Is the Israel Lobby Pushing the United States? by Rami G. Khouri
The authors of The Israel Lobby and US Foreign Policy -- John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt -- still receive ad hominem attacks and denigration. But at least the exposure brings on deeper debate about the issues central to the book.
more...

Stan Honda/Agence France-Presse — Getty Images
Clinton Hears It From Her Rivals in Debate
By ADAM NAGOURNEY and ELISABETH BUMILLER 41 minutes ago Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton came under withering attack from the rest of the Democratic field in a debate strikingly different in tone from their prior meetings.

• Rivals Challenge Clinton on Her Vote for Iran Measure
• Recap of the Democratic Debate | The Caucus »

The Fix: Debate Wrap-Up
Repeatedly, Sen. Barack Obama and former sen. John Edwards seek to draw contrasts to front-runner. (AP)

• Obama Shifts on Social Security

Bomb Iran, majority of Americans says in new pollNick Juliano
Published: Tuesday October 30, 2007

del.icio.us
reddit_url=window.location.href reddit_title='Bomb Iran, majority of Americans says in new poll'
Print This Email This

Despite President Bush's perpetually abysmal approval ratings, it appears his increasingly hostile rhetoric against Iran has drummed up enough fear of a "nuclear holocaust" or a World War III that a majority of Americans are in favor of a US strike against the country aimed a curtailing its apparent nuclear ambitions, a new poll shows.

The Zogby International survey shows 52 percent of Americans would support a strike on Iran, while 53 percent expect President Bush to launch such an attack before the end of his second term. Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton is voters' No. 1 choice to deal with Iran, with 21 percent saying they would like to see her take on Tehran from the White House. Republican Rudy Giuliani was voters' second choice, with 15 percent.

Just 29 percent of Americans think the US should not attack Iran, with one in five people unsure about military action. Of those who would support a strike, 28 percent believe military action should wait until the next president is in office, while 23 percent want to see Bush let lose US missiles against Iran.

The poll results were viewed with a "Here we go again" attitude from bloggers chagrined at the apparent lack of lessons learned by Americans as the war launched against another hostile Middle Eastern regime stretches towards its fifth year.

"It is utterly stunning that, after the great difficulties we have clearly faced in Iraq (a situation far from finished, by the way), that an absolute majority would favor a strike on Iran at this time," writes Dr. Steven Taylor at PoliBlog. "Even if we assume that the die-hard 25%-30% who still approve of the way the President is doing his job also are in favor of such a strike, where do the other 27%-22% come from to get the pro-strike total to 52%?"

The support for an Iranian strike coincides with substantial fears of further terrorist attacks demonstrated in the Zogby poll. More than two-thirds of Americans (68 percent) believe another terrorist attack is likely on US soil and nearly one-in three believe such a strike will come before 2010.

Polls conducted prior to the invasion of Iraq showed larger majorities of Americans in favor of military action, and around 80 percent of Americans believed Iraq posed a threat to the United States in late 2002 and early 2003.

Don Surber, blogging for West Virginia's Charleston Daily Mail compared the speculation over a strike on Iran to another showdown over nuclear proliferation nearly half a century ago.

"I was in grade school when the Cuban Missile Crisis happened 45 Octobers ago. I was gung-ho for taking Castro out. Wiser heads prevailed — in the Soviet Union as well as the United States," he writes. "The security of the world rests on American shoulders. I’d bet against a military strike. There are enough wiser heads on both sides."

Blog: Dem debate in Philly
By: BEN SMITH | 10/30/2007 08:57 PM Debate ends on a wacky note with UFO jokes. Who was the winner, though?
»See Also: All the latest debate news

Mega-donors prepare for '08 battle By: BEN SMITH | 10/30/2007 12:45 PM MoveOn, George Soros and allies plan strategy as billionaire GOP donors ramp up giving.

Clinton's dominance of the Democratic presidential field was on display in a televised debate as she sloughed off pointed criticism from rivals and took aim at the Bush administration. 11:55 p.m. • Washington Wire: Biden Steals the Limelight

October 31, 2007
The Lobby, Unmasked
The Israel lobby: "We have an 'unwritten contract' with the American media"
by Justin Raimondo

Progressive writer Philip Weiss reports on his excellent blog a speech by Andrea Levin, president of the Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America (CAMERA):

"The fact is, you know, we may be unhappy with the New York Times from time to time, and we at CAMERA have been, but I have to say we are fortunate. The American media is much, much more geared to understanding that there is an unwritten contract between them and us, and that is, that things should be factually accurate, and we get corrections all the time. Those corrections are very meaningful sometimes. We can prevent the repetition of serious errors. … So there is that give and take here in the States."

What is this "unwritten contract"? I'll tell you what it is: it's an agreement to censor anything and everything that offends the Lobby and its glorified, sanitized view of Israel. Here, after all, is a country that practices apartheid, imprisons children, and was founded on ethnic cleansing and bigoted religious obscurantism – and yet they present themselves to the world as a valiant little "democracy," a beleaguered outpost of "the West" in the midst of an Arab sea. It takes a lot of cosmetics to hide the true face of this dog, and that's what CAMERA is all about – prettifying an increasingly ugly reality. The Lobby reserves the right to censor any material that presents Israel in a more realistic light, and anyone who opposes them in their mission on behalf of a foreign power is smeared as an "anti-Semite."

When National Public Radio refused to kowtow to their demands for more favorable coverage of Israel, they mounted a vicious campaign of demonization that led to huge financial losses to the station. NPR, which CAMERA called "National Palestine Radio" – a bit of racist snark that they feel powerful enough to get away with – soon mended its ways. At a moment's notice, CAMERA can unleash its winged monkeys to bury an offending media outlet in an avalanche of phone calls, e-mails, and angry missives via snail mail taking the "anti-Semitic" offender to task.

Weiss recorded Levin's comments at an unusual event: a CAMERA conference on "Jewish defamers of Israel." Among the speakers, aside from Levin, were Indiana University professor Alvin Rosenfeld, whose "study" [.pdf] of the "Jewish defamers" targets Jews who question the Lobby's motives and "unwritten contracts" with the American media. Among the alleged "defamers": former New York Times columnist Anthony Lewis and Henry Siegman, director of the U.S./Middle East Project at the Council on Foreign Relations.

Why single out Jews – a tactic that would get any other organization in a whole lot of trouble, at least from a public relations point of view? Because that's precisely what Israeli ultra-nationalists like CAMERA can't abide – someone they can't smear as an anti-Jewish bigot raising his or her voice against the Lobby and speaking truth to the gathering power of the Israeli state. The "anti-Semite" canard doesn't work when applied to, say, Michael Lerner or Philip Weiss. And that's their only defense: these days, it's the only way they can prevent a real discussion about Israel's relations with the U.S. and the Lobby's distortion of American foreign policy. So when that fails, they're essentially left without any arguments, except the sort of special pleading that any advocate of dual loyalties engages in – and that is no longer quite enough. Not when the price we must pay for our "loyalty" to Israel is yet another Middle Eastern war, this time with a much more populous nation, and at a moment when our military has been exhausted almost beyond repair.

That's why the Lobby is getting desperate: what with the publication of John J. Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt's magisterial The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy and the increasingly vocal "Jewish defamers," WASPy types like James Fallows feel empowered enough to write the following:

"To the (ongoing) extent that AIPAC – the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, which calls itself 'America's Pro-Israel Lobby' – is trying to legitimize a military showdown between the United States and Iran, it is advancing its own concerns at the expense of larger American interests. The people who are doing this are not from one ethnic group in the conventional sense but are mainly of one religion (Jewish)."

That Fallows was discussing the power of ethnic lobbies in general, including the Cubans and the Armenians, did not spare him the slings and arrows of the real defamers:

"Today Gabriel Schoenfeld of Commentary Magazine quotes only the part about AIPAC – and then asks why I am singling out the Jews!?!?! 'Why is this game played only one way, with America's Jews the primary target?' … This makes me nostalgic for the comparative 'honesty' of the Chinese state media I've been dealing with recently."

The Chinese state media has nothing on the Lobby's mouthpieces, which are much more vicious and single-note than anything put out by the ChiComs: the only difference is that they don't wield state power. Not that they aren't trying, as Weiss reports:

"Someone in the audience asked if the Israeli government couldn't take action. 'Good question,' Levin said. 'Many many times we have urged in regard to American coverage – to really, really serious defamatory reports in the American media – we have urged the Israel government, whether it was the IDF or some other components of officialdom, to be involved. Times that we thought that legal actions could be taken.' But evidently that couldn't happen in Israel, where they have a 'very free press.'"

Here is the totalitarian mentality of fanatic nationalists like Levin exposed for all to see: she and her fellow fifth columnists are lobbying a foreign government to interfere with freedom of the press in America, on behalf of foreign interests. It doesn't get much more disgusting than that, now does it?

Yeah, they have a "very free press" in Israel – much freer than our own, thanks to groups like CAMERA. In Israel, of course, newspapers like Ha'aretz regularly report on matters that offend the Lobby – such as, for example, the existence and unmitigated power of the Lobby itself – and CAMERA can't do a damn thing about it because their influence there is minimal. It's only in the U.S. – where they are bold enough to have called on the Israeli government to take legal action against American media – that they have the kind of power they need to close down debate over U.S. policy in the Middle East.

Here we have the truth coming out of their own mouths – so now do you believe in the decisive power and influence of the Israel lobby?

NOTES IN THE MARGIN

Over at Taki's Top Drawer, I'm bashing the fake "libertarians" who are snarking at Ron Paul, and here I talk about how Ron Paul is not only rising in the polls, he's rising in the estimation of even the most hidebound pundits of the "conventional wisdom."

http://www.antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=11837

Attacking Iran for Israel?
by Ray McGovern

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice is at her mushroom-cloud hyperbolic best, and this time Iran is the target.

Her claim last week that "the policies of Iran constitute perhaps the single greatest challenge to American security interests in the Middle East and around the world" is simply too much of a stretch.

To gauge someone's reliability, one depends largely on prior experience. Sadly, Rice's credibility suffers in comparison with that of the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), Mohammed ElBaradei, who insists there is no evidence of an active nuclear weapons program in Iran.

If this sounds familiar, ElBaradei said the same thing about Iraq before it was attacked. But three days before the invasion, American nuclear expert Dick Cheney told NBC's Tim Russert, "I think Mr. ElBaradei is, frankly, wrong."

Here we go again. As in the case of Iraq, U.S. intelligence has been assiduously looking for evidence of a nuclear weapons program in Iran; but, alas, in vain.

Burned by the bogus "proof" adduced for Iraq – the uranium from Africa, the aluminum tubes – the administration has shied away from fabricating nuclear-related "evidence."

Are Bush and Cheney again relying on the Rumsfeld dictum, that "the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence"? There is a simpler answer.

Cat Out of the Bag

The Israeli ambassador to the U.S., Sallai Meridor, let the cat out of the bag while speaking at the American Jewish Committee luncheon on Oct. 22. In remarks paralleling those of Rice, Meridor said Iran is the chief threat to Israel.

Heavy on the chutzpah, he served gratuitous notice on Washington that effectively countering Iran's nuclear ambitions will take a "united United States in this matter," lest the Iranians conclude, "come January '09, they have it their own way."

Meridor stressed that "very little time" remained to keep Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons. How so?

Even were there to be a nuclear program hidden from the IAEA, no serious observer expects Iran to obtain a nuclear weapon much sooner than five years from now.

Truth be told, every other year since 1995 U.S. intelligence has been predicting that Iran could have a nuclear weapon in about five years.

It has become downright embarrassing – like a broken record, punctuated only by so-called "neoconservatives" like James Woolsey, who last summer publicly warned that the U.S. may have no choice but to bomb Iran in order to halt its nuclear weapons program.

Woolsey, self-described "anchor of the Presbyterian wing of the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs," put it this way: "I'm afraid that within, well, at worst, a few months – at best, a few years – they [the Iranians] could have the bomb."

The day before Meridor's unintentionally revealing remark, Vice President Dick Cheney reiterated, "We will not allow Iran to have a nuclear weapon."

That remark followed closely on President George W. Bush's apocalyptic warning of World War III, should Tehran acquire the knowledge to produce a nuclear weapon.

The Israelis appear convinced they have extracted a promise from Bush and Cheney that they will help Israel nip Iran's nuclear program in the bud before they leave office.

Never mind that there is no evidence that the Iranian nuclear program is any more weapons-related than the one Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld persuaded President Gerald Ford to approve in 1976 for Westinghouse and General Electric to install for the shah (price tag $6.4 billion).

With 200-300 nuclear weapons in its arsenal, the Israelis enjoy a nuclear monopoly in the Middle East. They mean to keep that monopoly and are pressing for the U.S. to obliterate Iran's fledgling nuclear program.

Anyone aware of Iran's ability to retaliate realizes this would bring disaster to the whole region and beyond. But this has not stopped Cheney and Bush before.

The rationale is similar to that revealed by Philip Zelikow, confidant of Condoleezza Rice, former member of the President's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board, and later executive director of the 9/11 Commission. On Oct. 10, 2002, Zelikow told a crowd at the University of Virginia:

"Why would Iraq attack America or use nuclear weapons against us? I'll tell you what I think the real threat is – it's the threat to Israel. And this is the threat that dare not speak its name … the American government doesn't want to lean too hard on it rhetorically, because it is not a popular sell."

Harbinger?

The political offensive against Iran coalesced as George W. Bush began his second term, with Cheney out in front pressing for an attack on its nuclear-related facilities.

During a Jan. 20, 2005, interview with MSNBC, just hours before Bush's second inauguration, Cheney put Iran "right at the top of the list of trouble spots," and noted that negotiations and UN sanctions might fail to stop Iran's nuclear program.

Cheney then added with remarkable nonchalance:

"Given the fact that Iran has a stated policy that their objective is the destruction of Israel, the Israelis might decide to act first, and let the rest of the world worry about cleaning up the diplomatic mess afterwards."

Does this not sound like the so-called "Cheney plan" being widely discussed in the media today? An Israeli air attack; Iranian retaliation; Washington springing to the defense of its "ally" Israel?

A big fan of preemption, Cheney has done little to disguise his attraction to Israel's penchant to preempt, such as Israel's air strike against the Iraqi nuclear reactor at Osirak in 1981.

Ten years after the Osirak attack, then-Defense Secretary Cheney reportedly gave Israeli Maj. Gen. David Ivri, commander of the Israeli air force, a satellite photo of the Iraqi nuclear reactor destroyed by U.S.-built Israeli aircraft. On the photo Cheney penned, "Thanks for the outstanding job on the Iraqi nuclear program in 1981."

Nothing is known of Ivri's response, but it is a safe bet it was along the lines of "we could not have done it without U.S. help."

Indeed, though the U.S. officially condemned the attack (the Reagan administration was supporting Saddam Hussein's Iraq at that point), the intelligence shared by the Pentagon with the Israelis made a major contribution to the success of the Israeli raid.

With Vice President Cheney calling the shots now, similar help may be forthcoming prior to any Israeli air attack on Iran.

It is no secret that former Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon began to press for an early preemptive strike on Iran in 2003, claiming that Iran was likely to obtain a nuclear weapon much earlier than what U.S. intelligence estimated.

Sharon made a habit of bringing his own military adviser to brief Bush with aerial photos of Iranian nuclear-related installations.

More troubling still, in the fall of 2004, retired Gen. Brent Scowcroft, who served as national security adviser to President George H.W. Bush and as chair of the younger Bush's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board, made some startling comments to the Financial Times.

A master of discretion with the media, Scowcroft nonetheless saw fit to make public his conclusion that Sharon had Bush "mesmerized," that he had our president "wrapped around his little finger."

Needless to say, Scowcroft was immediately removed from the advisory board.

An Unstable Infatuation

George W. Bush first met Sharon in 1998, when the Texas governor was taken on a tour of the Middle East by Matthew Brooks, then executive director of the Republican Jewish Coalition. Sharon was foreign minister and took Bush on a helicopter tour over the Israeli-occupied territories.

An Aug. 3, 2006, McClatchy wire story by Ron Hutcheson quotes Matthew Brooks:

"If there's a starting point for George W. Bush's attachment to Israel, it's the day in late 1998, when he stood on a hilltop where Jesus delivered the Sermon on the Mount, and, with eyes brimming with tears, read aloud from his favorite hymn, 'Amazing Grace.' He was very emotional. It was a tear-filled experience. He brought Israel back home with him in his heart. I think he came away profoundly moved."

Bush made gratuitous but revealing reference to that trip at the first meeting of his National Security Council on Jan. 30, 2001.

After announcing he would abandon the decades-long role of "honest broker" between Israelis and Palestinians and would tilt pronouncedly toward Israel, Bush said he would let Sharon resolve the dispute however he saw fit.

At that point he brought up his trip to Israel with the Republican Jewish Coalition and the flight over Palestinian camps, but there was no sense of concern for the lot of the Palestinians.

In Ron Suskind's Price of Loyalty, then-Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill, who was at the NSC meeting, quotes Bush: "Looked real bad down there," the president said with a frown. Then Bush said it was time to end America's efforts in the region. "I don't see much we can do over there at this point," he said.

O'Neill also reported that Colin Powell, the newly minted but nominal secretary of state, was taken completely by surprise at this nonchalant jettisoning of long-standing policy.

Powell demurred, warning that this would unleash Sharon and "the consequences could be dire, especially for the Palestinians." But according to O'Neill, Bush just shrugged, saying, "Sometimes a show of strength by one side can really clarify things." O'Neill says that Powell seemed "startled."

It is a safe bet that the vice president was in no way startled.

What Now?

The only thing that seems to be standing in the way of a preemptive attack on Iran's nuclear facilities is foot-dragging by the U.S. military.

It seems likely that the senior military have told the president and Cheney: This time let us brief you on what to expect on Day 2, on Week 4, on Month 6 – and on the many serious things Iran can do to Israel, and to us in Iraq and elsewhere.

CentCom commander Adm. William Fallon is reliably reported to have said, "We are not going to do Iran on my watch." And in an online Q&A, award-winning Washington Post reporter Dana Priest recently spoke of a possible "revolt" if pilots were ordered to fly missions against Iran. She added:

"This is a little bit of hyperbole, but not much. Just look at what Gen. [George] Casey, the Army chief, has said … that the tempo of operations in Iraq would make it very hard for the military to respond to a major crisis elsewhere. Beside, it's not the 'war' or 'bombing' part that's difficult; it's the morning after and all the days after that. Haven't we learned that (again) from Iraq?"

How about Congress? Could it act as a brake on Bush and Cheney? Forget it.

If the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) with its overflowing coffers supports an attack on Iran, so will most of our spineless lawmakers. Already, AIPAC has succeeded in preventing legislation that would have required the president to obtain advance authorization for an attack on Iran.

And for every Fallon, there is someone like the inimitable, retired Air Force Lt. Gen. Thomas McInerney, a close associate of James Woolsey and other "neocons."

The air campaign "will be easy," says McInerney, a Fox News pundit who was a rabid advocate of shock and awe over Iraq. "Ahmadinejad has nothing in Iran that we can't penetrate," he adds, and several hundred bombers, including Stealth bombers, will be enough to do the trick:

"Forty-eight hours duration, hitting 2,500 aim points to take out their nuclear facilities, their air defense facilities, their air force, their navy, their Shahab-3 retaliatory missiles, and finally their command and control. And then let the Iranian people take their country back."

And the rationale? Since it will be a hard sell to promote the idea, against all evidence, of an imminent threat that Iran is about to have a nuclear weapon, the White House PR machine is likely to focus on other evidence showing that Iran is supporting those "killing our troops in Iraq."

The scary thing is that Cheney is more likely to use the McInerneys and Woolseys than the Fallons and Caseys in showing the president how easily it can be done.

Madness

It is not as though we have not had statesmen wise enough to warn us against foreign entanglements, and about those who have difficulty distinguishing between the strategic interests of the United States and those of other nations, even allies:

"A passionate attachment of one nation for another produces a variety of evils. Sympathy for the favorite nation facilitates the illusion of an imaginary common interest in cases where no real common interest exists, infuses into one the enmities of the other, and betrays the former into participation in the quarrels and wars of the latter without adequate inducement or justification."
- George Washington, Farewell Address, 1796

This article originally appeared at ConsortiumNews.com.
http://www.antiwar.com/mcgovern/?articleid=11835

http://www.antiwar.com/porter/?articleid=11836 October 31, 2007 For Neocons, Iran Aim Is Still Regime Change
by Gareth Porter Vice President Dick Cheney and his neoconservative allies in the George W. Bush administration only began agitating for the use of military force against Iran once they had finally given up the illusion that regime change in Iran would happen without it.

And they did not give it up until late 2005, according to a former high-level Foreign Service officer who participated in the United States discussions with Iran from 2001 until late 2005.

Hillary Mann, who was the director for Persian Gulf and Afghanistan Affairs on the National Security Council staff in 2003 and later on the State Department's Policy Planning Staff, observes that the key to neoconservative policy views on Iran until 2006 was the firm belief that one of the consequences of a successful display of U.S. military force in Iraq would be to shake the foundations of the Iran regime.

That central belief was conveyed to conservative columnist Arnaud de Borchgrave of the Washington Times in April 2002 by prominent neocon figures who told him the Bush administration "had decided to redraw the geopolitical map of the Middle East."

The Bush doctrine of preemption, they said, "had become the vehicle for driving axis of evil practitioners out of power." The removal of Saddam Hussein, according to the neocon scenario, would bring a democratic Iraq that would then spread through the region, "bringing democracy from Syria to Egypt and to the sheikdoms, emirates, and monarchies of the Gulf."

Under the influence of this central myth, after the 9/11 attacks, some of Cheney's allies in the Pentagon conceived the objective of removing every regime in the Middle East that was hostile to the U.S. and Israel.

In November 2001, Gen. Wesley Clark, who had recently retired from his post as head of the U.S. Southern Command, learned from a general he knew in the Pentagon that a memo had just come down from the office of the secretary of defense outlining the objective of the "take down" of seven Middle Eastern regimes over five years.

The plan would start with the invasion of Iraq, and then go after Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, and Sudan, according to an account in Clark's 2003 book, Winning Modern Wars. The memo indicated the plan was to "come back and get Iran in five years."

The neocons were very serious about going after Syria. In the weeks following the initial U.S. blow at Hussein, Paul Wolfowitz, the chief neoconservative architect of the Iraq invasion, argued unsuccessfully for taking advantage of the presumed military triumph there to overthrow the Syrian regime of President Bashar Assad, according to the right-leaning Insight magazine.

But contrary to the popular notion that the neocons believed that "real men go to Tehran," no one was yet proposing that Iran should be next military target.

In September 2003, Cheney brought in David Wurmser, a close friend and protégé of Richard Perle and one of the architects of the neoconservative plan for regime change in Iraq, as his adviser on the Middle East. Wurmser had previously articulated very specific ideas about how taking down Hussein by force would help destabilize the Iranian regime.

In a 1999 book, Wurmser had laid out a plan for using the Iraqi Shi'ite majority and their conservative clerics as U.S. allies in the "regional rollback of Shi'ite fundamentalism" – meaning the Islamic regime in Iran.

But Wurmser also believed that the Ba'athist regime in Syria was an obstacle to regime change in Iran. Beginning with the "Clean Break" memo to incoming Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, which he had co-authored with Perle and Douglas Feith in 1996, he had argued that once Hussein was removed, the next step was to take down the Assad regime in Syria.

In a September 2007 interview with the Telegraph, after he had left Cheney's office, Wurmser confirmed his belief that regime change in Syria – by force, if necessary – would directly affect the stability of the Tehran regime. If Iran were seen to be unable to do anything to prevent the overthrow of the regime in Syria, he suggested, it would seriously undermine the Islamic regime's prestige at home.

From 2003 to 2005, Wurmser and the neocons were in denial about the increasingly obvious reality that the U.S. occupation of Iraq was actually boosting Iranian influence there rather than shaking the regime's power at home, according to former NSC specialist Mann. She was well acquainted with the neoconservatives' thinking from her associations with the Washington Institute for Near East Policy in the 1990s, and she told IPS in a recent interview that she was "astounded" to hear neocons in the administration suggest as late as 2005 that the situation in Iraq was on track to help destabilize the Iranian regime.

The neocons had long viewed the Iranian reformists, led by President Mohammed Khatami, as the primary obstacle to the popular revolution against the mullahs for which they were working. As French Iran specialist Frédéric Tellier noted in an early 2006 essay, they believed the electoral defeats of the reformists in 2003 and 2004 would also help open the way to a revolutionary political upheaval in Tehran.

In an appearance on the Don Imus show on Jan. 20, 2005, Cheney said the Israelis might attack Iran's nuclear sites if they became convinced the Iranians had a "significant nuclear capability." That remark underlined the fact that he was not thinking seriously about a U.S. strike against Iran.

By the end of 2005, however, the neocons had finally accepted the reality of the failure of the Bush administration's military intervention in Iraq, according to Mann. She also notes that the electoral victory of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, representing a new breed of nationalist conservative with a mass base of popular support, in the June 2005 presidential election, spelled the "death knell" to the neocon optimism about regime change in Iran.

Mann observes that the neocons had never forsworn the use of force against Iran, but they had argued that less force would be needed in Iran than had been used in Iraq. By early 2006, however, that assumption was being discarded by prominent neoconservatives.

Reuel Marc Gerecht of the American Enterprise Institute had been more aggressive than anyone else in arguing that Iraq's Shi'ites, liberated by U.S. military power, would help subvert the Iranian regime. But in April 2006, he called in a Weekly Standard article for continued bombing of Iran's nuclear sites until the Iranians stopped rebuilding them.

Within the administration, meanwhile, Wurmser was looking for the opportunity to propose a military option against Iran. In his September 2007 interview with the Telegraph shortly after leaving Cheney's office, he insisted that the United States must be willing to "escalate as far as we need to go to topple the [Iranian] regime if necessary."

That opportunity seemed to present itself in the aftermath of Israel's failed attempt to deal a major blow to Hezbollah in southern Lebanon in the summer of 2006.

Neoconservatives aligned with Cheney argued that Iran was now threatening U.S. dominant power in the region, through its proxies in Lebanon, Iraq, and the Palestinian territory and its nuclear program. They insisted the administration had to push back by targeting Iran's Quds Force personnel in Iraq, increasing naval presence in the Gulf, and accusing Iran of supporting the killing of U.S. troops.

Although the ostensible rationale was to pressure Iran to back down on the nuclear issue, in light of the previous views, it appears that they were hoping to use military power against Iran to accomplish their original goal of regime change.

(Inter Press Service)

U.S. Defense Policy at a Crossroads - Frederick Kagan, American Enterprise Institute
War vs. ‘War’- Jonathan Foreman, National Review
Winning in Afghanistan - Harlan Ullman, Washington Times
Blackwater and Justice in Iraq – Los Angeles Times editorial
Saudi King: He’s One to Talk on Terror – Wall Street Journal editorial
Paying a Call on the Saudi Embassy – Stephen Schwartz, Weekly Standard
Yemen’s Truce with Al Qaeda – Jane Novak, Weekly Standard
Iran’s Challenge – Helle Dale, Washington Times
On Iran Fear is Counterweight of Overconfidence – Bronwen Maddox, London Times
Wildfires in the Middle East - Dan Simpson, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette
Israel Lobby Has Sights on Iran – Rami Khouri, Daily Star
Mining for Trouble in Lebanon – Lenny Ben-David, Jerusalem Post
Jerusalem: An Embodiment of the Middle East Conflict - Ghassan Khatib, Daily Star
Rules of the Game: Palestinian-Style – Barry Rubin, Jerusalem Post
PM's Foreign Evasion is Highly Dangerous - Allan Mallinson, London Daily Telegraph
Tortured Logic - New York Daily News editorial
The Mukasey Test – Washington Times editorial
Target Mukasey - New York Post editorial
I Know Waterboarding is Torture - Malcolm Nance, New York Daily News
Mukasey's Confirmation: A Vote about Torture – Jonathan Turley, Los Angeles Times
There’s No Avoiding the Waterboarding Issue - Stephen Winn, Kansas City Star
Partners in the War on Terror - John D. Rockefeller IV, Washington Post
The Global Poverty Gap - Robert Samuelson, Real Clear Poltics
Surveillance Sanity – Benjamin Civiletti, Wall Street Journal
Shortsighted on Missile Defense - Charlie Szrom, Weekly Standard
On Cuba, The U.S. is an Island - Paolo Spadoni, Los Angeles Times
Cuban-Americans: Hardliners, Moderates, Appeasers - Frank Calzon, Miami Herald
Unbury the LOST Treaty – Washington Post editorial
LOST 25 Years and Counting – New York Times editorial
The Mysterious Case of the Law of Sea – National Review editorial
Engineer Corps Reform – Paul Harrison, Washington Times

“The Bogus Idea that if the U.S. Leaves Things Will Worsen Is Both Inherently Racist and Ignorant”
The Catastrophic Military Occupation of Iraq is Rarely Described Accurately in the U.S. Media

by Kevin Zeese / October 31st, 2007

Dahr Jamail’s MidEast Dispatches are essential reading for anyone who wants to understand what is happening in Iraq. (You can sign up on the site to receive his reports via email.) Dahr has spent a total of 8 months in occupied Iraq as one of only a few independent US journalists in the country. In the MidEast, Dahr has also has reported from Syria, Lebanon and Jordan. Jamail writes for the Inter Press Service, Asia Times and many other outlets. Dahr Jamail’s current book, Beyond the Green Zone: Dispatches from an Unembedded Journalist in Occupied Iraq, can be purchased on-line or in book stores. (Full article …)

Iraq to end security contractor immunity

US Military to oversee convoys in Iraq: Move intended to rein in armed contract forces

Iraqi dam 'at risk of collapse': Largest dam in Iraq is at risk of an imminent collapse that could unleash a 20m (65ft) wave of water on Mosul, a city of 1.7m people

Iraq, Afghan Vets at Risk for Suicides - "homecoming suicide pattern of a magnitude that is just starting to emerge"

Revealed: how Blair rejected Bush's offer to stay

Powell's surprise over Blair's closeness to Bush on Iraq

Senator McCain links Iraq victory to ME peace: Unless America wins the war in Iraq, Israeli-Palestinian reconciliation will not move forward

Drowning In Lawyers: The new US attorney general's view of waterboarding is about more than torture. It's about the integrity of officials who oversee presidential powers - "playing with definitions to rob words of their meaning"

Mukasey's Nomination For Attorney General Runs Into Trouble

Will Rudy Giuliani be 'Bush on steroids' in anti-terror war?

Russia "terrorist" bus bomb kills 8, injures 56

US steps up efforts to save N-deal with India

Indonesian Sect Comes Under Fire

By Kenneth Conboy


The vast majority of Indonesian Muslims tend to be extremely tolerant toward other religions, and toward the slight variants of Sunni Islam that are practiced across the archipelago. Every so often, however, an Islamic sect crosses the line and is declared heretic by the country’s most senior ulama.

This happened two years ago, when a quasi-Muslim group called Ahmadiyah Indonesia came under scrutiny. Very quickly, mainstream Indonesian Muslims closed ranks and moved decisively against Ahmadiyah communes around the country. In several cases, local residents stormed those communes, turning thousands of Ahmadiyah adherents into refugees.

History is now repeating itself. On 23 July, the head of an Islam offshoot called al-Qiyadah al-Islamiyah drew attention to itself after its leader, Ahmad Moshaddeq, declared that he was the next Prophet after Mohammad. Shortly thereafter, the Indonesian Ulema Council issued a fatwa calling the group “deviant.”

Pressure against al-Qiyadah has continued to steadily mount. This past Tuesday, Moshaddeq was questioned by the Jakarta police. The latter are weighing the possibility of charging him with blasphemy, a crime in the Indonesian criminal code that carries a penalty of five years in prison.

More disturbing, the Bandung chapter of the hard-line Islamic Defenders Front declared this week that it was prepared to launch raids against al-Qiyadah communes in West Java. (The sect is believed to count about 41,000 members in nine Indonesian cities.) If the Ahmadiyah case offers any precedent, at least a few such raids can be expected.

As this has played out, the Indonesian Ulema Council has come under some criticism in the media. After all, al-Qiyadah members apparently profess peaceful beliefs, but still were quickly condemned by the council. By contrast the council offered no similar criticism when Jemaah Islamiyah suicide bombers took hundreds of lives in Bali and Jakarta between 2002 and 2005.


October 31, 2007 11:06 AM Link TrackBack (0) Print
October 30, 2007

Homegrown Radicalism in the United States

By Matthew Levitt


More than six years after 9/11, it is clear the US still faces an serious terrorist threat. Recent reports portray a disturbing picture: The latest National Intelligence Estimate on the terrorist threat to the US homeland describes a resurgent al Qaeda based in NW Pakistan which is still determined to strike the US and its allies, and whose ideology continues to radicalize and inspire Muslim youth throughout the world. Similarly, a study by NYPD intelligence division on terrorist radicalization outlines the difficulties in developing profiles for potential future terrorists.

On October 20, 2007, Mitchell Silber and Pam Byron addressed these issues at The Washington Institute for Near East Policy's Weinberg Founders Conference. Pam Byron, deputy national intelligence officer for transnational threats at the National Intelligence Council, spoke off the record. Mitchell Silber is a senior analyst in the Intelligence Division of the New York City Police Department and coauthor of its recent report, "Radicalization in the West: The Homegrown Threat." An audio recording of the event, moderated by Matthew Levitt, director of the Institute's Stein program on terrorism, intelligence and policy, is available here.

October 30, 2007 04:55 PM Link TrackBack (0) Print
The Holy Land Foundation: Misinformation about Material Support

By Michael Kraft


In the recent trial of the Holy Land Foundation and some of the other trials of groups or persons charged with providing for foreign terrorist organizations, a frequent assertion made on behalf of the defendants is that the contributions were for humanitarian purposes, not terrorist attacks.

This theme was stretched to its limits by Professor David Cole of Georgetown University, a prolific defender of groups accused of violating the 1996 law (the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996) that makes it a criminal offense to knowingly provide funds or other forms of material support to groups designated by the Secretary of State as a Foreign Terrorist Organization.

In a Washington Post op-ed article ““Anti-Terrorism on Trial” printed Wednesday, October 24, Prof. Cole seriously misrepresents the Material Support provisions of claiming that “for all practical purposes the law imposes guilt by association.”

This is hyperbole and part of his effort to portray anti-terrorism efforts as McCarthyism.

As I pointed out in a brief letter to the editor that the Washington Post printed today, money is fungible. Congress made clear its position when it enacted the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 and inserted Section 301 (7), which states that “foreign organizations that engage in terrorist activity are so tainted by their criminal conduct that any contributions to such an organization facilitate that conduct.”

Furthermore, in the case of some groups such as Hamas, the clinics or schools they do run also help them recruit supporters and potential operatives. The money for this purpose is more important than the relatively small amount needed to purchase weapons.

In the Holy Land Foundation trial, which ended as a mistrial, the group was accused of contributing to subgroups of Hamas. Secretary of State Albright formally designated that Palestinian group as a foreign terrorist organization in 1997 because of its suicide bombings and other attacks directed against civilians in Israel and the West Bank. It has been well-publicized for nearly a decade now that the U.S. government has labeled Hamas a terrorist organization because of its attacks aimed at non-combatants.

Read More »


The 1996 law is similar in concept to earlier legislation, dating back to the 1970’s, cutting off U.S. foreign assistance for terrorist-supporting states, such as Iran and Syria, even though they build schools and roads and perform other “humanitarian” functions. In short, if a country or group supports or is involved in terrorism, we should not allow business as usual with that entity and can impose sanctions.

In an effort to accommodate humanitarian contributions, the original material support and terrorist designation legislation the Clinton administration submitted to Congress in January 1995 contained a provision allowing contributions to the designated groups for humanitarian purposes if the organization could demonstrate that the contribution(s) actually went for such uses. As a State Department counterterrorism official then specializing in legislative affairs, I participated in the drafting of the provision with State Department and Justice Department lawyers and in discussions with Congressional staff. But the proposal was rejected out of hand during discussions by a Senate Judiciary Committee aide to then Republican Senator Spence Abraham of Michigan, which has a large Arab population. The staffer said that the groups were not about to open up their books for inspection and rejected it. So, the provision was dropped during the Senate Judiciary Committee’s consideration of the bill.

Prof. Cole also asserts that the mistrial in the Holy Land Foundation case suggests that the administrative processes for designating foreign terrorist organizations are flawed because there are no hearings or statement of reasons and thus these steps are taken “on the basis of secret evidence.” (This is a loaded reference to classified intelligence information that sometimes is used, usually to protect the sources.) However Hamas actually publicly takes “credit” for its attacks, so only the most obtuse would doubt its involvement in terrorist activities even though it also may run schools and medical clinics.

Furthermore, the 1996 law requires the State Department to prepare an extensive administrative record of a terrorist group’s activities and to consult with the Attorney General and Secretary of Treasury before it is formally designated. Congress is then notified in advance on a confidential basis. This provision law allows a group or its American supporters to challenge the designation in the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. Several groups have taken their designations to the court, although not Hamas. Professor Cole ignores the procedure and the fact that the court has upheld the Secretary of State. There also is a detailed interagency process for making the decisions for freezing the assets of groups or individuals whose assets are frozen under executive procedures pursuant to long-standing International Emergency Economics Power Act authorities and some of them have successfully appealed.

Although Professor Cole asserts that the Holy Land Foundation case and others that the Justice Department has lost or suffered mistrials suggest the laws are flawed. However, according to figures obtained from the Justice Department in August, 16 persons have been convicted and 32 pleaded guilty to material support offenses since the law was enacted in April, 2006. Most of the cases were brought since 9/11.

Another common misstatement about the Material Support law is the assertion that they are anti-Muslim and/or intended to hurt legitimate charitable contributions. First all, there are legitimate channels, such as the Red Crescent that can be used to provide assistance to Palestinians or other Muslim recipients.

The Material Support provisions were actually drafted partly in response to a dramatic attack against Palestinians in Hebron. In the early 1990’s, it became evident to the State Department and Justice Department that some terrorist groups such as the Abu Nidal Organization were increasingly raising funds through their own means, such as front companies or front charities, instead of depending upon Libya, Iraq and other state sponsors of terrorism. The State Department Counterterrorism office began looking at additional ways of curb terrorism funding.

A key turning event in the effort to curb contributions to terrorist groups was the February 25, 1994 shooting of 29 Palestinians at a Hebron mosque by Dr. Baruch Goldstein, an American who immigrated to Israel and had been involved in the extremist Kahane movement. That group was launched by Rabbi Meir Kahane, the founder of the Jewish Defense League in New York who later emigrated to Israel. (He was assassinated in 1990 by an Egyptian gunman at a speaking engagement in a New York City hotel.) The second series of events was a string of six Palestinian terrorist attacks against Israelis in late 1994, including three bus bombings that killed 53 persons and wounded dozens of others.

As described in my forthcoming book co-edited by Prof. Yoneh Alexander, The Evolution of U.S. Counterterrorism Policy (Praeger Press), these events prompted the formation of two interagency working groups of legislative specialists from the State, Justice, and Treasury departments. One working group began examining existing laws to see if they could be used quickly against terrorist groups. Meanwhile a parallel group, including some of the same officials, also began looking at ways to strengthen or develop new U.S laws to counter terrorist organizations.

These working groups, in retrospect, marked a new emphasis in U.S. counterterrorism efforts -going after the money and targeting terrorist organizations that were largely self supporting and do not depend upon state sponsors for their funds or other forms of support. Their efforts resulted in two major actions.

On January 23, 1995, the Clinton Administration issued Executive Order Number 12947 freezing the assets subject to U.S. jurisdiction of 12 groups whose support of violence were determined to be threatening the Middle East peace process. The so-called “dirty dozen” included ten Arab groups and two small Israeli-based groups affiliated with the Kahane movement. This action was taken under the existing authority of the International Emergency Economics Powers Act (IEEPA), a broad statute that gives the president broad authority, including the freezing of assets upon the declaration of a national emergency.

Meanwhile the second working group completed new draft legislation that the interagency group had started drafting during 1994 and it was introduced in February 2005. The key provisions aimed at curbing the flow of money and other resources to terrorist groups made it a criminal offense for American persons to knowingly provide funds and other material support to groups designated as foreign terrorist organizations by the Secretary of State. The concept paralleled the Export Administration Act of 1979 that established the basis for designating countries that supported terrorism, cutting off their foreign assistance, military exports and imposing controls of export licenses for equipment that could be used for supporting military or terrorism activities as well as civilian purposes.

Before the new bill was actually introduced, representatives of the Arab-American community were briefed, at my suggestion, by State Department, Justice Department and FBI officials. Even before they read the bill, the Arab-American community representatives opposed the bill and denounced it publicly. Ironically the denunciations may have had the unintended effect of making at least some donors more cautious and slowing down contributions to legitimate as well as dubious charities even before the bill was enacted.

Prior to the final enactment of the antiterrorism act in April, 1996, Congress included provisions that provided for judicial review of the designations of foreign terrorist organizations and requirements that the designations be subject to review every two years. Thus, there was a great deal of sensitivity to civil liberties concerns in the drafting and reworking of the legislation during its year and a half journey through Congress.

It is important to maintain a balance, which is not always easy, between security concerns and civil liberties. It is also important to understand that it is also a civil liberty for civilians to be able to get on a bus or enter a restaurant or office building without being blown up by suicide bombers from Hamas or any other terrorist group.

« Close It

October 30, 2007 01:59 PM Link

Plan B (for 'bombs') after Iran fantasy fails

Neo-conservatives driving the George W Bush administration firmly believed that a successful display of US military force in Iraq would destroy the foundations of the Iranian government. They clung to this illusion until late 2005, when it finally dawned on them that the Iraqi adventure was having the opposite effect. The pressure on Iran now to back down on its nuclear program stems from their realization that military force will have to be used against Iran to accomplish the original goal of regime change. - Gareth Porter (Oct 31, '07)

An attempt to douse the flames of war
It's 28 years since the US cut off diplomatic ties with Iran, and their relationship has never been worse, teetering on the brink of war. A group of high-level panelists in Washington tried to make some sense of what is going on. They believe the tensions underscore Washington's continued inability to understand Iran and are the result of the US's ill-fated policies over the years. (Oct 31,

End of the guns and butter economy
For decades the United States has maintained a guns and butter economy - the pursuit of both political-military objectives and an affluent lifestyle. The plunging value of the US dollar and the huge sell-off in US securities by foreigners in August conveys the message that the rest of the world is going to stop financing the US credit glutton. - Scott B MacDonald (Oct 30, '07)

Obama, Edwards attack; Clinton bombs debate
By: ROGER SIMON | 10/31/2007 06:02 AM Analysis: Clinton gives worst debate performance yet — dodging and weaving, parsing and stonewalling for two hours.
»See Also: Clinton wears GOP hate as badge of honor

October 31st, 2007
Give Fareed Zakaria a Medal!

Fareed Zakaria deserves a medal for breaking with the mainstream media pack to slap down, with the requisite rudeness, the hysteria over Iran being manufactured by the neocons, opportunist Israeli politicians and the Bush Administration. Perhaps stung by having participated in a secret Bush Administration policy discussion to help shape the Iraq war policy before the invasion, Zakaria is acting with honor now to prevent another disaster. This while much of the rest of the media is futzing around asking the wrong questions on Iran and getting the answers that only the wrong questions can produce. Exhibit A: The Washington Post editorial suggesting that the only “alternative” to harsh new sanctions that most of the international community opposes is war, and then scolding “those who say they oppose military action — including a couple of the second-tier Democratic presidential candidates — to portray the sanctions initiative as a buildup to war by Mr. Bush. We’ve seen no evidence that the president has decided on war, and it’s clear that many senior administration officials understand the package as the best way to avoid military action. It is not they but those who oppose tougher sanctions who make war with Iran more likely.”

Rather than debating on the neocons’ terms, as much of the media is doing, i.e. limiting itself to discussing whether sanctions or military action will be more effective in curbing the Iran “threat,” Zakaria is making clear that the very idea that Iran represents an aggressive threat to peace is hysterical nonsense.

If and when a war with Iran occurs, with all its terrible consequences that leaves many thousands dead and the U.S. in an even weaker position than it is now, those looking for explanations will do well to remember how their media failed them — with some honorable exceptions. Rather than swallow the false choice between sanctions and war, the media ought to be challenging the Bush Administration’s refusal to engage in real diplomacy with Tehran despite the stakes.

Read more ...

Frustration on the Administration's "Third Option" Team
(Senator Chuck Hagel, Steve Clemons, and International Peace Academy Chair Rita Hauser)

Yesterday evening, I helped organize a private salon dinner with Senator Chuck Hagel (R-NE). I'll be posting more on the event later today -- along with some other interesting news.

But I spoke during the day with someone else deeply involved with trying to carve out a course with Iran that is neither "appeasement" or "war."

This person believes that Senator Hagel's criticism of the administration's current course on Iran does not encompass the reality (in this person's view) that everything the Bush team is doing on Iran from tightened sanctions to the increasingly bellicose rhetoric are part of a "diplomatic strategy."

I think that the "third option" team in the administration has a tough job -- not only because any reasonable benchmarks of their work do not seem to be producing the kind of tangible results needed to keep the "nuke 'em now and get it over with crowd" around Vice President Cheney at bay but because there are Iranian government interests as well as White House colleagues trying to undermine their work.

Hagel's frustration with the White House is an important measure of how a sensible, grounded, informed American sees the potentially catastrophic results of the administration's current course.

More later.

-- Steve Clemons

09:12 AM | Permalink

To Implement Policy, Bush to Turn to Administrative Orders
By Michael Abramowitz and Jonathan Weisman Washington Post Staff Writers
Wednesday, October 31, 2007; Page A03



The White House plans to try implementing as much new policy as it can by administrative order while stepping up its confrontational rhetoric with Congress after concluding that President Bush cannot do much business with the Democratic leadership, administration officials said.

According to those officials, Bush and his advisers blame Democrats for the holdup of Judge Michael B. Mukasey's nomination to be attorney general, the failure to pass any of the 12 annual spending bills, and what they see as their refusal to involve the White House in any meaningful negotiations over the stalemated children's health-care legislation.



White House aides say the only way Bush seems to be able to influence the process is by vetoing legislation or by issuing administrative orders, as he has in recent weeks on veterans' health care, air-traffic congestion, protecting endangered fish and immigration. They say they expect Bush to issue more of such orders in the next several months, even as he speaks out on the need to limit spending and resist any tax increases.

The events of recent weeks have "crystallized that the chances of these leaders meeting the administration halfway are becoming increasingly remote," said White House spokesman Tony Fratto.

Bush himself has been complaining more and more bitterly about congressional Democrats in recent weeks. In a private meeting yesterday with House Republicans in the East Room of the White House, Bush recalled how he had been able to work with Democrats when he was Texas governor and said he had hoped to find the same relationships in Washington.

"He sort of longs for those days, when both sides were genuinely interested in getting along and getting a deal," said Rep. Adam H. Putnam (R-Fla.), the chairman of the House Republican Conference, who helped organize yesterday's White House meeting, attended by about 150 Republicans.

The president offered more criticism after the session. "Congress is not getting its work done," Bush said. "We're near the end of the year, and there really isn't much to show for it."

House Democratic leaders fired back at Bush with strong rhetoric of their own. "The president wants the same complacent, complicit Congress that was a co-conspirator in a coverup of what was going on in this country," said House Majority Leader Steny H. Hoyer (D-Md.).

if ( show_doubleclick_ad && ( adTemplate & INLINE_ARTICLE_AD ) == INLINE_ARTICLE_AD && inlineAdGraf ) { placeAd('ARTICLE',commercialNode,20,'',true) ; } Both sides have their own political calculations for digging in, with the White House and Republicans seeking to reestablish their credentials as fiscal conservatives and with Democrats concluding that they are on the right side politically on children's health care and other issues.

On some issues, the White House has become increasingly left out of the legislative process. Bush's objection to any tax increases, for instance, has pushed Republicans in the House and the Senate to pursue their own negotiations over an expansion of the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP), concluding that a final bill must include a significant tobacco tax increase to offset its cost.

Even as they offer the president public support, some Republicans on the Hill are hinting that they might break with Bush if the price is right. Asked yesterday whether he could support an SCHIP bill that Bush opposes, House Minority Leader John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) suggested that is a possibility. "He has his position. House Republicans have theirs," Boehner said.

While Bush castigated Democrats for lack of productivity, congressional Republicans have had their own reasons for moving slowly. On SCHIP, for example, they have said that both sides could reach a deal if the Democratic leadership would slow down and let negotiations proceed.

GOP Sens. Charles E. Grassley (Iowa) and Orrin G. Hatch (Utah) personally appealed to Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) for a delay yesterday. Reid agreed and asked the Senate to put off consideration of the latest version of the bill to let bipartisan talks continue. This time, Senate Minority Whip Trent Lott (R-Miss.) objected to the move.

"That makes an interesting statement about the president's press conference this morning, that we just can't get those Democrats to do anything," said Sen. John D. Rockefeller IV (D-W.Va.), one of the SCHIP negotiators.

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2007/10/31/dem_debate/
The Democratic duel of the race

The debate in Philly: Edwards and Biden come out swinging, Obama sticks to smooth jazz, and Clinton stands tall but then stumbles.

By Walter Shapiro

Reuters/Tim Shaffer

Democratic presidential candidates John Edwards, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama before the start of the debate at Drexel University in Philadelphia, Oct. 30, 2007.

Oct. 31, 2007 | Memo to Democratic voters: If you missed Tuesday night's debate on MSNBC -- the most explosive event of this endless pre-primary season -- troll through YouTube, throw yourself on the mercy of friends with TiVo, stalk the network's Web site. Do anything to watch the first hour plus the last 10 minutes of this fandango in Philly, this duel at Drexel, this Democratic donnybrook that may well define the race.

The tag-team questioning of Brian Williams and Tim Russert yielded not only heat (perhaps inevitable as we reach the highly combustible point in the campaign calendar) but also light. Not only crystal-clear interludes (Joe Biden's epic putdown of Rudy Giuliani: "There are only three things he mentions in a sentence: a noun and a verb and 9/11") but also enlightening moments that illuminated the choices facing Democrats.

Before the debate, the evening was ballyhooed as Barack Obama's breakout night -- the point in the campaign when the fledgling Illinois senator would finally display his mettle by aggressively challenging Hillary Clinton. Obama telegraphed his punches in advance, promising the New York Times in an interview, "Now's the time for us to make these distinctions clear."

Instead, Obama could not even muster the gumption to lob a rhetorical coconut cream pie in Clinton's direction. He set the tone for the evening in the first seconds of the debate when, challenged to repeat his recent critiques of Clinton, he said soothingly, "Well, first of all, I think some of this stuff gets off-hyped" before lapsing into a labored (and obviously rehearsed) Rocky versus Apollo Creed analogy.

Later in the evening, Obama extended this turn-the-other-cheek magnanimity to none other than Mitt Romney, who had referred to him as "Osama" twice in a single day. Rather than charging, as many assume, that Romney's verbal slips were not accidental, Obama instead claimed, "I don't pay much attention to what Mitt Romney has to say." This was his way of setting up a mild joke. "At least what he says this week. It may be different next week."


This is Obama's smooth-jazz style, and his supporters should accept that it is not likely to change no matter how much they may crave red-meat rhetoric. Obama's signature line -- delivered after Clinton bobbed and weaved her way through another question without quite answering -- was "Let's broaden the conversation here."

A stranger to politics who had somehow missed the outbreak of "Obama-mania" -- the nearly $80 million he raised, the often rhapsodic press coverage and the huge crowds -- might have assumed from watching Tuesday's debate that the Illinois senator was a minor candidate on the fringes of the action. It seemed as if Clinton's principal antagonists were John Edwards and -- when he was given a chance to speak -- Chris Dodd. The two of them, sometimes joined by Biden, took on the traditional political task of bringing the highflying front-runner back to earth.

This may have been Edwards' best debate, as he displayed the smiling aggressiveness that had eluded him when he was going head-to-head with Dick Cheney as the 2004 vice-presidential nominee. Again and again, Edwards took lines from his stump speech and made them seem fresh as debate responses. Edwards rattled off a litany of Clinton's zigzag comments on topics ranging from Iraq to Iran to Social Security before concluding harshly, "I think the American people ... deserve a president of the United States that they know will tell them the truth."

As Edwards continued banging away with drumbeats of criticism throughout the evening (saying of Clinton's Iran position, "Our responsibility as presidential candidate is to be in 'tell the truth' mode all the time"), the cameras caught Clinton glaring at Edwards with daggers darting from her eyes before turning on a smile when she was asked to respond.

Dodd, who somehow had shed the generic senatorial mannerisms that had dogged him during earlier debates, crisply challenged Clinton's claims to be the Democrat most likely to win back the White House. "Whether it's fair or not fair," the white-haired Connecticut senator declared, "the fact of the matter is that ... there are 50 percent of the American public that say they're not going to vote for her ... I don't necessarily like it, but those are the facts."

Clinton, displaying the hard-won poise of a public figure who has been in the crosshairs for 16 years, seemed unflappably resigned to her assigned role as the evening's piñata. She came out fighting, claiming that the constant GOP attacks are her reward for "standing against the Republicans, George Bush and Dick Cheney." Even though some of her answers seemed consciously baffling in their imprecision, she stuck to her candidate-speak, poll-tested talking points: "I am not going to balance Social Security on the backs of seniors and hardworking middle-class Americans."


Only in the last 10 minutes of the debate, long after it seemed as if she had absorbed the worst without losing her stride, did the New York senator suddenly stumble in the homestretch. Asked if she supported New York Gov. Eliot Spitzer's plan to permit illegal immigrants to apply for driver's licenses, Clinton appeared to express home-state solidarity by declaring, "What Gov. Spitzer is trying to do is fill the vacuum left by the failure of this administration to bring about comprehensive immigration reform." After Dodd, veering right, came out against this proposal, Clinton suddenly interrupted the proceedings to announce, "I just want to add, I did not say that it should be done."

That was the moment when Edwards pounced with the quickness of a trial lawyer who has realized that an opposing lawyer has just made a fatal error that undermines her case. "Unless I missed something," Edwards said with ill-disguised glee, "Senator Clinton said two different things in the course of about two minutes ... America is looking for a president who will say the same thing, who will be consistent, who will be straight with them. Because what we've had for seven years is double talk from Bush and from Cheney." All that was missing was a Marvel comic-book exclamation like "Pow!" or "Whap!"

Presidential debates bring out the drama critic in everyone who watches -- reporters, political partisans and ordinary television viewers. The debates are, after all, a form of performance and it is tempting to grade them for their sheer theatricality. But politics does not work like that -- and individual aesthetic judgments by reporters are subjective interpretations rather than surefire predictions of primary victors.

Little more than nine weeks before the Iowa caucuses about all that can be said with certainty is that the Tuesday night debate was enhanced by giving Mike Gravel and his angry-old-man act the well-deserved hook. Dennis Kucinich stepped into the void with some deft one-liners, particularly after he admitted that, yes, he had once seen a UFO. Joking that he was going to move his campaign headquarters to Roswell, N.M., Kucinich added, "More people in this country have seen UFOs than I think approve of George Bush's presidency."

Mostly, though, what the debate demonstrated is the volatility of the Democratic race. Clinton's caution may still prove galling, despite her political artistry. Obama's blandness could cost him his featured role as the designated giant slayer. Edwards retains the potential to mount a major breakthrough, though his is a high-wire act of smiling and snarling at the same time. Dodd, Biden and even Bill Richardson still have a chance of making this more than a three-candidate contest. And judging from the collective performances Tuesday night, Democratic voters have reason to be uncharacteristically upbeat about their presidential choices -- seven candidates who come across as anything but dwarfs.

http://www.upi.com/International_Security/..._illusion/9413/



Subject: Commentary: The great illusion

Date: Wednesday, October 31, 2007



Commentary: The great illusion

By ARNAUD DE BORCHGRAVE, UPI Editor at Large

WASHINGTON, Oct. 31 (UPI) -- A great deal of intelligence can be invested in ignorance when the need for illusion runs deep, Saul Bellow once said. The illusion, yet again, is a Middle Eastern peace conference in November or December that would produce the final outlines and contents of an independent state of Palestine. Seldom has such a vision appeared more chimera than reality, and yet seldom pursued more vigorously, this time by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, who has logged eight trips to the region in ten months, in the elusive pursuit of a legacy other than Iraq.

For advice on the pursuit of what she sees as her Middle Eastern legacy for the history books, Rice has consulted two former presidents (Carter and Clinton), three former Secretaries of State (Henry Kissinger, James Baker, Madeleine Albright), and top Mideast negotiators who have made a career out of the "peace process." She now believes she can reel in a "viable and contiguous Palestinian state" in the next 12 months. But "contiguous" is already unattainable by Israel's 456-mile physical barrier and Jewish settlements that are all inter-connected by roads banned to Palestinians.

Major concessions by ailing (prostate cancer) Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, now the subject of seven police and judicial investigations for alleged improprieties, are out of the question. They would only accelerate his decline and the return to power of former Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu - who would then promptly restore the status quo ante. Could the United States then make aid to Israel conditional on a Palestinian settlement? The next president might try what would be a foreign policy first - but a collective congressional holler would force a quick retreat.

The obstacles in the Palestinian camp are equally insurmountable. Palestinians and Israelis have diametrically opposed narratives of their history since the birth of Israel in 1948. And if they can't agree on contemporary history, let alone who was there first 3,000 years ago, how can they possibly agree on what needs correcting and on who owes what to whom?

As Rice met with Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas in Ramallah, the most westernized of all West Bank cities, where women now wear the veil, both seemed oblivious to the rising threat of Hamas from its Gaza base to the entire West Bank. Islamic fundamentalism is now on the march throughout the occupied Palestinian territories. It's no longer safe for Abbas to enter Jenin or Nablus, the two largest cities in the West Bank. Even his own security forces would not or could not protect him in what were until recently safe areas for Palestinian moderates.

Rice, Abbas, and their Israeli interlocutor, Olmert, are in a state of denial about the insuperable roadblock of Hamas, now a majority Palestinian movement that denies the very existence of Israel and dominates both Gaza and the West Bank. For Olmert, omerta is protection against oblivion. A majority of Israeli lawmakers said any attempt to slice and dice East Jerusalem to accommodate the Palestinian demand for a capital city would be Olmert's last curtain call.

Benjamin Netanyahu, the immensely popular right-wing firebrand, would then be assured of Israel's leadership in early elections - back to square one. Or square two with Ehud Barak, a reborn hawk, now defense minister, who trails Netanyahu in the polls.

Similarly, the billions of dollars the Palestinians will demand as compensation for the 4 million Palestinians denied the right of return (descendants of the 700,000 who left in 1948 "of their own volition," according to the Israelis, or were "terrorized" into leaving, say the Palestinians) will be compensated, not by Israelis as they see it, but by U.S. taxpayers once the haggling stops. So this is yet another non-event.

Three major deal-breakers - a "contiguous and viable" Palestinian state, Jerusalem and the right of return - defy solution in the 15 months Rice has left to achieve a Palestinian state for posterity. Even a Palestinian miracle would not detract from the specter of "World War III" conjured up by President Bush over Iran's nuclear ambitions - and echoed by oil at $93 a barrel, gold at $800, the dollar at an all-time low, and Egypt announcing its decision to build nuclear reactors (shorthand for something more lethal).

International Atomic Energy Agency chairman Mohammed ElBaradei, who got the Nobel Peace prize for getting it right in Iraq, now says there is still no evidence of prohibited nuclear-related activities in Iran. And he urged the United States to halt its fiery rhetoric, as there is still time for diplomacy. "The earlier we go into negotiation, the earlier we follow the North Korean model, the better for everybody," ElBaradei told CNN's Wolf Blitzer. But the Bush administration insists on talking to Tehran through the EU3 - France, Britain, Germany - while strengthening economic and financial sanctions.

The Korean model requires lots of carrots because Iran can get almost anything it needs from abroad via the free port city of Dubai in the United Arab Emirates where falsified third-country labeling is not quantum physics. One senior American diplomat made a difference with North Korea. But in Washington, speculation about the probability of war with Iran is strangely bereft of desired outcomes and probable retaliatory consequences.

The IAEA says Iran is years away from a deliverable nuclear weapon. Assistant Secretary of State Christopher Hill went to Pyongyang to nail down the deal whereby North Korea agreed to deweaponize its embryonic nuclear warheads. Shouldn't Hill, or an equally capable diplomat, be dispatched to Tehran to at least explore the possibility of a geopolitical quid pro quo? A U.S. withdrawal from Iraq when conditions ripen; the lifting of all sanctions, diplomatic recognition and a non-aggression treaty should all be in America's diplomatic quiver. In return, Iran formally agrees to forgo nuclear weapons - and grants total access to IAEA inspectors to check whatever they want with little advance notice.

Vice President Dick Cheney and his neocon friends would call this Munich-like appeasement. Unless bombing of Iran's suspected nuke sites is ordered by Bush before he leaves office, they think the next occupant of the White House, probably a Democrat, will "wimp out." Therefore, they conclude, the time to bomb Iran is now, and hang the consequences. This geostrategic assessment ignores Vladimir Putin's latest gambit - two high-level Russo-Iranian meetings in October. Regional Middle Eastern war anyone?

--

Copyright 2007 by United Press International.

All rights reserved.

Dear Colleagues & Friends:

I am writing to send to your attention a previously unreleased letter from Senator Chuck Hagel to President Bush about America’s Iran policy.

In the letter, copied to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, and National Security Advisor Stephen Hadley, Hagel urges Bush to pursue “direct, unconditional and comprehensive talks with Iran.”

The contents of the letter — and a bit more including the reported reaction from Centcom Commander Admiral Fallon are available here:

http://www.thewashingtonnote.com/archives/002471.php

Best regards,

Steve Clemons

--
Steven Clemons
Director, American Strategy Program, New America Foundation
and Publisher, www.TheWashingtonNote.com

202-986-2700, ext. 307
202-986-3696 fax
clemons@newamerica.net Email