years investigating those missing suitcases full of money in Iraq, maybe the taxpayers of this country would be several billion dollars richer.

The unusual racial distribution of these indictments has not escaped the attention of the press. Here is an article in the Dallas paper entitled Black Residents Hope for Justice in City Hall Case .

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dw...

Twelve of the 16 people indicted are black – a fact some people said suggests the 27-month prosecution was biased. Others said no matter how the case turns out, it will cast a shadow over the political fortunes of blacks in Dallas.
"I studied statistics in grad school," said Michael Sorrell, interim president of Paul Quinn College, the state's oldest black liberal arts college. "You could call it a statistical anomaly, but I can certainly understand why that would give some people pause."

It has made the national press wonder, too:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21122384 /

A sweeping City Hall corruption probe that has produced federal charges against a dozen black civic and political leaders is renewing suspicions of racism in a city with a long history of combative minority relations.
"It makes Dallas look bad," said Dallas County District Attorney Craig Watkins, who is black, "because people just have the general sense of the city being unfair to people of color."

Yes, Dallas has long been unfair to people of color, however at the moment it is our Department of Justice (which is supposed to be there to protect citizens from local racism) that is the guilty party. Rather than enforcing the Voting Rights Act, it has fired or forced out career lawyers in its civil rights division and replaced them with political hacks who have attempted to change the law to allow states to disenfranchise minority voters. While it whines and moans that it must have the ability to wiretap and torture in order to protect us from "terra" which is supposed to be its number one priority, it wastes valuable resources going after African-American---but not white---athletes who have used steroids.

http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/ne...

"Sources familiar with the investigation into perjury and tax evasion charges against the all-time home run leader told the Daily News that the U.S. Attorney's office in San Francisco remains determined to indict Bonds by the time the grand jury expires in January.

"The grand jury investigating Bonds was due to expire in July, but prosecutors were granted a six-month extension while they pursued charges against Jones and other targets related to the BALCO steroid-trafficking scandal.

"The grand jury stopped meeting after the extension was granted, and is expected to resume shortly."

Does not the world of professional sports have enough money to take care of its own drug problems? And what about white athletes---and team owners and former team owners like W. who condone steroid use? The federal attorney's office has been after Bonds for years, even going so far as to illegally leak secret grand jury testimony to San Fransisco Chronicle journalists so that they could write a book about the case, in order to increase public attention to the story. In essence, they created a perjury trap, much like the one Star used against Clinton. Why do the feds only seem interested in the dark skinned African-American athletes?

Speaking of dark skinned celebrities, how many movie stars have we seen arrested for something that their tax accountant did in the past few years? That's right. Just the one. Wesley Snipes. Usually, mobsters get arrested for failing to pay their taxes. Idols, movie stars, musicians have their attorneys talk to the IRS and everything gets worked out. Willie Nelson did not get arrested for tax evasion in 1990. He just had to pay a lot of money. And when Willie Nelson is riding in his bus, smoking weed, he doesn't get arrested for that either. How many hip hop artists could say the same thing?

Then there is Michael Vick and dog fighting. Dog fighting is a terrible thing, but guess what. African-Americans did not invent it, nor are they the only people who do it. Out of all the dog fighting that goes on in this country, why did the feds decided to take the Vick case out of state hands and make it a federal case?

http://sports.aol.com/fanhouse/2007/06/07/... /

Federal authorities have taken over the investigation into dog fighting on property owned by Falcons quarterback Michael Vick, the Atlanta Journal-Constitution is reporting.

That's bad news for Vick for two reasons. One is that federal charges can carry stiffer penalties than state charges. The second is that the local prosecutor, Gerald Poindexter, had seemed reluctant to take Vick on, and probably lacked the resources to win a case against a defendant who can afford the best legal defense available. That's not the case with federal prosecutors.

And let me repeat, this is a multiracial atrocity.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.p...

The two biggest recent busts on the dog fighting front were of white men. One was described as the Al Capone of Dog fighting and lived in suburban N.Y. Earlier this month in Dublin, Ireland, the star of the Gaelic football league was exposed as a director of an illegal dog fighting ring.
He was not black Irish.

In Texas, where I grew up, whites and Hispanics were more commonly associated with dog fighting than Blacks. Here is an author describing his experiences in Florida:

http://www.poppolitics.com/articles/2007/0...

In my own experience in Florida, I know there has been a very strong dog fighting culture in the past, although it may have faded as the state has changed. Dog fighting had its center in the Central Florida area. There were at least two regular newsletters published that promoted dog fighting, and in the mid-1970s it was decidedly white in its public racial persona.

The Bush Justice Department is aided in its "Fear the Black Man" campaign by the mainstream media, which just loves to plaster the photos of Black perps across its pages or screen. And by the right wing crazies, who love to talk about the Black defendant du jour. Hell, if the case isn't interesting enough to get much coverage, the right wing will make that a topic of discussion, claiming that any case with an African-American accused which isn't slapped across the headlines everyday is being suppressed by the liberal media. Until all you see and hear and read is "African-American accused" and "Blacks convicted" and "members of minority community sentenced".

The so called Southern Strategy is a nasty political tactic. It is used to persuade working class whites to vote against their economic self interest. Convince them that all African-Americans are 1. thieves, 2. swindlers, 3, violent, and they are supposed to vote against the party that includes African-American politicians (the Democrats) and for the party that promises them school vouchers that can be used to get their kids into all white schools. The Southern Strategy makes white Americans look the other way when African-Americans are stripped of their voting rights---they would just misuses those rights, people like Bill Frist's attorney argued in Ohio, when he lied that the NAACP gave out crack cocaine to persuade Blacks to vote. The Southern Strategy makes it "ok" that African-American infants die at an alarming rate and toxic waste tends to be dumped near their neighborhoods and their schools are underfunded. It is the Bush administration's only excuse for what it has done and failed to do in NOLA.

This year, it looks like the Southern Strategy is going to be wielded by the Republican Party more blatantly than we have seen it since Willie Horton. I guess we know what kind of orders Karl Rove gave his new US Attorneys, before he set off into the Texas sunset.

arthurdecco... greetings from the small world dept... when I clicked on the link you suggested, I learned that it was published by one of my former employers, Greenwood Publishing Group. When Greenwood moved from Manhattan to Wesptort, CT. I became their Direct Mail Promotion Manager. They published textbooks, non-fiction and scholarly journals, like Psychology Today. I designed their brochures and chose the mailing lists for each publication, so I've had my practise reading dry bones stuff.

In a quick read of the preface, it strikes me a bit simplistic, which is not to say I don't think prominent Jews don't exert tremendous influence over the communications industry and therefore have great impact on public opinion. Perhaps the book delves into the whole picture of how public opinion is formed.

You might enjoy French author Jacques Eleull's book, Propoganda, which explains the psychology of leadership verus followship and techniques used to herd people mentally to buy this or that product and vote this way or t'other. I don't remember the publisher.. I used to own the book, but lent it to someone ages ago not to get it back. It was publidshed in the '60s.

MacDonald's book is hardly simplistic, Kathleen - otherwise, it's scholarship would have been attacked unmercifully by the usual suspects as being tenets as opposed to legitimate scientific study. You need to read the book, not its preface, before you make assumptions like that.

I've made a note of Jacques Eleull's book, Propaganda. I'll get on it tomorrow. Thank you.

arthurdecco... I do need to read the book and will as soon as I get past some extensive dental work...yuck. The preface looked at only Jews out of context of what else was going on in the world and by whom, so it's hard to assess their relative influence. It's interesting and thanks for the link. I think MacDonald said he was called an anti-Semite, but perhaps that's par for the course.