Iran's Nuclear Chess Game By Nader Bagherzadeh and Soraya Sepahpour-Ulrich The mainstream media in reporting this intricate 'chess game' has decided to champion the side of war and has given the truth a 'check mate'. Even 'reputable' papers such as The New York Times, Los Angeles Times, and Washington Post have all decided that serving a departing administration that has led the nation into one quagmire is of greater importance than loyalty to a nation consistent in its devotion to the flag.
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article18314.htm
When Wishful Thinking Replaces Resistance Why Bush Can Get Away with Attacking Iran By Jean Bricmotnt Many people in the antiwar movement try to reassure themselves: Bush cannot possibly attack Iran. He does not have the means to do so, or, perhaps, even he is not foolish enough to engage in such an enterprise.
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article18312.htm
Middle East Madness By Stephen Lendman "Bush-Cheney and company are about to attack Iran (and) the groundwork is being set with a flood of propaganda, helped by the media and Democrats." It may be "his last (crazed) hope for immortality" and possible attempt to revive "Republican strength through this classic maneuver of cornered-rat politicians."
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article18309.htm
War and the "New World Order" By Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya War is the ultimate means of attempting to change societies and reshape nations. It is through war that national economies and political structures can be forcibly restructured. War is, potentially, the ultimate economic shock therapy. The wars in the Middle East are stepping stones towards establishing a vision of global order that has been in the hearts and minds of the Anglo-American establishment for years. That vision is global ascendancy.
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article18315.htm
Bin Laden As A Fantasy Figure Riches beyond belief By Ibrahim Warde Most of the factoids that have become canon about Osama bin Laden and the financing of terror were estimates, guesstimates or simply made up, as in the case of his presumed $300m personal fortune. But these fantasies have driven real and dangerous actions.
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article18305.htm
Shooting The Messengers By Mariano Aguirre One reason that the US government, politicians and people don't have a clear idea of the situation in Israel/Palestine is that any criticism or complaint about Israel, no matter how well-researched and moderate, is swiftly attacked by lobbies in the US as being anti-semitic.
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article18311.htm
Full Version: Snuffysmith's Blog - June 26th - September 17th, 2007
Common Ground Common Sense > National & International News > Op-Ed Articles from the Mainstream Media > Op-Ed Articles from the Mainstream Media Archive
Pages: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40
Eland Restates the Case for “Gerrymandering” Iraq
In his latest op-ed, published last Tuesday in the Washington Times, Ivan Eland restates the case for partitioning Iraq into autonomous zones governed separately by the Shi’a, the Sunnis, and the Kurds.
Announcing a U.S. withdraw of troops would likely pressure Iraq’s hostile factions to seek a confederate arrangement (and would save more American lives than a modest reduction in troop levels, which would put U.S. forces at greater risk). “Such a ‘confederation’ would lessen fears that any one ethnic or religious group will gain control of the national government and oppress the others, as Saddam Hussein did,” Eland writes.
After presenting the merits of partitioning Iraq, Eland rebuts three criticisms often leveled at this proposal. First, “gerrymandering” could easily accommodate multi-ethnic cities such as Baghdad, Eland argues, just as it has created politically viable (if geographically unsightly) congressional districts throughout the United States. Second, Turkey would learn to live with a Kurdish zone in Iraq (indeed, it has done so for years) because doing so is more conducive to admission to European Union. Third, Iranian influence over a Shi’ite zone in Iraq would be limited because the Shi’ites would not rule over the entire country. “If Iraq is divided,” Eland writes, “Iranian influence would be limited to and even within the Shi’ite south.”
“Iraq’s Last Best Hope?” by Ivan Eland (The Washington Times, 8/28/07) Spanish Translation
The Empire Has No Clothes: U.S. Foreign Policy Exposed, by Ivan Eland
“The Way Out of Iraq: Decentralizing the Iraqi Government,” by Ivan Eland
“Troop Withdrawal: Looking Beyond Iraq” – Panel discussion featuring Ivan Eland, Leon T. Hadar, and David R. Henderson (Washington, D.C., 9/21/07)
In his latest op-ed, published last Tuesday in the Washington Times, Ivan Eland restates the case for partitioning Iraq into autonomous zones governed separately by the Shi’a, the Sunnis, and the Kurds.
Announcing a U.S. withdraw of troops would likely pressure Iraq’s hostile factions to seek a confederate arrangement (and would save more American lives than a modest reduction in troop levels, which would put U.S. forces at greater risk). “Such a ‘confederation’ would lessen fears that any one ethnic or religious group will gain control of the national government and oppress the others, as Saddam Hussein did,” Eland writes.
After presenting the merits of partitioning Iraq, Eland rebuts three criticisms often leveled at this proposal. First, “gerrymandering” could easily accommodate multi-ethnic cities such as Baghdad, Eland argues, just as it has created politically viable (if geographically unsightly) congressional districts throughout the United States. Second, Turkey would learn to live with a Kurdish zone in Iraq (indeed, it has done so for years) because doing so is more conducive to admission to European Union. Third, Iranian influence over a Shi’ite zone in Iraq would be limited because the Shi’ites would not rule over the entire country. “If Iraq is divided,” Eland writes, “Iranian influence would be limited to and even within the Shi’ite south.”
“Iraq’s Last Best Hope?” by Ivan Eland (The Washington Times, 8/28/07) Spanish Translation
The Empire Has No Clothes: U.S. Foreign Policy Exposed, by Ivan Eland
“The Way Out of Iraq: Decentralizing the Iraqi Government,” by Ivan Eland
“Troop Withdrawal: Looking Beyond Iraq” – Panel discussion featuring Ivan Eland, Leon T. Hadar, and David R. Henderson (Washington, D.C., 9/21/07)
Top Cheney Aide: "We're One Bomb Away From Getting Rid" Of FISA Court
Steve Benen: A new book by former Assistant Attorney General Jack Goldsmith proves that Cheney's alter ego David Addington is a lunatic.
Bush Didn't Beat Gore in 2000, The Media Did
Sylvia Tognetti: Maureen Dowd and Chris Matthews did more harm to Al Gore's campaign than Karl Rove ever could. Gore finally speaks out on 2000.
Justice Souter Nearly Quit Supreme Court Over Bush v. Gore Decision
Liliana Segura: A new book says Souter was "shattered" by the 2000 election ruling and it moved him to tears repeatedly.
Blogger Who Outed Craig Has More Hypocrites Up His Sleeve
John Byrne: Gay blogger Mike Rogers plans to release the names of other closeted Republicans in the coming weeks.
Jean Bricmont
Why Bush Can Get Away with Attacking Iran
Patrick Cockburn
Cut and Run in Iraq
Ron Jacobs
The Haditha Massacre: Spinning a War Crime
Why Bush Can Get Away with Attacking Iran
Patrick Cockburn
Cut and Run in Iraq
Ron Jacobs
The Haditha Massacre: Spinning a War Crime
Minnesota Website Tells how to Wage Jihad
By Douglas Farah
The Middle East Media Research Institute has a disturbing and interesting new report on an Islamist website hosted in Minnesota telling people how to join al Qaeda, how to attack high value targets and how to form a functioning cell.
As has previously been discussed here and elsewhere, the decentralized nature of the current incarnation of al Qaeda is stressed, including the ability to form a jihad cell wherever one is, without ever meeting anyone from the formal al Qaeda structure. The document is aimed at recruits outside the United States, possibly those seeking to fight in Iraq or Afghanistan.
"You feel that you want to carry a weapon, fight, and kill the occupiers, and that it is our duty to call for jihad as much as to call for prayer... All that is required is a firm personal decision to fulfill this obligation, and participation in jihad and the resistance," the document says.
"I don't have to meet Osama bin Laden to become a jihad fighter. Moreover, there is no need to meet even one jihad fighter to become one. Neither do I need recognition from Al-Qaeda... My full blog is here.
September 4, 2007 08:50 AM Link TrackBack (0) Print
Pakistan: Pindi Explosions
By Animesh Roul
Two bomb blasts occurred in Rawalpindi on September 04 Morning, killed nearly 20 people and as many injured, mostly government employees working in defense departments. The first explosion hit a white-line bus in Qasim Bazzar area. The second blast (planted on a motorbike) occurred in the city's R.A. Bazaar. No outfit claimed responsibility so far. Outfits like Tehreek-e-Nafaz-e-Shariat-e-Mohammadi (Most likely behind today's twin blasts), Jaish-e-Muhammed and Lashkar-e-Jhangvi have been active in Pindi to carry out attacks on the government (Military) installations and judicial hubs. Pakistan’s most lethal religious extremist outfit TNSM has reportedly unleashed couple of suicide bombers, personally trained by TNSM head Maulana Faqir Muhammad in July this year to attack properties and lives of military officials in Rawalpindi. Early that month President Pervez Musharraf himself escaped an assassination attempt here.
Pindi is a garrison city which housed Army Headquarters, has been on the radar of religious extremists, Pro-Taliban and al-Qaeda elements since long. This place is considered as actual power center for Musharraf’s military regime.
Read More »
<h2 class="title">This September 11 - Rally for Truth, Peace and Impeachment in DC</h2> dc911truth | Impeach 
Come to Washington this September for the historic union of the 9/11Truth, Peace and Impeachment movements. March with us as we honor the victims of 9/11 and the thousands of casualties of the illegal wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Demand that Congress investigate the omissions and distortions in the 9/11 report, end the so-called "war on terror," impeach the criminals in the White House and restore our constitutional rights.
Come for the Truth, stay for the Peace and Justice!
Tuesday, September 11: Noon - Rally at Lafayette Park,
Pennsylvania Ave., in front of the White House.
Cross country walkers arrive:
Mario Penlaver with "March of the People" walking from Chicago for Impeachment
Bro. Elliot from Denver for Peace, 9/11truth and Bill McDannell who walked from San Diego to "End the wars."
Special Musical Guest: The Ben Marble Band.
Speakers Include:
Adam Kokesh, former Marine combat vet, director Iraq Veterans Against the War
Webster Tarpley, historian and author of, "9/11 Synthetic Terror: Made in USA"
Come to Washington this September for the historic union of the 9/11Truth, Peace and Impeachment movements. March with us as we honor the victims of 9/11 and the thousands of casualties of the illegal wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Demand that Congress investigate the omissions and distortions in the 9/11 report, end the so-called "war on terror," impeach the criminals in the White House and restore our constitutional rights.
Come for the Truth, stay for the Peace and Justice!
Tuesday, September 11: Noon - Rally at Lafayette Park,
Pennsylvania Ave., in front of the White House.
Cross country walkers arrive:
Mario Penlaver with "March of the People" walking from Chicago for Impeachment
Bro. Elliot from Denver for Peace, 9/11truth and Bill McDannell who walked from San Diego to "End the wars."
Special Musical Guest: The Ben Marble Band.
Speakers Include:
Adam Kokesh, former Marine combat vet, director Iraq Veterans Against the War
Webster Tarpley, historian and author of, "9/11 Synthetic Terror: Made in USA"
<h2 class="title">Now Available: The DVD from Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth!</h2> The 150+ Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth are proud to announce their long awaited DVD production:
Now you can provide your friends and colleagues the DVD with all the hard evidence presented by a licensed building professional!
9/11: Blueprint for Truth
The Architecture of Destruction
with SF Bay Area Architect, Richard Gage, AIA
In this stunning multimedia presentation to the University of Manitoba, Canada, San Francisco Bay Area architect, Richard Gage, AIA, provides a packed audience with a tough technical review of the overwhelming evidence of controlled demolition using explosives at all 3 WTC high-rise "collapses” (including WTC 7 – the 47 story high-rise, not hit by an airplane, which also fell at near free-speed on 9/11).The Architecture of Destruction
with SF Bay Area Architect, Richard Gage, AIA
Now you can provide your friends and colleagues the DVD with all the hard evidence presented by a licensed building professional!
Spinning A War Crime
by Ron Jacobs / September 4th, 2007
The sheer criminality of the entire project was plain for all to see. Sunday night the CBS television show 60 Minutes re-broadcast an interview with Staff Sgt. Frank Wuterich, the patrol leader in the massacre of 24 civilians in Haditha, Iraq on November 19, 2005. The overall tone of the 60 Minutes segment was relatively objective, refusing to either exonerate the Marine patrol or condemn the men and their leader. At the same time, it was a fair representation of the thinking involved in the murder of civilians in modern warfare — a phenomenon that not only occurs more often than those of us in the homeland are led to believe, but is also part and parcel of modern warfare. Why else would the term “collateral damage” have been coined? (Full article …)
US Arabs and Muslims: The Search for Common Identity
by Ramzy Baroud / September 4th, 2007
As the security check line began moving slowly at Washington Dulles airport, one passenger standing a few steps ahead of me appeared particularly uneasy. His dark skin, long beard, trimmed moustache, prayer spot centered on his forehead, and overall demeanor quickly gave away his identity, though he had obviously labored little to hide it. He was a Muslim and a religious one at that. Predictably, a few minutes later he was singled out and his clothes spread across a separate station reserved for those “randomly” selected for extra security check. (Full article …)
Congress Considers Major Health Care Reform Bill
by E.B. Patton / September 4th, 2007
WASHINGTON (AEP) — Many Americans with health insurance are aware that many insurance companies deny benefits for what are called “pre-existing conditions.” But new legislation currently pending before Congress would allow insurance companies to begin denying benefits for “existing conditions,” omitting the “pre” as a requirement for consideration. (Full article …)
Surgeon General to Be . . . Or Not to Be?
by Bill Berkowitz / September 4th, 2007
While the George W. Bush administration didn’t invent cronyism — handing over administration jobs to friends, funders and longtime supporters — it certainly has put its own unique stamp on the concept. When the history of the Bush Administration is written, “cronyism” will be writ large with Bush’s paean to former FEMA chief Michael Brown, “Brownie, you’re doing a heck of a job,” leading the way. The hiring — and ultimate firing — of “Brownie,” however, is only one example of how the uninformed, the unprepared, the prejudiced, and the unqualified have made their way to administration posts. (Full article …)
Fake Photos Helped Lead US to Invade Iraq
by Walter Brasch / September 4th, 2007
Add faked photos to the list of lies told by the Bush–Cheney Administration before its invasion of Iraq. (Full article …)
Tuesday, September 4, 2007
Jacob Hornberger’s Blog [Blog Archives]
The Wrongfulness of Bush’s Mortgage Plan
by Jacob G. Hornberger
Once again, President Bush has befuddled liberals with his compassionate conservatism. Reflecting his goodness, Bush is calling for government protection for poor people who are in danger of losing their homes because of the mortgage-loan crisis. He wants the Federal Housing Administration to guarantee loans for delinquent borrowers.
In the liberal mindset, Bush’s action shows not only his goodness but also the goodness of U.S. politicians and bureaucrats as well as the goodness of the American people. The IRS is good because it collects the taxes that will fund the losses that will arise out of Bush’s plan. The bureaucrats who will be in charge of running Bush’s bailout program are good. The Congress, which will fully support the bailout, is good. The taxpayers are good because it’s their money. The voters are good for electing good people to office. The citizenry is good for living in a good country.
Of course, Bush’s liberal-type goodness is reflected in Iraq too, where he has brought democracy to the Iraqi people. Yes, it’s true that hundreds of thousands of Iraqi people have been killed or maimed in the process, but aren’t those deaths and injuries “worth it”? After all, isn’t that what UN Ambassador Madeleine Albright said about the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi children as a result of the sanctions that U.S. officials enforced against Iraq for more than 10 years? A million dead people. That’s 1/6 the number of people who died in the Holocaust. Never mind that none of them were asked whether they wanted to die for democracy. Never mind that it was their country. Never mind that not one of them ever attacked the United States. If they were alive, they would undoubtedly be singing the praises of all the good people in the United States.
Unlike liberals, libertarians are not befuddled or taken in by Bush’s compassionate conservatism. Libertarians know that Bush’s welfare-state programs, both domestic and foreign, don’t reflect any goodness whatsoever but instead reflect only badness. Virtue arises only out of voluntary conduct, not through the force of government. If Bush wants to help people who might lose their homes, then he ought to use the millions of dollars in his own personal savings along with monies he is able to voluntarily raise in the private sector to go out and buy up those mortgages and then give people favorable terms. Bush has no moral right to use government to help people out.
Mr. Hornberger is founder and president of The Future of Freedom Foundation.
Jacob Hornberger’s Blog [Blog Archives]
The Wrongfulness of Bush’s Mortgage Plan
by Jacob G. Hornberger
Once again, President Bush has befuddled liberals with his compassionate conservatism. Reflecting his goodness, Bush is calling for government protection for poor people who are in danger of losing their homes because of the mortgage-loan crisis. He wants the Federal Housing Administration to guarantee loans for delinquent borrowers.
In the liberal mindset, Bush’s action shows not only his goodness but also the goodness of U.S. politicians and bureaucrats as well as the goodness of the American people. The IRS is good because it collects the taxes that will fund the losses that will arise out of Bush’s plan. The bureaucrats who will be in charge of running Bush’s bailout program are good. The Congress, which will fully support the bailout, is good. The taxpayers are good because it’s their money. The voters are good for electing good people to office. The citizenry is good for living in a good country.
Of course, Bush’s liberal-type goodness is reflected in Iraq too, where he has brought democracy to the Iraqi people. Yes, it’s true that hundreds of thousands of Iraqi people have been killed or maimed in the process, but aren’t those deaths and injuries “worth it”? After all, isn’t that what UN Ambassador Madeleine Albright said about the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi children as a result of the sanctions that U.S. officials enforced against Iraq for more than 10 years? A million dead people. That’s 1/6 the number of people who died in the Holocaust. Never mind that none of them were asked whether they wanted to die for democracy. Never mind that it was their country. Never mind that not one of them ever attacked the United States. If they were alive, they would undoubtedly be singing the praises of all the good people in the United States.
Unlike liberals, libertarians are not befuddled or taken in by Bush’s compassionate conservatism. Libertarians know that Bush’s welfare-state programs, both domestic and foreign, don’t reflect any goodness whatsoever but instead reflect only badness. Virtue arises only out of voluntary conduct, not through the force of government. If Bush wants to help people who might lose their homes, then he ought to use the millions of dollars in his own personal savings along with monies he is able to voluntarily raise in the private sector to go out and buy up those mortgages and then give people favorable terms. Bush has no moral right to use government to help people out.
Mr. Hornberger is founder and president of The Future of Freedom Foundation.
"Israel Lobby" ReduxBy: Jacob Laksin
Academic conspiracy theorists Mearsheimer and Walt revive the paranoid style. More>
Abe Foxman’s Fear
By: Robert Spencer
The ADL leader refuses to speak out against the Armenian genocide. More>
Al Qaeda In Iraq
By: Frederick W. Kagan
How to understand it. How to defeat it. More>
Barbarism in Bremen
By: Stephen Brown
German police save two infant girls from female genital mutilation. More>
The War of Ideas
By: Asaf Romirowsky
Walid Phares' new book explores the rise of the academic jihad. More>
Death, Canadian Style
By: Bill Steigerwald
Why national health care has led to Canadians getting world class care -- in Buffalo. More>
<h2 class="date-header">Tuesday, September 04, 2007</h2> <h3 class="post-title"> On How al-Anbar isn't that Safe
and on How its "Calm" is Artificially Produced
</h3> Bush made a surprise visit to Al-Anbar Province on Monday, as part of his propaganda drive to get Americans to think we should stay in Iraq because "progress" is being made.
The debate over al-Anbar province is driven by the Bushies' desire to find any 'good news' to grasp at. Indeed, from 2003 forward, their criterion for objective reporting on Iraq was that it gave the 'good news.' When there obviously wasn't any good news, they started ignoring Iraq, as at Fox [Republican TV] Cable News.
Now the 'good news' appears (I swear to God) to be that you can "walk" in Iraq. That's the good news. The 8 billion people in the world walk every day, in most of the world's locales. Now it is an achievement to walk. That's good news of the highest order. Only, if you are American in Fallujah you might need a company of Marines with you so that you can . . . walk. (See below).
Is al-Anbar Province really paradise, as Bush suggested?
Al-Anbar residents killed 20 US troops in July. The total US fatalities in July were 79 according to icasualties.org, and some of those were presumably from accidents, etc. So al-Anbar, despite being reduced to the stone age, managed to kill a fourth or more of all US troops killed in combat in July. Al-Anbar is roughly 1/24 of Iraq by population. So it killed six times more US troops than we would have expected based on its proportion of the Iraqi population.
That's what the Bushies are celebrating, that the deadly al-Anbar has been wrestled down to only killing a fourth of the US troops killed in a month. It used to be more.
In mid-July, There were about 100 violent attacks in a single week in al-Anbar. That's a bright spot. That's progress. Since the year before, there were 400 violent attacks in that same period.
Well, yes, that's a relative improvement. But a hundred violent attacks in a week? That's being touted as good news to be ecstatic over? There were probably on the order of 1100 attacks that week in all of Iraq. So al-Anbar generated nearly one-tenth of all attacks. But it is only 1/24 of Iraq by population, so it is more than twice as dangerous with regard to the number of attacks than you would expect from its small population.
Fallujah, of course, was a trouble spot for the US military. I entertain dark suspicions that Bush had it destroyed for reasons of revenge. The November 2004 US assault damaged 2/3s of the buildings. Tens of thousands of former residents are still refugees.
One of the ways "calm" has been produced in the city is to simply forbid vehicular traffic. Since May, if you wanted to get somewhere in Fallujah, you have had to walk. So when the National Review tells us things are suddenly miraculously "calm" in al-Anbar, this is being produced artificially. Things would be calm in most hot spots if you could ban all forms of locomotion save walking.
The problem with producing calm by banning traffic is that it leaves you with a Somalia level of economic activity. IPS notes,
80 percent unemployment? Now that is calm.
"Calm" has also been produced by death squad activity. IPS notes,
So obviously if you round up a lot of young men and hold them without charge, and if you wipe out some others, "calm" is produced.
Another way of producing "calm" is to silence local journalists. Some have been arbitrarily arrested and then let go, with instructions to report the news as the Iraqi police tell them to. So we don't really know much about what is actually happening in Fallujah.
IPS quotes a local Sunni cleric:
So, all these measures-- banning traffic, rounding up young men, silencing the journalists, etc.-- have at least ended the attacks on US troops, right? Wrong.
It was only last week; I mean, August 28 was not that long ago, but this one is already forgotten:
Now, if ten worshippers were killed in a church just last week in a small US city of 200,000, would Congressmen be flocking there to proclaim how wonderful the security situation was?
Just a month before, a bomber killed two policemen in Fallujah and wounded 11 others.
On July 23, a female suicide bomber killed 7 policemen at a checkpoint in downtown Ramadi.
On July 8, a truck bomb killed 23 persons at a police recruiting center in Haswa, al-Anbar province.
On Monday there was this in Ramadi:
Think Progress noticed this exchange between CNN's Wolf Blitzer and starry-eyed returnee from Fallujah, Rep. Charles Boustany (R-LA).
Good for Wolf!
As for Bush,he knows that good news would be the Sunni Arabs in al-Anbar gladly signing on to the al-Maliki government.Labels: Iraq
posted by Juan Cole @ 9/04/2007 06:36:00 AM 10 comments
<h3 class="post-title"> Haleh is Free </h3> <a href="http://icga.blogspot.com/2007/09/haleh-isfandiari-allowed-to-leave-iran.html">As Barnett Rubin notes at the Global Affairs blog, Haleh Esfandiari has been allowed to leave Iran and has met her husband, Shaul Bakhash, in Vienna. I am so happy that my friend is free, though I regret the continued imprisonment of three other Iranian-American intellectuals (not to mention many, many prisoners of conscience.) And, my delight at Haleh's release is tempered with continued anger that she was imprisoned in the first place, on frankly paranoid and silly charges. AFP implies that she is technically just out on bail. Since she obviously is not going back to be tried, she may forfeit the over $300,000 bail money, which means that this episode functioned among other things as a shakedown.
The Iranian government is facing increasing isolation in the world, and there are lots of people who would like to do to Iran what was done to Fallujah. It is highly unwise of Tehran to retreat into North Korean-style isolation and to draw the ire of the global human rights community. The poor human rights record of the Saddam Hussein regime made it difficult for anti-war forces to mobilize in 2002 and early 2003.
Labels: Iran
posted by Juan Cole @ 9/04/2007 06:09:00 AM 4 comments
and on How its "Calm" is Artificially Produced
</h3> Bush made a surprise visit to Al-Anbar Province on Monday, as part of his propaganda drive to get Americans to think we should stay in Iraq because "progress" is being made.
The debate over al-Anbar province is driven by the Bushies' desire to find any 'good news' to grasp at. Indeed, from 2003 forward, their criterion for objective reporting on Iraq was that it gave the 'good news.' When there obviously wasn't any good news, they started ignoring Iraq, as at Fox [Republican TV] Cable News.
Now the 'good news' appears (I swear to God) to be that you can "walk" in Iraq. That's the good news. The 8 billion people in the world walk every day, in most of the world's locales. Now it is an achievement to walk. That's good news of the highest order. Only, if you are American in Fallujah you might need a company of Marines with you so that you can . . . walk. (See below).
Is al-Anbar Province really paradise, as Bush suggested?
Al-Anbar residents killed 20 US troops in July. The total US fatalities in July were 79 according to icasualties.org, and some of those were presumably from accidents, etc. So al-Anbar, despite being reduced to the stone age, managed to kill a fourth or more of all US troops killed in combat in July. Al-Anbar is roughly 1/24 of Iraq by population. So it killed six times more US troops than we would have expected based on its proportion of the Iraqi population.
That's what the Bushies are celebrating, that the deadly al-Anbar has been wrestled down to only killing a fourth of the US troops killed in a month. It used to be more.
In mid-July, There were about 100 violent attacks in a single week in al-Anbar. That's a bright spot. That's progress. Since the year before, there were 400 violent attacks in that same period.
Well, yes, that's a relative improvement. But a hundred violent attacks in a week? That's being touted as good news to be ecstatic over? There were probably on the order of 1100 attacks that week in all of Iraq. So al-Anbar generated nearly one-tenth of all attacks. But it is only 1/24 of Iraq by population, so it is more than twice as dangerous with regard to the number of attacks than you would expect from its small population.
Fallujah, of course, was a trouble spot for the US military. I entertain dark suspicions that Bush had it destroyed for reasons of revenge. The November 2004 US assault damaged 2/3s of the buildings. Tens of thousands of former residents are still refugees.
One of the ways "calm" has been produced in the city is to simply forbid vehicular traffic. Since May, if you wanted to get somewhere in Fallujah, you have had to walk. So when the National Review tells us things are suddenly miraculously "calm" in al-Anbar, this is being produced artificially. Things would be calm in most hot spots if you could ban all forms of locomotion save walking.
The problem with producing calm by banning traffic is that it leaves you with a Somalia level of economic activity. IPS notes,
' Residents say unemployment is above 80 percent. Most of the rest who have some work are government employees. The huge industrial area has been closed by U.S. and Iraqi Army units '
80 percent unemployment? Now that is calm.
"Calm" has also been produced by death squad activity. IPS notes,
' Hundreds of suspected resistance fighters are now held at the Fallujah police station. Many have been killed on the streets; the police speak of finding "unidentified bodies". Several of those found dead had been arrested earlier, eyewitnesses and families of several of the men killed have said.'
So obviously if you round up a lot of young men and hold them without charge, and if you wipe out some others, "calm" is produced.
Another way of producing "calm" is to silence local journalists. Some have been arbitrarily arrested and then let go, with instructions to report the news as the Iraqi police tell them to. So we don't really know much about what is actually happening in Fallujah.
IPS quotes a local Sunni cleric:
' "To say Fallujah is quiet is true, and you can see it in the city streets," said Shiek Salim from the Fallujah Scholars' Council. "The city is practically dead, and the dead are quiet.'
So, all these measures-- banning traffic, rounding up young men, silencing the journalists, etc.-- have at least ended the attacks on US troops, right? Wrong.
It was only last week; I mean, August 28 was not that long ago, but this one is already forgotten:
"BAGHDAD -- A suicide bomber detonated a vest packed with explosives in a Sunni Arab mosque in Fallujah yesterday, killing 10 worshipers, including the imam, and shattering what had been a period of relative calm for a region once the most volatile hotbed of Iraq's insurgency."
Now, if ten worshippers were killed in a church just last week in a small US city of 200,000, would Congressmen be flocking there to proclaim how wonderful the security situation was?
Just a month before, a bomber killed two policemen in Fallujah and wounded 11 others.
On July 23, a female suicide bomber killed 7 policemen at a checkpoint in downtown Ramadi.
On July 8, a truck bomb killed 23 persons at a police recruiting center in Haswa, al-Anbar province.
On Monday there was this in Ramadi:
' A suicide car bomb attacked an Iraqi security checkpoint on highway near the city of Ramadi in the western province of Anbar on Monday, killing two security members and wounding three others, a provincial police source said. '
Think Progress noticed this exchange between CNN's Wolf Blitzer and starry-eyed returnee from Fallujah, Rep. Charles Boustany (R-LA).
"BOUSTANY: We’re clearly seeing some major improvements. Clearly in the Anbar Province, we’ve seen significant improvement. We were able to walk the streets of Fallujah. Sectarian deaths are down.
[…]
BLITZER: And Congressman Boustany, you say that the number of casualties is going down. But we took a closer look — and The Los Angeles Times did as well — citing Iraqi Health Ministry numbers. In June, it was 1,227 civilian deaths in Iraq. In July, it went up to 1,753 civilian deaths in Iraq. And in August, the month that just ended, 1,773 civilian deaths in Iraq. Those numbers are going in the wrong direction.
BOUSTANY: Well, I think what I mentioned earlier, Wolf, was the number of attacks. And, clearly, we have to look at all the metrics very carefully.
BLITZER: But statistics — you can play a lot of room with statistics. In terms of dead people, civilians, Iraqi dead people, those numbers are high and they’re getting worse, despite the increased military troop levels of the United States, the so-called surge having been in effect over the past couple of months.
BOUSTANY: Well, Wolf, I want to point out that just two or three months ago, I would have never thought that four members of Congress would be able to walk through the streets of Fallujah. That’s a major…
BLITZER: But you had a lot of security with you. You had a lot of U.S. military protection.
BOUSTANY: We had a platoon of Marines.
BLITZER: Yes, well, a platoon of Marines is a lot of Marines to walk through Fallujah. . .
Good for Wolf!
As for Bush,he knows that good news would be the Sunni Arabs in al-Anbar gladly signing on to the al-Maliki government.Labels: Iraq
posted by Juan Cole @ 9/04/2007 06:36:00 AM 10 comments
<h3 class="post-title"> Haleh is Free </h3> <a href="http://icga.blogspot.com/2007/09/haleh-isfandiari-allowed-to-leave-iran.html">As Barnett Rubin notes at the Global Affairs blog, Haleh Esfandiari has been allowed to leave Iran and has met her husband, Shaul Bakhash, in Vienna. I am so happy that my friend is free, though I regret the continued imprisonment of three other Iranian-American intellectuals (not to mention many, many prisoners of conscience.) And, my delight at Haleh's release is tempered with continued anger that she was imprisoned in the first place, on frankly paranoid and silly charges. AFP implies that she is technically just out on bail. Since she obviously is not going back to be tried, she may forfeit the over $300,000 bail money, which means that this episode functioned among other things as a shakedown.
The Iranian government is facing increasing isolation in the world, and there are lots of people who would like to do to Iran what was done to Fallujah. It is highly unwise of Tehran to retreat into North Korean-style isolation and to draw the ire of the global human rights community. The poor human rights record of the Saddam Hussein regime made it difficult for anti-war forces to mobilize in 2002 and early 2003.
Labels: Iran
posted by Juan Cole @ 9/04/2007 06:09:00 AM 4 comments
The Mexicans Are Coming! The Mexicans Are Coming!
Hyping the immigration crisis in America's whitest states Kerry Howley (9/4)
Democracy Kills
The national intelligence director explains why Bush's critics have blood on their hands. Jacob Sullum (9/4)
Democratic Vistas
What does Hillary Clinton's party have in common with General Motors? Nick Gillespie (9/4)
The Reemergence of Professors Mearsheimer and Walt
Posted by Patrick Foy on September 04, 2007
The venerable, highbrow publisher--Farrar, Straus and Giroux--is publishing the bombshell book The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy this week. In a recent blog entry, "The Lobby Strikes", Justin Raimondo … [Read More]
War With Iran, on Sale Next Week
The Vice-President issues "instructions" to conservative think tanks to start drumbeating, says an Afghanistan expert at NYU. One such think tank, the American Enterprise Institute, is already on the march."U.S.-Backed Sunnis Against "Iran-Backed" Shiites?<li>Cheney Pushes for Strikes on Iranian Forces in Iraq<li>NIE: If We Attack Iran, Hezbollah Will Attack Us
<h3 class="blog_title">Officials: Nothing Will Change Bush's Iraq Policy</h3> 
Advisers are telling the president not to adjust strategy no matter what reports say. Any troop cuts are likely to be symbolic.
Advisers are telling the president not to adjust strategy no matter what reports say. Any troop cuts are likely to be symbolic.
<h3 class="blog_title">TPMtv: September 4, 2007</h3> <li>Watch the Full-Size Video
Craig reversal angers GOP colleagues
By: CARRIE BUDOFF BROWN and JIM VANDEHEI | 09/04/2007 09:53 PM Sex-scandal senator's hint that he may not resign after all stuns Republican colleagues who want him gone.
»See also: Craig reconsiders quitting
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4...49069&hl=en
9-11 NEW WORLD RISING(FIRST CUT)
A new place for 9-11 films,9-11 new world rising explores not only the imposiblility of the official story of 9-11 but also names names of ... all » the key suspects who stood to gain from the black operation that was September 11th 2001.And wish to usher in a "new world order". But also shows what YOU can do to take action to alert others of the goals set forth after 9-11 in an attempt for global domination. First Cut,your support will enable this films director's cut retail release. Watch it in High def and get a DVD at www.newworldrisingmovie.com «
9-11 NEW WORLD RISING(FIRST CUT)
A new place for 9-11 films,9-11 new world rising explores not only the imposiblility of the official story of 9-11 but also names names of ... all » the key suspects who stood to gain from the black operation that was September 11th 2001.And wish to usher in a "new world order". But also shows what YOU can do to take action to alert others of the goals set forth after 9-11 in an attempt for global domination. First Cut,your support will enable this films director's cut retail release. Watch it in High def and get a DVD at www.newworldrisingmovie.com «
Yet another take on the issue....from Stratfor
The Israel Lobby in U.S. Strategy
By George Friedman
U.S. President George W. Bush made an appearance in Iraq's restive Anbar province on Sept. 3 -- in part to tout the success of the military surge there ahead of the presentation in Washington of the Petraeus report. For the next month or two, the battle over Iraq will be waged in Washington -- and one country will come up over and over again, from any number of directions: Israel. Israel will be invoked as an ally in the war on terrorism -- the reason the United States is in the war in the first place. Some will say that Israel maneuvered the United States into Iraq to serve its own purposes. Some will say it orchestrated 9/11 for its own ends. Others will say that, had the United States supported Israel more resolutely, there would not have been a 9/11.
There is probably no relationship on which people have more diverging views than on that between the United States and Israel. Therefore, since it is going to be invoked in the coming weeks -- and Bush is taking a fairly irrelevant pause at the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation summit in Australia -- this is an opportune time to consider the geopolitics of the U.S.-Israeli relationship.
Let's begin with some obvious political points. There is a relatively small Jewish community in the United States, though its political influence is magnified by its strategic location in critical states such as New York and the fact that it is more actively involved in politics than some other ethnic groups.
The Jewish community, as tends to be the case with groups, is deeply divided on many issues. It tends to be united on one issue -- Israel -- but not with the same intensity as in the past, nor with even a semblance of agreement on the specifics. The American Jewish community is as divided as the Israeli Jewish community, with a large segment of people who don't much care thrown in. At the same time, this community donates large sums of money to American and Israeli organizations, including groups that lobby on behalf of Israeli issues in Washington. These lobbying entities lean toward the right wing of Israel's political spectrum, in large part because the Israeli right has tended to govern in the past generation and these groups tend to follow the dominant Israeli strand. It also is because American Jews who contribute to Israel lobby organizations lean right in both Israeli and American politics.
The Israel lobby, which has a great deal of money and experience, is extremely influential in Washington. For decades now, it has done a good job of ensuring that Israeli interests are attended to in Washington, and certainly on some issues it has skewed U.S. policy on the Middle East. There are Jews who practice being shocked at this assertion, but they must not be taken seriously. They know better, which is why they donate money. Others pretend to be shocked at the idea of a lobbyist influencing U.S. policy on the Middle East, but they also need not be taken seriously, because they are trying to influence Washington as well, though they are not as successful. Obviously there is an influential Israel lobby in Washington.
There are, however, two important questions. The first is whether this is in any way unique. Is a strong Israel lobby an unprecedented intrusion into foreign policy? The key question, though, is whether Israeli interests diverge from U.S. interests to the extent that the Israel lobby is taking U.S. foreign policy in directions it wouldn't go otherwise, in directions that counter the U.S. national interest.
Begin with the first question. Prior to both World wars there was extensive debate on whether the United States should intervene in the war. In both cases, the British government lobbied extensively for U.S. intervention on behalf of the United Kingdom. The British made two arguments. The first was that the United States shared a heritage with England -- code for the idea that white Anglo-Saxon Protestants should stand with white Anglo-Saxon Protestants. The second was that there was a fundamental political affinity between British and U.S. democracy and that it was in the U.S. interest to protect British democracy from German authoritarianism.
Many Americans, including President Franklin Roosevelt, believed both arguments. The British lobby was quite powerful. There was a German lobby as well, but it lacked the numbers, the money and the traditions to draw on.
From a geopolitical point of view, both arguments were weak. The United States and the United Kingdom not only were separate countries, they had fought some bitter wars over the question. As for political institutions, geopolitics, as a method, is fairly insensitive to the moral claims of regimes. It works on the basis of interest. On that basis, an intervention on behalf of the United Kingdom in both wars made sense because it provided a relatively low-cost way of preventing Germany from dominating Europe and challenging American sea power. In the end, it wasn't the lobbying interest, massive though it was, but geopolitical necessity that drove U.S. intervention.
The second question, then, is: Has the Israel lobby caused the United States to act in ways that contravene U.S. interests? For example, by getting the United States to support Israel, did it turn the Arab world against the Americans? Did it support Israeli repression of Palestinians, and thereby generate an Islamist radicalism that led to 9/11? Did it manipulate U.S. policy on Iraq so that the United States invaded Iraq on behalf of Israel? These allegations have all been made. If true, they are very serious charges.
It is important to remember that U.S.-Israeli ties were not extraordinarily close prior to 1967. President Harry Truman recognized Israel, but the United States had not provided major military aid and support. Israel, always in need of an outside supply of weapons, first depended on the Soviet Union, which shipped weapons to Israel via Czechoslovakia. When the Soviets realized that Israeli socialists were anti-Soviet as well, they dropped Israel. Israel's next patron was France. France was fighting to hold on to Algeria and maintain its influence in Lebanon and Syria, both former French protectorates. The French saw Israel as a natural ally. It was France that really created the Israeli air force and provided the first technology for Israeli nuclear weapons.
The United States was actively hostile to Israel during this period. In 1956, following Gamal Abdul Nasser's seizure of power in Egypt, Cairo nationalized the Suez Canal. Without the canal, the British Empire was finished, and ultimately the French were as well. The United Kingdom and France worked secretly with Israel, and Israel invaded the Sinai. Then, in order to protect the Suez Canal from an Israeli-Egyptian war, a Franco-British force parachuted in to seize the canal. President Dwight Eisenhower forced the British and French to withdraw -- as well as the Israelis. U.S.-Israeli relations remained chilly for quite a while.
The break point with France came in 1967. The Israelis, under pressure from Egypt, decided to invade Egypt, Jordan and Syria -- ignoring French President Charles de Gaulle's demand that they not do so. As a result, France broke its alignment with Israel. This was the critical moment in U.S.-Israeli relations. Israel needed a source of weaponry as its national security needs vastly outstripped its industrial base. It was at this point that the Israel lobby in the United States became critical. Israel wanted a relationship with the United States and the Israel lobby brought tremendous pressure to bear, picturing Israel as a heroic, embattled democracy, surrounded by bloodthirsty neighbors, badly needing U.S. help. President Lyndon B. Johnson, bogged down in Vietnam and wanting to shore up his base, saw a popular cause in Israel and tilted toward it.
But there were critical strategic issues as well. Syria and Iraq had both shifted into the pro-Soviet camp, as had Egypt. Some have argued that, had the United States not supported Israel, this would not have happened. This, however, runs in the face of history. It was the United States that forced the Israelis out of the Sinai in 1956, but the Egyptians moved into the Soviet camp anyway. The argument that it was uncritical support for Israel that caused anti-Americanism in the Arab world doesn't hold water. The Egyptians became anti-American in spite of an essentially anti-Israeli position in 1956. By 1957 Egypt was a Soviet ally.
The Americans ultimately tilted toward Israel because of this, not the other way around. Egypt was not only providing the Soviets with naval and air bases, but also was running covert operations in the Arabian Peninsula to bring down the conservative sheikhdoms there, including Saudi Arabia's. The Soviets were seen as using Egypt as a base of operations against the United States. Syria was seen as another dangerous radical power, along with Iraq. The defense of the Arabian Peninsula from radical, pro-Soviet Arab movements, as well as the defense of Jordan, became a central interest of the United States.
Israel was seen as contributing by threatening the security of both Egypt and Syria. The Saudi fear of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) was palpable. Riyadh saw the Soviet-inspired liberation movements as threatening Saudi Arabia's survival. Israel was engaged in a covert war against the PLO and related groups, and that was exactly what the Saudis wanted from the late 1960s until the early 1980s. Israel's covert capability against the PLO, coupled with its overt military power against Egypt and Syria, was very much in the American interest and that of its Arab allies. It was a low-cost solution to some very difficult strategic problems at a time when the United States was either in Vietnam or recovering from the war.
The occupation of the Sinai, the West Bank and the Golan Heights in 1967 was not in the U.S. interest. The United States wanted Israel to carry out its mission against Soviet-backed paramilitaries and tie down Egypt and Syria, but the occupation was not seen as part of that mission. The Israelis initially expected to convert their occupation of the territories into a peace treaty, but that only happened, much later, with Egypt. At the Khartoum summit in 1967, the Arabs delivered the famous three noes: No negotiation. No recognition. No peace. Israel became an occupying power. It has never found its balance.
The claim has been made that if the United States forced the Israelis out of the West Bank and Gaza, then it would receive credit and peace would follow. There are three problems with that theory. First, the Israelis did not occupy these areas prior to 1967 and there was no peace. Second, groups such as Hamas and Hezbollah have said that a withdrawal would not end the state of war with Israel. And therefore, third, the withdrawal would create friction with Israel without any clear payoff from the Arabs.
It must be remembered that Egypt and Jordan have both signed peace treaties with Israel and seem not to care one whit about the Palestinians. The Saudis have never risked a thing for the Palestinians, nor have the Iranians. The Syrians have, but they are far more interested in investing in Beirut hotels than in invading Israel. No Arab state is interested in the Palestinians, except for those that are actively hostile. There is Arab and Islamic public opinion and nonstate organizations, but none would be satisfied with Israeli withdrawal. They want Israel destroyed. Even if the United States withdrew all support for Israel, however, Israel would not be destroyed. The radical Arabs do not want withdrawal; they want destruction. And the moderate Arabs don't care about the Palestinians beyond rhetoric.
Now we get to the heart of the matter. If the United States broke ties with Israel, would the U.S. geopolitical position be improved? In other words, if it broke with Israel, would Iran or al Qaeda come to view the United States in a different way? Critics of the Israel lobby argue that, except for U.S. support for Israel, the United States would have better relations in the Muslim world, and would not be targeted by al Qaeda or threatened by Iran. In other words, except for the Israel lobby's influence, the United States would be much more secure.
Al Qaeda does not see Israel by itself as its central problem. Its goal is the resurrection of the caliphate -- and it sees U.S. support for Muslim regimes as the central problem. If the United States abandoned Israel, al Qaeda would still confront U.S. support for countries such as Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. For al Qaeda, Israel is an important issue, but for the United States to soothe al Qaeda, it would have to abandon not only Israel, but its non-Islamist allies in the Middle East.
As for Iran, the Iranian rhetoric, as we have said, has never been matched by action. During the Iran-Iraq War, the Iranian military purchased weapons and parts from the Israelis. It was more delighted than anyone when Israel destroyed the Iraqi nuclear reactor in 1981. Iran's problem with the United States is its presence in Iraq, its naval presence in the Persian Gulf and its support for the Kurds. If Israel disappeared from the face of the Earth, Iran's problems would remain the same.
It has been said that the Israelis inspired the U.S. invasion of Iraq. There is no doubt that Israel was pleased when, after 9/11, the United States saw itself as an anti-Islamist power. Let us remind our more creative readers, however, that benefiting from something does not mean you caused it. However, it has never been clear that the Israelis were all that enthusiastic about invading Iraq. Neoconservative Jews like Paul Wolfowitz were enthusiastic, as were non-Jews like Dick Cheney. But the Israeli view of a U.S. invasion of Iraq was at most mixed, and to some extent dubious. The Israelis liked the Iran-Iraq balance of power and were close allies of Turkey, which certainly opposed the invasion. The claim that Israel supported the invasion comes from those who mistake neoconservatives, many of whom are Jews who support Israel, with Israeli foreign policy, which was much more nuanced than the neoconservatives. The Israelis were not at all clear about what the Americans were doing in Iraq, but they were in no position to complain.
Israeli-U.S. relations have gone through three phases. From 1948 to 1967, the United States supported Israel's right to exist but was not its patron. In the 1967-1991 period, the Israelis were a key American asset in the Cold War. From 1991 to the present, the relationship has remained close but it is not pivotal to either country. Washington cannot help Israel with Hezbollah or Hamas. The Israelis cannot help the United States in Iraq or Afghanistan. If the relationship were severed, it would have remarkably little impact on either country -- though keeping the relationship is more valuable than severing it.
To sum up: There is a powerful Jewish, pro-Israel lobby in Washington, though it was not very successful in the first 20 years or so of Israel's history. When U.S. policy toward Israel swung in 1967 it had far more to do with geopolitical interests than with lobbying. The United States needed help with Egypt and Syria and Israel could provide it. Lobbying appeared to be the key, but it wasn't; geopolitical necessity was. Egypt was anti-American even when the United States was anti-Israeli. Al Qaeda would be anti-American even if the United States were anti-Israel. Rhetoric aside, Iran has never taken direct action against Israel and has much more important things on its plate.
Portraying the Israel lobby as super-powerful behooves two groups: Critics of U.S. Middle Eastern policy and the Israel lobby itself. Critics get to say the U.S. relationship with Israel is the result of manipulation and corruption. Thus, they get to avoid discussing the actual history of Israel, the United States and the Middle East. The lobby benefits from having robust power because one of its jobs is to raise funds -- and the image of a killer lobby opens a lot more pocketbooks than does the idea that both Israel and the United States are simply pursuing their geopolitical interests and that things would go on pretty much the same even without slick lobbying.
The great irony is that the critics of U.S. policy and the Israel lobby both want to believe in the same myth -- that great powers can be manipulated to harm themselves by crafty politicians. The British didn't get the United States into the world wars, and the Israelis aren't maneuvering the Americans into being pro-Israel. Beyond its ability to exert itself on small things, the Israel lobby is powerful in influencing Washington to do what it is going to do anyway. What happens next in Iraq is not up to the Israel lobby -- though it and the Saudi Embassy have a different story.
_______________________________________________
The Israel Lobby in U.S. Strategy
By George Friedman
U.S. President George W. Bush made an appearance in Iraq's restive Anbar province on Sept. 3 -- in part to tout the success of the military surge there ahead of the presentation in Washington of the Petraeus report. For the next month or two, the battle over Iraq will be waged in Washington -- and one country will come up over and over again, from any number of directions: Israel. Israel will be invoked as an ally in the war on terrorism -- the reason the United States is in the war in the first place. Some will say that Israel maneuvered the United States into Iraq to serve its own purposes. Some will say it orchestrated 9/11 for its own ends. Others will say that, had the United States supported Israel more resolutely, there would not have been a 9/11.
There is probably no relationship on which people have more diverging views than on that between the United States and Israel. Therefore, since it is going to be invoked in the coming weeks -- and Bush is taking a fairly irrelevant pause at the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation summit in Australia -- this is an opportune time to consider the geopolitics of the U.S.-Israeli relationship.
Let's begin with some obvious political points. There is a relatively small Jewish community in the United States, though its political influence is magnified by its strategic location in critical states such as New York and the fact that it is more actively involved in politics than some other ethnic groups.
The Jewish community, as tends to be the case with groups, is deeply divided on many issues. It tends to be united on one issue -- Israel -- but not with the same intensity as in the past, nor with even a semblance of agreement on the specifics. The American Jewish community is as divided as the Israeli Jewish community, with a large segment of people who don't much care thrown in. At the same time, this community donates large sums of money to American and Israeli organizations, including groups that lobby on behalf of Israeli issues in Washington. These lobbying entities lean toward the right wing of Israel's political spectrum, in large part because the Israeli right has tended to govern in the past generation and these groups tend to follow the dominant Israeli strand. It also is because American Jews who contribute to Israel lobby organizations lean right in both Israeli and American politics.
The Israel lobby, which has a great deal of money and experience, is extremely influential in Washington. For decades now, it has done a good job of ensuring that Israeli interests are attended to in Washington, and certainly on some issues it has skewed U.S. policy on the Middle East. There are Jews who practice being shocked at this assertion, but they must not be taken seriously. They know better, which is why they donate money. Others pretend to be shocked at the idea of a lobbyist influencing U.S. policy on the Middle East, but they also need not be taken seriously, because they are trying to influence Washington as well, though they are not as successful. Obviously there is an influential Israel lobby in Washington.
There are, however, two important questions. The first is whether this is in any way unique. Is a strong Israel lobby an unprecedented intrusion into foreign policy? The key question, though, is whether Israeli interests diverge from U.S. interests to the extent that the Israel lobby is taking U.S. foreign policy in directions it wouldn't go otherwise, in directions that counter the U.S. national interest.
Begin with the first question. Prior to both World wars there was extensive debate on whether the United States should intervene in the war. In both cases, the British government lobbied extensively for U.S. intervention on behalf of the United Kingdom. The British made two arguments. The first was that the United States shared a heritage with England -- code for the idea that white Anglo-Saxon Protestants should stand with white Anglo-Saxon Protestants. The second was that there was a fundamental political affinity between British and U.S. democracy and that it was in the U.S. interest to protect British democracy from German authoritarianism.
Many Americans, including President Franklin Roosevelt, believed both arguments. The British lobby was quite powerful. There was a German lobby as well, but it lacked the numbers, the money and the traditions to draw on.
From a geopolitical point of view, both arguments were weak. The United States and the United Kingdom not only were separate countries, they had fought some bitter wars over the question. As for political institutions, geopolitics, as a method, is fairly insensitive to the moral claims of regimes. It works on the basis of interest. On that basis, an intervention on behalf of the United Kingdom in both wars made sense because it provided a relatively low-cost way of preventing Germany from dominating Europe and challenging American sea power. In the end, it wasn't the lobbying interest, massive though it was, but geopolitical necessity that drove U.S. intervention.
The second question, then, is: Has the Israel lobby caused the United States to act in ways that contravene U.S. interests? For example, by getting the United States to support Israel, did it turn the Arab world against the Americans? Did it support Israeli repression of Palestinians, and thereby generate an Islamist radicalism that led to 9/11? Did it manipulate U.S. policy on Iraq so that the United States invaded Iraq on behalf of Israel? These allegations have all been made. If true, they are very serious charges.
It is important to remember that U.S.-Israeli ties were not extraordinarily close prior to 1967. President Harry Truman recognized Israel, but the United States had not provided major military aid and support. Israel, always in need of an outside supply of weapons, first depended on the Soviet Union, which shipped weapons to Israel via Czechoslovakia. When the Soviets realized that Israeli socialists were anti-Soviet as well, they dropped Israel. Israel's next patron was France. France was fighting to hold on to Algeria and maintain its influence in Lebanon and Syria, both former French protectorates. The French saw Israel as a natural ally. It was France that really created the Israeli air force and provided the first technology for Israeli nuclear weapons.
The United States was actively hostile to Israel during this period. In 1956, following Gamal Abdul Nasser's seizure of power in Egypt, Cairo nationalized the Suez Canal. Without the canal, the British Empire was finished, and ultimately the French were as well. The United Kingdom and France worked secretly with Israel, and Israel invaded the Sinai. Then, in order to protect the Suez Canal from an Israeli-Egyptian war, a Franco-British force parachuted in to seize the canal. President Dwight Eisenhower forced the British and French to withdraw -- as well as the Israelis. U.S.-Israeli relations remained chilly for quite a while.
The break point with France came in 1967. The Israelis, under pressure from Egypt, decided to invade Egypt, Jordan and Syria -- ignoring French President Charles de Gaulle's demand that they not do so. As a result, France broke its alignment with Israel. This was the critical moment in U.S.-Israeli relations. Israel needed a source of weaponry as its national security needs vastly outstripped its industrial base. It was at this point that the Israel lobby in the United States became critical. Israel wanted a relationship with the United States and the Israel lobby brought tremendous pressure to bear, picturing Israel as a heroic, embattled democracy, surrounded by bloodthirsty neighbors, badly needing U.S. help. President Lyndon B. Johnson, bogged down in Vietnam and wanting to shore up his base, saw a popular cause in Israel and tilted toward it.
But there were critical strategic issues as well. Syria and Iraq had both shifted into the pro-Soviet camp, as had Egypt. Some have argued that, had the United States not supported Israel, this would not have happened. This, however, runs in the face of history. It was the United States that forced the Israelis out of the Sinai in 1956, but the Egyptians moved into the Soviet camp anyway. The argument that it was uncritical support for Israel that caused anti-Americanism in the Arab world doesn't hold water. The Egyptians became anti-American in spite of an essentially anti-Israeli position in 1956. By 1957 Egypt was a Soviet ally.
The Americans ultimately tilted toward Israel because of this, not the other way around. Egypt was not only providing the Soviets with naval and air bases, but also was running covert operations in the Arabian Peninsula to bring down the conservative sheikhdoms there, including Saudi Arabia's. The Soviets were seen as using Egypt as a base of operations against the United States. Syria was seen as another dangerous radical power, along with Iraq. The defense of the Arabian Peninsula from radical, pro-Soviet Arab movements, as well as the defense of Jordan, became a central interest of the United States.
Israel was seen as contributing by threatening the security of both Egypt and Syria. The Saudi fear of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) was palpable. Riyadh saw the Soviet-inspired liberation movements as threatening Saudi Arabia's survival. Israel was engaged in a covert war against the PLO and related groups, and that was exactly what the Saudis wanted from the late 1960s until the early 1980s. Israel's covert capability against the PLO, coupled with its overt military power against Egypt and Syria, was very much in the American interest and that of its Arab allies. It was a low-cost solution to some very difficult strategic problems at a time when the United States was either in Vietnam or recovering from the war.
The occupation of the Sinai, the West Bank and the Golan Heights in 1967 was not in the U.S. interest. The United States wanted Israel to carry out its mission against Soviet-backed paramilitaries and tie down Egypt and Syria, but the occupation was not seen as part of that mission. The Israelis initially expected to convert their occupation of the territories into a peace treaty, but that only happened, much later, with Egypt. At the Khartoum summit in 1967, the Arabs delivered the famous three noes: No negotiation. No recognition. No peace. Israel became an occupying power. It has never found its balance.
The claim has been made that if the United States forced the Israelis out of the West Bank and Gaza, then it would receive credit and peace would follow. There are three problems with that theory. First, the Israelis did not occupy these areas prior to 1967 and there was no peace. Second, groups such as Hamas and Hezbollah have said that a withdrawal would not end the state of war with Israel. And therefore, third, the withdrawal would create friction with Israel without any clear payoff from the Arabs.
It must be remembered that Egypt and Jordan have both signed peace treaties with Israel and seem not to care one whit about the Palestinians. The Saudis have never risked a thing for the Palestinians, nor have the Iranians. The Syrians have, but they are far more interested in investing in Beirut hotels than in invading Israel. No Arab state is interested in the Palestinians, except for those that are actively hostile. There is Arab and Islamic public opinion and nonstate organizations, but none would be satisfied with Israeli withdrawal. They want Israel destroyed. Even if the United States withdrew all support for Israel, however, Israel would not be destroyed. The radical Arabs do not want withdrawal; they want destruction. And the moderate Arabs don't care about the Palestinians beyond rhetoric.
Now we get to the heart of the matter. If the United States broke ties with Israel, would the U.S. geopolitical position be improved? In other words, if it broke with Israel, would Iran or al Qaeda come to view the United States in a different way? Critics of the Israel lobby argue that, except for U.S. support for Israel, the United States would have better relations in the Muslim world, and would not be targeted by al Qaeda or threatened by Iran. In other words, except for the Israel lobby's influence, the United States would be much more secure.
Al Qaeda does not see Israel by itself as its central problem. Its goal is the resurrection of the caliphate -- and it sees U.S. support for Muslim regimes as the central problem. If the United States abandoned Israel, al Qaeda would still confront U.S. support for countries such as Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. For al Qaeda, Israel is an important issue, but for the United States to soothe al Qaeda, it would have to abandon not only Israel, but its non-Islamist allies in the Middle East.
As for Iran, the Iranian rhetoric, as we have said, has never been matched by action. During the Iran-Iraq War, the Iranian military purchased weapons and parts from the Israelis. It was more delighted than anyone when Israel destroyed the Iraqi nuclear reactor in 1981. Iran's problem with the United States is its presence in Iraq, its naval presence in the Persian Gulf and its support for the Kurds. If Israel disappeared from the face of the Earth, Iran's problems would remain the same.
It has been said that the Israelis inspired the U.S. invasion of Iraq. There is no doubt that Israel was pleased when, after 9/11, the United States saw itself as an anti-Islamist power. Let us remind our more creative readers, however, that benefiting from something does not mean you caused it. However, it has never been clear that the Israelis were all that enthusiastic about invading Iraq. Neoconservative Jews like Paul Wolfowitz were enthusiastic, as were non-Jews like Dick Cheney. But the Israeli view of a U.S. invasion of Iraq was at most mixed, and to some extent dubious. The Israelis liked the Iran-Iraq balance of power and were close allies of Turkey, which certainly opposed the invasion. The claim that Israel supported the invasion comes from those who mistake neoconservatives, many of whom are Jews who support Israel, with Israeli foreign policy, which was much more nuanced than the neoconservatives. The Israelis were not at all clear about what the Americans were doing in Iraq, but they were in no position to complain.
Israeli-U.S. relations have gone through three phases. From 1948 to 1967, the United States supported Israel's right to exist but was not its patron. In the 1967-1991 period, the Israelis were a key American asset in the Cold War. From 1991 to the present, the relationship has remained close but it is not pivotal to either country. Washington cannot help Israel with Hezbollah or Hamas. The Israelis cannot help the United States in Iraq or Afghanistan. If the relationship were severed, it would have remarkably little impact on either country -- though keeping the relationship is more valuable than severing it.
To sum up: There is a powerful Jewish, pro-Israel lobby in Washington, though it was not very successful in the first 20 years or so of Israel's history. When U.S. policy toward Israel swung in 1967 it had far more to do with geopolitical interests than with lobbying. The United States needed help with Egypt and Syria and Israel could provide it. Lobbying appeared to be the key, but it wasn't; geopolitical necessity was. Egypt was anti-American even when the United States was anti-Israeli. Al Qaeda would be anti-American even if the United States were anti-Israel. Rhetoric aside, Iran has never taken direct action against Israel and has much more important things on its plate.
Portraying the Israel lobby as super-powerful behooves two groups: Critics of U.S. Middle Eastern policy and the Israel lobby itself. Critics get to say the U.S. relationship with Israel is the result of manipulation and corruption. Thus, they get to avoid discussing the actual history of Israel, the United States and the Middle East. The lobby benefits from having robust power because one of its jobs is to raise funds -- and the image of a killer lobby opens a lot more pocketbooks than does the idea that both Israel and the United States are simply pursuing their geopolitical interests and that things would go on pretty much the same even without slick lobbying.
The great irony is that the critics of U.S. policy and the Israel lobby both want to believe in the same myth -- that great powers can be manipulated to harm themselves by crafty politicians. The British didn't get the United States into the world wars, and the Israelis aren't maneuvering the Americans into being pro-Israel. Beyond its ability to exert itself on small things, the Israel lobby is powerful in influencing Washington to do what it is going to do anyway. What happens next in Iraq is not up to the Israel lobby -- though it and the Saudi Embassy have a different story.
_______________________________________________
+ Military Matters: Growing chaos in Iraq
Washington (UPI) Sept. 4, 2007 - As good news continues to flow from the U.S. "surge" -- some of it true, some of it false, and all of it spun -- it is easy to forget the bottom line. The bottom line is whether we are beginning to see the re-emergence of a state in Iraq. Recent news stories throw some light on that question, and it is not a favorable light. Recent figures show that the number of killings taking place ... more+ Analysis: Adding centrifuges to the fire
Washington (UPI) Sept. 4, 2007 - New reports from Iran say the Islamic republic is running more than 3,000 centrifuges, an announcement that is certain to augment fears in Washington and Western Europe that Iran's nuclear program is for military, rather than civilian, use, as Iran's leadership insists. The announcement was made by Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad Sunday. This announcement will also likely ... more+ Several countries trying to hack into US military system: Pentagon
Washington (AFP) Sept 4, 2007 - Several nations and groups are trying to break into the US military's computer system, the Pentagon said Tuesday after reports China's military had successfully hacked into the network. The Chinese military's cyber-attack was carried out in June following months of efforts, the London-based Financial Times reported Tuesday, citing unnamed current and former US officials. Officials had ... more+ Analysis: Iraq oil law (still) coming soon
Dubai, United Arab Emirates, Sept. 4, 2007 - The question is simple on the third and final day of a major Iraqi energy conference where hundreds of hungry oil men and women broke bread with Iraq's industry chiefs, politicians and technocrats: When will Baghdad set the ground rules for the international oil community's long-awaited venture into the largest oil prize on Earth? The answer, evenly nuanced, is clear: A version of the ... more+ Committee to review Indian left's objections to US nuke deal
New Delhi (AFP) Sept 4, 2007 - India's foreign minister will head a committee set up by the Congress party-led government to review objections by communist allies to a controversial nuclear deal with the US, reports said Tuesday. The pact seeks to bring India into the loop of global atomic commerce after a gap of three decades, but the leftist parties, which oppose strategic ties with Washington, say the nuclear ... more
Israeli ruling reroutes separation wall
By Richard Boudreaux
Security is the paramount criterion for the barrier, not a Jewish settlement's
future housing needs, the high court says.
http://email.latimes.com/cgi-bin1/DM/y/eBX...Io30G2B0IuJt0Eu
GAO skeptical that Iraq security can last
By Paul Richter
The Senate hears a report questioning whether Iraqi forces can sustain what the
White House calls improvements by the U.S. troop buildup.
http://email.latimes.com/cgi-bin1/DM/y/eBX...Io30G2B0IuJu0Ev
By Richard Boudreaux
Security is the paramount criterion for the barrier, not a Jewish settlement's
future housing needs, the high court says.
http://email.latimes.com/cgi-bin1/DM/y/eBX...Io30G2B0IuJt0Eu
GAO skeptical that Iraq security can last
By Paul Richter
The Senate hears a report questioning whether Iraqi forces can sustain what the
White House calls improvements by the U.S. troop buildup.
http://email.latimes.com/cgi-bin1/DM/y/eBX...Io30G2B0IuJu0Ev
Labor Day election roundup -- a year early
By Ronald Brownstein
How the extended campaign season and consolidated primary calendar can help or
hurt the candidates.
http://email.latimes.com/cgi-bin1/DM/y/eBX...Io30G2B0IuKL0EH
By Ronald Brownstein
How the extended campaign season and consolidated primary calendar can help or
hurt the candidates.
http://email.latimes.com/cgi-bin1/DM/y/eBX...Io30G2B0IuKL0EH
The Israel Lobby May Yet Get the War It Wanted
by David Bromwich
by David Bromwich
Bush Shifts Terms for Measuring Progress in Iraq
Democrats, Promising to Force Change in War Strategy, Aim to Reframe Iraq Debate
Biography: George Bush 'Not Engaged' in Crucial Decisions
Try Bush for War Crimes, Urges US Combat Veteran
Poll: Americans Say Bush Was Too Eager to Attack Iraq
Battle Over Iraq Strategy
Democrats, Promising to Force Change in War Strategy, Aim to Reframe Iraq Debate
Biography: George Bush 'Not Engaged' in Crucial Decisions
Try Bush for War Crimes, Urges US Combat Veteran
Poll: Americans Say Bush Was Too Eager to Attack Iraq
Battle Over Iraq Strategy
Snow Job in the DesertPaul Krugman, The New York Times
War on Iraq: It appears that many influential people in this country have learned nothing from the last five years.
Olbermann's Special Comment on Bush's Iraq Visit: "Bush Is Just Playing Us" [VIDEO]
Post by Adam Howard
Video: A fiery and passionate special comment from Olbermann about Bush's lies regarding troop withdrawal and much more. More »
The Law Applies to All, or only Some? by Rami G. Khouri
The United States and United Kingdom are like runners in a relay race, handing off the imperial baton to each other in a violent rampage through history. Will they ever be held accountable for their militarism around the world?
more...
The United States and United Kingdom are like runners in a relay race, handing off the imperial baton to each other in a violent rampage through history. Will they ever be held accountable for their militarism around the world?
more...
Jihadis strike back at Pakistan
With Pakistani President General Pervez Musharraf and his military establishment on the brink of a US-inspired power-sharing agreement with exiled former premier Benazir Bhutto, the political landscape is being redrawn. Militants, including al-Qaeda, see the development as a threat to their survival in the country, and they plan to nip it in the bud. Tuesday's suicide bombings in Rawalpindi are a new salvo in a struggle in which the military might have to choose: Washington or the jihadis. - Syed Saleem Shahzad (Sep 5, '07)
With Pakistani President General Pervez Musharraf and his military establishment on the brink of a US-inspired power-sharing agreement with exiled former premier Benazir Bhutto, the political landscape is being redrawn. Militants, including al-Qaeda, see the development as a threat to their survival in the country, and they plan to nip it in the bud. Tuesday's suicide bombings in Rawalpindi are a new salvo in a struggle in which the military might have to choose: Washington or the jihadis. - Syed Saleem Shahzad (Sep 5, '07)
Seven years in hell
President George W Bush has now fervently embraced the Vietnam analogy for the war in Iraq, despite swearing in 2003 that his war would "decidedly not be Vietnam". The shift illustrates the changes the United States has undergone in the past seven years, in which born-again militarists, believers in the efficacy of force as embodied in the most awe-inspiring, high-tech military on the planet, have commandeered the heights of power and blindly run the US off an imperial cliff. - Tom Engelhardt (Sep 5, '07)
[/color]
The case for pragmatic idealism
Former US secretary of state James Baker reflects on the current world condition and, despite setbacks and doubts associated with the ongoing Iraq war, rejects gloomy predictions about America's eclipse. He stresses the assets and advantages that the US possesses over its rivals and delivers some practical advice that he sums up as "pragmatic idealism". [color="#999999"] (Sep 5, '07)
Massacre probe takes a tortuous path
Like Abu Ghraib in 2004, the massacre in 2005 in the Iraqi town of Haditha of 24 civilians, apparently at the hands of US marines, outraged the US public, and military officials promised justice. But like Abu Ghraib, justice has concentrated on prosecuting enlisted men and non-commissioned officers, not the officers who commanded the units. (Sep 5, '07)
Caucasus becomes a hotbed of extremism
The Bush administration has invited several muftis from the North Caucasus region of Russia to visit the US. The growing radicalism of Muslims in this region, where some jihadis look down on the Taliban as being insufficiently radical, has raised concern in Washington that their radicalism may be a global, not just a Russian, problem. - Dmitry Shlapentokh (Sep 5,
President George W Bush has now fervently embraced the Vietnam analogy for the war in Iraq, despite swearing in 2003 that his war would "decidedly not be Vietnam". The shift illustrates the changes the United States has undergone in the past seven years, in which born-again militarists, believers in the efficacy of force as embodied in the most awe-inspiring, high-tech military on the planet, have commandeered the heights of power and blindly run the US off an imperial cliff. - Tom Engelhardt (Sep 5, '07)
[/color]
The case for pragmatic idealism
Former US secretary of state James Baker reflects on the current world condition and, despite setbacks and doubts associated with the ongoing Iraq war, rejects gloomy predictions about America's eclipse. He stresses the assets and advantages that the US possesses over its rivals and delivers some practical advice that he sums up as "pragmatic idealism". [color="#999999"] (Sep 5, '07)
Massacre probe takes a tortuous path
Like Abu Ghraib in 2004, the massacre in 2005 in the Iraqi town of Haditha of 24 civilians, apparently at the hands of US marines, outraged the US public, and military officials promised justice. But like Abu Ghraib, justice has concentrated on prosecuting enlisted men and non-commissioned officers, not the officers who commanded the units. (Sep 5, '07)
Caucasus becomes a hotbed of extremism
The Bush administration has invited several muftis from the North Caucasus region of Russia to visit the US. The growing radicalism of Muslims in this region, where some jihadis look down on the Taliban as being insufficiently radical, has raised concern in Washington that their radicalism may be a global, not just a Russian, problem. - Dmitry Shlapentokh (Sep 5,
CREDIT BUST BYPASSES BANKS
PART 1: The rise of the
non-bank financial system
The financial crisis brought to the world's attention by the subprime time-bomb is no longer one of liquidity, but of deteriorating creditworthiness throughout the global system. The liquidity crunch is a symptom, not the disease. The disease is a decade of permissive tolerance for credit abuse in which banks, regulators and rating agencies were willing accomplices.
This is the first part of a two-part analysis by Henry C K Liu (Sep 5, '07)
PART 1: The rise of the
non-bank financial system
The financial crisis brought to the world's attention by the subprime time-bomb is no longer one of liquidity, but of deteriorating creditworthiness throughout the global system. The liquidity crunch is a symptom, not the disease. The disease is a decade of permissive tolerance for credit abuse in which banks, regulators and rating agencies were willing accomplices.
This is the first part of a two-part analysis by Henry C K Liu (Sep 5, '07)
Jean Bricmont
Why Bush Can Get Away with Attacking Iran
Patrick Cockburn
Cut and Run in Iraq
Ron Jacobs
The Haditha Massacre: Spinning a War Crime
Why Bush Can Get Away with Attacking Iran
Patrick Cockburn
Cut and Run in Iraq
Ron Jacobs
The Haditha Massacre: Spinning a War Crime
Standing Firm With Norman G. Finkelstein and DePaul’s Heroic Students: A Defining Moment
by Matthew Abraham / September 5th, 2007
I am an untenured, assistant professor at DePaul University in Chicago, where Norman G. Finkelstein, the most heroic critic of U.S. and Israeli policy in Palestine ever to set foot in the U.S. academy, was denied tenure over nearly three months ago. I was, and am, deeply saddened that DePaul University, the institution where I have chosen to make a career, has so effectively undermined its social justice mission in a series of actions that have put us, as a faculty body, in grave peril. (Full article …)
Resisting Tyranny in Academia
The Deepening Bathos at DePaul University
by Kim Petersen / September 5th, 2007
It is regrettable that I have been driven to such drastic actions to defend basic principles of academic freedom and my contractual rights, upon which DePaul has been riding roughshod for so long.
– Norman Finkelstein (Full article …)
Where is the Honor?
by Bill Willers / September 5th, 2007
A cadet will not lie, cheat, steal, or tolerate those who do.
– Cadet Honor Code of the U.S. Military Academy at West Point (Full article …)
Return of the Robber Barons
by Sharon Smith / September 5th, 2007
“Running A hedge fund means never having to say you’re sorry,” the Wall Street Journal observed on August 16, after managers of some of the nation’s largest hedge funds informed stunned investors that they had lost up to a third of their money during the first two weeks of last month. (Full article …)
JOHN W. DEAN Understanding the Contemporary Republican Party: Authoritarians Have Taken Control Part One in a Three-Part Series With this column, FindLaw columnist and former counsel to the president John Dean begins a three-part series relating to his best-selling book Conservatives Without Conscience. In this column, Dean argues that to understand the contemporary Republican party, it is necessary to understand longstanding social science research, particularly the research of Professor Bob Altemeyer, regarding two types of authoritarian personalities: those of authoritarian leaders and those of authoritarian followers.
My hunch is that the next election may well come down to what the public thinks of "Bush's War" in Iraq. Tony Blankley, Washington Times
The president is going to get his way yet again on Iraq. John Podhoretz, New York Post
What's wrong with the GAO report. Frederick Kagan, Weekly Standard
Mitch McConnell takes a long-term view on Iraq. Eli Lake, New York Sun
America Needs Statesmen - Not Politicians
America needs noble politicians like our founding fathers
Geoff Metcalf
America needs noble politicians like our founding fathers
Geoff Metcalf
Playbook: Parsing the 'resignation' By: MIKE ALLEN | 09/05/2007 06:17 AM New: Politico launches Playbook 24/7, a constantly updated summary of top stories driving the political conversation.
GOP tries rebranding to win back voters By: JEANNE CUMMINGS | 09/05/2007 07:15 AM For Republicans today, live coverage of Bush in their district is more often something to avoid than seek.
The long campaign of Bill Clinton By: ROGER SIMON | 09/05/2007 07:13 AM For Hillary's husband, life is just one big campaign.
Biden's last-ditch effort By: DAVID PAUL KUHN | 09/05/2007 07:17 AM Despite his qualifications, a White House victory seems nearly impossible for Sen. Biden.
GOP tries rebranding to win back voters By: JEANNE CUMMINGS | 09/05/2007 07:15 AM For Republicans today, live coverage of Bush in their district is more often something to avoid than seek.
The long campaign of Bill Clinton By: ROGER SIMON | 09/05/2007 07:13 AM For Hillary's husband, life is just one big campaign.
Biden's last-ditch effort By: DAVID PAUL KUHN | 09/05/2007 07:17 AM Despite his qualifications, a White House victory seems nearly impossible for Sen. Biden.
September 04, 2007