Supermodel Spurns the Dollar-Dollar's Fall Collapses the American Empire; Bring Those 737 Overseas Military Bases Home!

By PAUL CRAIG ROBERTS

The US dollar is still officially the world's reserve currency, but it cannot purchase the services of Brazilian super model Gisele Bundchen. Gisele required the $30 million she earned during the first half of this year to be paid in euros.

Gisele is not alone in her forecast of the dollar's fate. The First Post (UK) reports that Jim Rogers, a former partner of billionaire George Soros, is selling his home and all possessions in order to convert all his wealth into Chinese yuan.

Meanwhile, American economists continue to preach that offshoring is good for the US economy and that Bush's war spending is keeping the economy going. The practitioners of supply and demand have yet to figure out that the dollar's supply is sinking the dollar's price and along with it American power.

The macho super patriots who support the Bush regime still haven't caught on that US superpower status rests on the dollar being the reserve currency, not on a military unable to occupy Baghdad. If the dollar were not the world currency, the US would have to earn enough foreign currencies to pay for its 737 oversees bases, an impossibility considering America's $800 billion trade deficit.

When the dollar ceases to be the reserve currency, foreigners will cease to finance the US trade and budget deficits, and the American Empire along with its wars will disappear overnight. Perhaps Bush will be able to get a World Bank loan, or maybe one from the "Chavez bank," to bring the troops home from Iraq and Afghanistan.

Foreign leaders, observing that offshoring and war are accelerating America's relative economic decline, no longer treat the US with the deference to which Washington is accustomed. Ecuador's president, Rafael Correa, recently refused Washington's demand to renew the lease on the Manta air base in Ecuador. He told Washington that the US could have a base in Ecuador if Ecuador could have a military base in the US.

When Venezuelan president Hugo Chavez addressed the UN, he crossed himself as he stood at the podium. Referring to President Bush, Chavez said, "Yesterday the devil came here, and it smells of sulfur still today." Bush, said Chavez, was standing "right here, talking as if he owned the world."

In his state of the nation message last year, Russian president Vladimir Putin said that Bush's blathering about democracy was nothing but a cloak for the pursuit of American self-interests at the expense of other peoples. "We are aware what is going on in the world. Comrade wolf knows whom to eat, and he eats without listening, and he's clearly not going to listen to anyone." In May 2007, Putin criticized the neocon regime in Washington for "disrespect for human life" and "claims to global exclusiveness, just as it was in the time of the Third Reich."

Even America's British allies regard President Bush as a threat to world peace and the second most dangerous man alive. Bush is edged out in polls by Osama bin Laden, but is regarded as more dangerous than Iran's demonized president and North Korea's Kim Jong-il.

President Bush has achieved his dismal world standing despite spending $1.6 billion of hard-pressed Americans' tax money on public relations between 2003 and 2006.

Clearly, America's leader and America's currency are poorly regarded. Is there a solution?

Perhaps the answer lies in those 737 overseas bases. If those bases were brought home and shared among the 50 states, each state would gain 15 new military bases.
Imagine what this would mean: The end of the housing slump. A reduction in the trade deficit.

And the end of the war on terror.

Who would dare attack a country with 15 new military bases in every state in addition to the existing ones? Wherever a terrorist turned, he would find himself surrounded by soldiers.

All of the dollars currently spent abroad to support 737 overseas bases would be spent at home. Income for foreigners would become income for Americans, and the trade deficit would shrink.
The impact of the 737 military base payrolls on the US economy would end the housing crisis and bring back the 140,000 highly paid financial services jobs, the loss of which this year has cost the US $42 billion in consumer income. Foreclosures and bankruptcies would plummet.

If this isn't enough to turn the dollar around, President Bush's pledge not to appoint an Attorney General if Michael Mukasey is not confirmed offers more promise. If the Democrats will defeat Mukasey's nomination, there are other superfluous cabinet departments that can be closed down in addition to the US Department of Torture and Indefinite Detention.

The American empire is being unwound on the battlefields of Iraq and Afghanistan. The year is two months from being over, but already in 2007, despite the touted "surge," deaths of US soldiers are the highest of any year of the war.

The Taliban are the ones who are surging. They have taken control of a third district in Western Afghanistan. Turkey and the Kurds are on the verge of turning northern Iraq into a new war zone, another demonstration of American impotence.

Bush's wars have endangered America's puppet regimes. Bush's Pakistani puppet, Musharraf, is fighting for his life. By resorting to "emergency rule" and oppressive measures, Musharraf has intensified his opposition. When Musharraf falls, thanks to Bush, the Islamists will have nukes.

American generals used to say that the wars Bush started in the Middle East would take 10 years to win. On Oct. 31 General John Abizaid, former commander of US forces in the Middle East, put paid to that optimistic forecast. Speaking at Carnegie Mellon University, Gen. Abizaid said it would be 50 years before US troops can leave the Middle East.

There is no possibility of the US remaining in the Middle East for a half century. The dollar and US power are already on their last legs, unbeknownst to Democratic leaders Pelosi and Reid who are preparing yet another blank check for Bush's latest request for $200 billion in supplementary war funding.

There isn't any money with which to fund Bush's lost war. It will have to be borrowed from China.

The Romans brought on their own demise, but it took them centuries. Bush has finished America in a mere 7 years.

Even as Gisele throws off the dollar's hegemony, Brazil, Venezuela, Ecuador, Bolivia, Argentina, Uruguay, Paraguay, and Columbia are declaring independence of the IMF and World Bank, instruments of US financial hegemony, by creating their own development bank, thus bringing to an end US suzerainty over South America.

An empire that has lost its backyard is finished.

Paul Craig Roberts was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury in the Reagan administration. He was Associate Editor of the Wall Street Journal editorial page and Contributing Editor of National Review. He is coauthor of The Tyranny of Good Intentions.He can be reached at: PaulCraigRoberts@yahoo.com
http://www.counterpunch.org/

Congress and the Israel Lobby
The Politics of Servility

By WILLIAM COOK

Shakespeare's Caesar caustically commented, "Cowards die many times before their deaths; / The valiant never taste of death but once." Curious how our lawmakers huddle behind their sophistries, their voice votes, their parliamentary play acting to avoid the daring feat that would force them to confront the moral consequences of their obsequious pandering to the lobbyists who pad their pin striped suits with the means to stay in office, all the while selling their souls to their executioners. Every day they die another death; every day a new resurrection to fulfill their obligation to their puppeteers. How different from their forebears who understood the valiant feast on liberty, even in the face of death: "Americans! Liberty or Death" rang through the hills of Massachusetts and all the colonies as the Revolution loomed, a fervor marked by foreigners because they could see the Americans really meant it. But how can our representatives be free if they are at the mercy of a foreign lobby? (David Fisher, Liberty and Freedom, Oxford University Press, 2005).

Consider the last annual gala held by AIPAC where Sen. Majority Leader Harry Reid (D. Nev.) and Sen. Mitch McConnell (R. Ky) appeared as keynote speakers to an audience that included half of the U.S. Senate and more than half of the House, an event that took place just as the newly constituted Congress of Democrats was asserting its response to the American electorate with a provision to require the President to get the Congress' approval before he took any action against Iran. By the end of the week AIPAC had successfully pressed for removal of this bipartisan provision from the bill ("Jewish News Weekly of Northern California," Ron Kampeas, 3/16/2007). David Corn, reporting in Nation magazine noted that keeping that provision in the bill "would not be to the liking of AIPAC, the powerhouse pro-Israel lobby, which has declared the Lantos bill a top priority (Lantos' bill pushes legislation to intensify sanctions against Iran). "In a recent speech AIPAC executive director Howard Kohr said that legislation restricting Bush's options would be 'a sign of weakness.' Asked if he can point to a political fight lost by AIPAC recently, Representative Larson replied, 'Not to my recollection.'" (Corn, Nation 4/23/2007). Pat Buchanan, four days later wrote "Why did Pelosi capitulate? Answer. She was 'under pressure from some conservative members of the caucus, and from lobbyists associated with neoconservative groups that want war with Iran and the American Israel Public Affairs Committee,' writes John Nichols in the Nation."

M. J. Rosenberg, in a commentary on the Mearsheimer and Walt study of the influence of the Israeli lobbies on our representatives offered this reflection, an observation that came from his own experience serving representatives over the years: "Once again, Presidential candidates are being told that in order to earn the 'pro-Israel' label, they must heartily endorse the status quo. That means that when asked what they would do about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the candidates must state unequivocal support for Israeli policies. They must never use the words 'even-handed' or 'honest broker.' There is a script and candidates must not deviate from it." ("W-M's Best Seller: Why the Hysteria?" 09/07/07).

"There is a script and candidates must not deviate from it." So much for the valiant soul who searches his/her conscience, free in his/her mind to decide issues that send young Americans to their deaths or to varying states of dementia caused by roadside bombs that shake the brain inside the skull like a bartender preparing a cocktail. So much for the valiant legislator that hides behind the façade dictated to him or her by AIPAC extolling the desire of the Israeli government for peace with Palestine when, in fact, it desires nothing of the sort short of the slow, agonizing, and insidiously torturous ethnic cleansing of all Palestinians from their own homeland. So much for the representatives of the people, who were voted into office with the expressed understanding that they would not just bring the invasion of Iraq to an end but would not create another unprovoked war with another mid-east nation that would cause the deaths of more U.S. soldiers to say nothing of the innocent people caught in the maelstrom of murderous slaughter their mild "yea" could cause even as it ushers forth from their respective mouths. So much for liberty, for the mind free to reflect, weigh and judge for self. So much for the mind Jesus sought to instill in the Christian, the true Christian who followed His teachings, not the venom hurled from the pulpit of Pastor John Hagee and his ilk, militant ministers of the AntiChrist they condemn, preaching a gospel of hate that supports the rabid minority of Zionists that debase the very beliefs of Christianity.

Listen to the voice of Christ that our representatives have buried under their fear of AIPAC retribution lest they have to confront the reality of Jesus' teachings, not the "reality on the ground" that the AIPAC vultures peck at them day in and day out. Hear the words of Jesus, words never uttered by Hagee who would find no peace in the inclusiveness they extol:

"He made strangers his own;
In their differences, they manifested his will." (Plate 99: 9)

"The Truth is one and many,
So as to teach us the innumerable One of Love." (Plate 102:12)

"So it is with the sons of God; wherever they are
They are just as precious to their Father." (Plate 110:48)

"Whoever is free of the world
Can no longer be made into a slave there." (Plate 113)

(from the Gospel of Philip, Jean-Yves LeLoup, Inner Traditions, VT)



Christ's intent, as expressed here as it is in the gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, is to show humans that they can be one with him by comprehending what he says and does ­ to see in the differences of people, including strangers, the Truth that there is in all diversity One Love that binds because all are precious to their Father. This is a gospel of inclusiveness, not divisiveness. But to attain that Truth, each must abandon the "wills" of the Hagee's and AIPAC that seek to force their intents on our representatives by coercion through money and fear through controlled power that destroys the politician. Our representatives must be free in mind and spirit, not slaves to the fanatics of Dominionism and Zionism.

There is an untold irony behind the research that Mearsheimer and Walt brought to light, a story that goes back to the years preceding the UN creation of the state of Israel. As early as 1941, and obviously for some years preceding that date, Jews living in Palestine found themselves under the total control of the "gangs" of Zionists who dictated the allegiance they must have to the establishment of the Zionist state they were determined to bring into existence. That allegiance they ensured through coercion and fear. These are the words of the British High Commissioner for Palestine, Harold MacMichael, addressed to the Secretary of State, dated 16th of October, 1941.

3. A second matter which deeply impresses me is the almost Nazi control exercised by the official Jewish organizations over the Jewish community, willy nilly, through the administration of funds from abroad, the issue of labor certificates in connection with the immigration quota, the forced contribution of funds and the power of the Histadruth. The Royal Commission were, in my view, fundamentally at error in describing the Jewish community in Palestine as "intensely democratic' (chapter V, paragraph 7). The Zionist organization, the whole social structure which it has created in Palestine, has the trappings but none of the essentials of democracy. The community is under the closed oligarchy of the Jewish official organizations which control Zionist policy and circumscribe the lives of the Jewish community in all directions ­ the Mapai, the Histadruth, the Vaad Leumi and the Jewish Agency. The reality of power is in the Agency, with the Hagana, the illegal military organization, always in the background. (copy of dispatch, Reference No. 0.8.573, Rhodes Library Archives, Bodleian Library, Oxford University).

The irony of course is that the Jewish people, roughly 500,000 in 1941, were, in the opinion of the High Commissioner for the British Mandate government, controlled by the Zionists by methods not dissimilar to those being used on Jews and legislators alike in our government today. M and W have recounted the techniques used to subdue criticism of the state of Israel so that our representatives fear even the use of "even handed" or "balanced broker" that might imply the need for some measure of justice by Israel for the Palestinians. MacMichael's report establishes the truth about the military power Zionists had at their disposal even as early as 1941. He notes they could field approximately 30,000 well trained and experienced troops, and in numbers and caliber they are a "formidable adversary." Yet, then as now, the Zionists proclaim that it is the Jews who are in danger, who are the victims despite their evident superiority then as now.

The issue is not that our representatives obsequiously cater to the desires of AIPAC and the Israeli lobbies; a brief recounting of the constant flood of resolutions and acts passed in support of their desires is sufficient to show that reality (this is not a complete list, only a smattering): HR 311, 371, 390, 398, 615, 617, 4235, 4681 (the Palestine Anti-Terrorist Act, not yet passed in the house but passed in the Senate as S2370), the Syrian Accountability Act, HR 1828 passed 398 to 4, and, perhaps the most cowardly resolution of all, one in direct opposition to the expressed condemnation of every nation in the UN, the one that endorsed Israel's ravaging of Lebanon, its unparalleled invasion of a nation that had done nothing to Israel in the late summer of 2006, a vote that effectively left every congressmen stark naked before the moral outrage of the world's community, and, one more that sets their cowardice before the public as if it glowed in florescent lights, one in striking contradiction to the reversed action under way on the remembrance of the Armenian Genocide, HR 52 paying tribute to Rev. Waitstill Sharp and Martha Sharp in commemoration of the Jewish Holocaust, passed unanimously 413-0, and HR583 which recognizes the 6 million Holocaust victims passed this year, September 17. Why do they have trouble remembering the Armenians?

And, finally, we must consider HR 2464 and HR 2953 to direct the Secretary of Education to provide grants to promote Holocaust education and awareness in K-12 in all states. This legislation does not promote the Holocausts most relevant to the American people, the holocaust against the Native indigenous peoples that lived on this land when Europe invaded or the Holocaust that our forebears and citizens executed through the "institution" of slavery where millions died at sea and millions more were buried in unmarked graves. It does not include the Armenian Holocaust or the Bosnian Holocaust of recent years or that in Darfur presently, or Rowanda, or our own taking place in Iraq where over a million civilians have died or in Palestine which is currently in its 60th year of genocide.

I would commend the learning outcomes that should result from study of the Holocaust, outcomes that are pertinent to all such barbaric behavior by humans against their brothers and sisters. "Teaching about Holocaust allows students to consider such issues as indifference toward suffering, use and abuse of power, prejudice, racism, and the disintegration of civilized values" (The Holocaust Education Project," Margnet Lincoln). Indeed, all our representatives might benefit from such study, but not by isolating it to the tragedies suffered by one group with no mention or concentration on others. Perhaps the heinous actions of the state powers that exist and terrorize their citizens and those under occupation, as in Darfur, Iraq, and Palestine, might force our legislators and those in the UN to intervene and stop the slaughters, not with military force, but moral force, that the teachings of Jesus as noted above, teachings now embodied in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, become the shield of Justice for all.

But this is not to be. Our legislators hide behind their feigned love of Israel as dictated to them by the lobbies, feigned because they proclaim the friendship for that democratic state, the only one in the mid-east when they know in their heart of hearts that Israel is not a democracy, not in its constitution (which it does not have even after 60 years of existence), not in its apartheid restrictions imposed on its Arab (read Palestinian) citizens (which it proclaims are equal in all respects to Jews though Jews alone can purchase land in Israel), not in its moral adherence to international law or the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (although it is a signatory to that document even as it defies 160 UNGA resolutions asking that Israel abide by international law). No, our legislators will continue to grovel before the lobby, to speak the script, to assure themselves the continued support of those who dictate how they will vote despite the consequences to the best interests of the United States.

Let's consider the consequences and weigh them before the "One Love" that Christ suggested might be a way to everlasting peace. I'm not going to relate a series of statistics that demonstrate the idiocy of the lobby's line that Israel is in danger of "being wiped off the map." Any staff member can be sent to gather that information should the congressman wish to contrast the enormity of the evidence that shows that the state of Israel dominates in all respects the reality on the ground over a population, an indigenous population, that has nothing ­ no army, no weaponry of consequence, no control of its own territory, no air force, no navy, no Revolutionary Guard, no tanks, no F-16s, no planes period, no water, no roads, no electricity, even no garbage pickup, except as Israel may grant in its largesse ­ it has only the force of moral superiority to throw against the occupiers, the oppressors who have been condemned by the international community over and over again, and but for the fawning obedience of our representatives as they cast their lone veto in the Security Council, Israel might have been forced to accept its moral responsibility before the world's communities and grant a tinge of justice to the people of Palestine.

Instead, let me offer a few images of the reality they allow to happen in the name of America, the land that in its foundational documents extols equality for all people, the Bill of Rights for all people, justice before the courts regardless of privilege, a voice in the government that is granted the right to govern by the consent of the people, and from these basic rights, the moral foundation that requires each and every citizen, most certainly our legislators, responsibility to ensure that justice for all is served. Instead, we are placed under the pall of a small group of our citizens who manipulate our legislators to their own ends by coercion and fear, and, in that control, they deny the rights of the American people to determine their own fate.

This is the same reality that Akiva Elder, the prominent journalist for Ha'aretz, the moderate Israeli newspaper, notes, in an interview with Amy Goodman, is his lot when covering military affairs in Israel. He and his colleagues must endure the review of their reporting by the military before it is published and any reporting on Israeli military actions must be seen through the lens of external newspapers, "the New York Times reported that." "The policy is that we have an Israeli military censorship, and there is an agreement between the military censor and the editors of the Israeli papers that when it comes to sensitive issues, we have to submit every story to the censor " When Amy Goodman asked, "You're in the United States now. Do you still have to abide by " "I'm afraid so." "Why?" "You don't want to put me into trouble, right? I have to go back to Israel. Well, if you offer me asylum, then I will consider it. But my children are waiting for me at home, so I ­ you'll have to forgive me." "What would happen if you defied the censor?" "My editor on my newspaper will be fined." Such is the state of open dialogue and investigative reporting in that democratic state. But then one might argue that our own press operates under similar restraints imposed by its corporate owners. (see interview with Amy Goodman on "Democracy Now," 10/8/2007). How similar Elder's comments to those made by Rosenberg that are imposed on our legislators. How similar the means of control imposed on the Jews in 1941 by the ruling oligarchy of "the Agency and Hagana."

Perhaps if our legislators had fought in the military, (there are some exceptions), they might envision the enormity of the contrast on the ground. The reporting talks about battles with Palestinian militants, about terrorist attacks against IDF forces, about military engagements with Hamas fighters, (the primary source of our main stream media information as it comes from Israeli officials), but does not mention that one side has tanks and humvies, a network of highways for military transport, satellite surveillance, F-16 fighter jets for air cover support, helicopters with missile launchers, state of the art machine guns for its soldiers, and night goggles while the Palestinian insurgent has spit and stones, homemade Qassam rockets, and ancient rifles. How difficult can it be to hurl such weaponry, $300,000 dollar missiles at paraplegic men in wheelchairs? How difficult can it be to drop 500 pound bombs on apartment tenements in refugee camps? How difficult can it be to prevent ambulances from taking injured people to hospitals? How difficult can it be to deal with children that throw stones at tanks and use them as target practice? How difficult can it be to prevent fishermen from catching a few fish off Gaza when the Israeli Navy controls the shore with state of the art ships? How difficult can it be to control the lives of all Palestinians when the state can field 700 checkpoints throughout the West Bank and Gaza, surround the entire area with a cement and steel and electric wall that literally imprisons the entire people, imposes identification systems that control movement throughout the occupied territory with IDs and colored license plates, and controls all legal matters of recourse to justice by courts totally controlled by the Israeli state? This is justice? This is the American way? This is the best use of our 3 to 5 billion dollars every year to ensure peace in Palestine? What hypocrisy. What mockery of our purported democratic system. What a way to ensure that America is hated around the world. Yet this is what our legislators have bought for the American people by fawning before their benefactors at AIPAC.

You have heard of the injustice done to Israel by the "kidnapping" of three soldiers, the ostensible cause of Israel's invasion of Lebanon? Strange that word "kidnapping." Israel has over 11,000 Palestinians, hundreds of them children, incarcerated without charge. They have not been kidnapped. They are potential terrorists. Yet according to Geneva Conventions, occupied people can legally fight against their occupiers. "Kidnapping" becomes "capturing" an enemy soldier. States negotiate the exchange of prisoners, they do not attack an innocent nation. You have heard that individual Palestinians attack Israelis, even commit suicide to destroy innocent people, yet we never hear that Israel daily commits crimes against humanity as declared in the Geneva Conventions and in the UN Charter against masses of Palestinians by collective punishment, house demolition in the thousands, confiscation of homes and land, stealing of natural resources to supply the settlements, torture of prisoners, extrajudicial executions, all illegal, all done with the complicity of our Congress, in our name.

These are the representatives that are devoted to America's security, its standing before the international community, and human rights. They like the first lady last month (USA Today, October 10, 2007) proclaim their intense desire to ensure that human rights are protected ­ in Burma, in Darfur, in Pakistan, in all the hot spots on the globe, but not in Palestine. The only human rights we protect in Palestine are those of the occupiers.

We overlook how the occupiers train their teenage troops to act against the people they oppress. Dalia Karpel reported in Haaretz' Hebrew Weekend Supplement September 21, 2007 the nature of that training based on interviews with former IDF soldiers. Needless to say it was not reported in the American press. This report describes the research of Psychologist Nofer Ishai-Karen and Psychology Professor Joel Elizur of the Hebrew University. "We Israeli Soldiers ­ were put there to punish the Palestinians, says Ilan Vilenda, an Israeli soldier who served in Rafah during the first Intifada." "The soldiers enjoyed the 'intoxication of power', and had pleasure from using violence," according to the researchers. "What is great is that you don't have to follow any law or rule. You feel that YOU ARE THE LAW; you decide. Once you go into the Occupied Territories YOU ARE GOD." "We drove through Rafah. A man of 25 walked nearby. He didn't hurl a stone at us or anything. Then without any reason "X" shot him in the stomach. We left him lying on the sidewalk." "He captured a kid and broke his elbow. Broke the kid's elbow! Damn me if I'm not telling the truth! Then the NCO treaded on the kid's stomach three times, before he moved on. We couldn't believe our eyes But the next day we went on patrol with that guy and the soldiers started to imitate him." "A woman threw a stone at me. I kicked her with my foot at her crotch. I broke her. She can't have children any longer. Next time she won't throw sandals at me and when another woman spat at me she got the butt of my gun in her face. She can't spit now." "He was real big, some 30 years old. He refused detention. We hit him but couldn't force him down. We beat him and told him to lie down. Till he finally did. We drove to the base with him. By that time he had lost consciousness. He died some days later." These are the compassionate humanitarians that oversee the International laws that govern the responsibilities of the occupying forces. These are the soldiers we support. This is the way we protect America.

And so our legislators, fearing their own potential loss of their House or Senate seat, continue to support the desires of the Neo-cons and AIPAC and its fellows despite the condemnation of the world's communities that see nothing but hypocrisy in their behavior. What the world sees is simple enough if Americans were given the truth by its main stream media: "700 checkpoints that strangle the Palestinians' freedom of movement, 68 women forced to give birth at checkpoints since the year 2000, half of the babies died and four of the women, 18,000 houses have been demolished by Israel since 1967, often over the heads of their inhabitants In the old city of Hebron, 400 fanatical settlers ­ protected by Israeli Defense Force soldiers ­ hold 30,000 Palestinians to ransom. They stone and kick the inhabitants, while the Israeli army forbids Palestinians to drive ­ in some areas, even to walk ­ on the streets. I saw for myself the concrete blocks, rubbish and human excrement thrown down onto passing Palestinians by the illegal settlers occupying the flats above Arab shops.. The racist graffiti is shocking " ("Go and See the Truth for Yourself, I Did," Asad Khan, Special Registrar, Respiratory Medicine Wythenshawe Hospital, Manchester, UK, British Medical Journal, October 7, 2007).

So while our legislators dress appropriately in their double breasted suits, with their American flag lapel pins glowing in the ballroom lights at the AIPAC gala, as they grovel before the keypad denizens of the posh offices that turn out the legislation they will vote on in the following weeks, the people of Palestine suffer the humiliation, the suffering, the agony of the occupation, the illegal occupation, that our friends on K street impose on people they do not know or could care less about. Yet there are those in the Jewish community who suffer a like humiliation as they watch their compatriots commit their non-Jewish atrocities to further their rapid Zionist ends, and they, like us, must endure the corrosive rot of our constitution and Bill of Rights as the cowards in our Congress convince themselves that they are obedient to the word of their Christ and uphold the Universal Declaration of Human Rights even as they lift their cocktail glass in celebration of the latest resolution they've passed for their masters.

William Cook is a professor of English at the University of La Verne in southern California and author of Tracking Depception: Bush's Mideast Policy. He can be reached at: cookb@ULV.EDU
http://www.counterpunch.org/cook11072007.html

FBI's New Friends Were Kicked Out of UAE For "Talibanization"

By Andrew Cochran


As a follow-up to Steve Emerson's post about the FBI's meeting with Tanzeem-e-Islami, I want to suggest to the FBI that they use a website named "Google" to comprehensively search the groups and individuals with which they are planning to meet. If they had done that search well, they would have found that the UAE government kicked Ahmad's supporters out of the country back in May, fearing "the spread of Talibanization." Excerpts from a story:

ISLAMABAD: The United Arab Emirates (UAE) has deported dozens of the disciples of noted scholar Dr Israr Ahmad for holding Dars-e-Qur’aan sessions in Dubai, fearing the spread of Talibanisation in the country. “They violated the laws,” FO spokeswoman Tasnim Aslam told The News but added that she had no knowledge of the exact numbers of the deportees.

The News has learnt that the Dubai police arrested around 70 Pakistanis for attending the congregation. The majority of them are believed to be the disciples of Dr Israr Ahmad. About 30 of them have been deported, while the rest have been directed to wind up their businesses and leave the country by the end of July, Bakhtiyar Khilji, chief administrator of Tanzeem-e-Islami - the party headed by Dr Israr Ahmad - told The News.

Khilji feared that this “crackdown” by the UAE government might lead to an en masse deportation of Dr Israr’s followers. “The UAE government happens to be very sensitive to such congregations. The police had arrested the people whenever suspicion of their participants to the Dars-e-Qur’aan congregation arose.”

The FBI should have been able to find this story - it took me about two minutes - and take a deep breath before thinking about that meeting. November 7, 2007 06:00 PM Link TrackBack (0) Print
Winds of Military Change

By Douglas Farah


In recent weeks I have spent time at numerous events with U.S. military personnel across the different services, speaking, listening and watching as the senior officers challenge the assumptions they have help on the war on terrorism, Iraq, Afghanistan and other pressing issues.

One of the most innovative new concepts bubbling to the surface is that a great deal can be accomplished in pushing back against Islamist radicals, transnational criminal groups, warlords and militias by recognizing these issues all affect a nation's sovereignty.

If one recognizes this, then the need to form coalitions built on U.S. assumptions, pressures and cajoling diminishes considerably. Nations can take actions in their own enlightened self interest to improve or regain their own sovereignty that benefit aspects of U.S. policy, without having to agree on any other policy aspect.

Most nations do not want organized criminal networks corrupting the system. Most do not want their territory to be terrorist enclaves. Most do not want warlords controlling vast swaths of territory.

This concept of helping nations focus on their own national sovereignty issues is liberating from the highly unpopular concepts of "coalitions of the willing" and other policies that have been trotted out in recent times. My full blog is here.

November 7, 2007 04:42 PM Link TrackBack (0) Print
FBI's Latest Outreach Outrage

By Steven Emerson


As Pakistan rapidly descends into chaos, the FBI is reaching out to an American branch of one of the most noxious Islamist elements in Pakistan, the Tanzeem-e-Islami. Top officials from Detroit's FBI Field office spoke at a gathering in a Warren, Michigan mosque to talk about the dangers of extremism in every religion. Apparently, the FBI agents were unaware that at that very moment, they were speaking to an extremist organization. Here's an excerpt from an article I wrote on the Investigative Project on Terrorism's website:

Much has been written about the U.S. government's current bout of schizophrenia in its outreach to the American Muslim community, specifically related to the Department of Justice. While federal prosecutors in Dallas have labeled several Islamist organizations as unindicted co-conspirators - describing them as front groups for Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood - in the terrorist financing trial against the Holy Land for Relief and Development (HLF), the FBI is meeting with the very same groups to hold outreach events and the Civil Rights Division of the DOJ is setting up booths at their conferences.

As wrongheaded and shortsighted as these policies are, they do not hold a candle to a recent outreach event held by the FBI's Detroit field office at the end of last month. As reported in the Detroit Free Press (see: Detroit's FBI chief: Violence extremism cuts across religions), two top FBI officials from that office "spoke to about 50 Muslims inside the Islamic Organization of North America, or Tanzeem-e-Islami." The Free Press described the organization as merely "a Sunni mosque with a primarily Pakistani congregation" and tells us that the meeting was nothing more than "part of an effort by the FBI to reach out to Muslims and other communities."

While outreach to the Muslim community remains an important endeavor, officials at the FBI and other law enforcement agencies have become far less discerning in determining who the gatekeepers and spokesmen for the American Muslim community should be.

Take this recent meeting with Tanzeem-e-Islami, a group founded in Pakistan in 1975 and headed by a man named Dr. Israr Ahmad. The FBI might be unaware, but Ahmad is often credited with initiating the vicious rumor, spread throughout the Muslim world, that Israel was responsible for the 9/11 attacks. On the heels of the attacks, he sent faxes to various U.S. mosques and Islamic centers, stating:

The secret Israeli service Musad [sic] orchestrated these terrorist attacks ... [which] are a vital link in the chain of events that the Jews are undertaking to fulfill their dream of world domination.

It turns out that Dr. Ahmad is a rather prolific writer on such topics, and anti-Semitic conspiracy theories permeate his writing.

For the full article, click here to visit the IPT's website.

November 7, 2007 03:15 PM Link

Behind the Debate over Licenses for Immigrants
by Lee Sustar / November 8th, 2007

In all the hoo-hah about Hillary Clinton’s debate flip-flop on driver’s licenses for undocumented immigrants, something got lost–that is, the issue of driver’s licenses for undocumented immigrants. (Full article …)

Hornberger’s Blog
Wednesday, November 7, 2007

Paralyzing Silence Among the Neo-Cons
by Jacob G. Hornberger

One of the amusing aspects to the Musharraf crackdown in Pakistan is the air of silence it is producing among American neo-cons. The crackdown is an absolutely perfect model of dictatorship and tyranny. And the resistance being led by Pakistani lawyers and judges in the name of the rule of law and an independent judiciary is an absolutely perfect model of justifiable resistance to dictatorship and tyranny.

So, why are the neo-cons frozen into silence? Why are they not able to passionately take the side of those who are resisting tyranny? Well, think about it: Ever since 9/11 the neo-cons have said that patriotism means blind allegiance among the citizenry to the president (or to their commander in chief, as some of them put it). Neo-cons wholeheartedly embraced President Bush’s dictum, “In the war on terrorism, you’re either with us or against us.” Therefore, anyone who criticized President Bush, his “war on terrorism,” his invasion and war of aggression against Iraq, his torture, or his cancellation of civil liberties has been labeled “unpatriotic” by the neo-cons.

So, applying their reason to Pakistan, the neo-cons cannot help but feel sympathy toward Musharraf and antipathy toward the protestors. After all, the justification that Musharraf has used for his crackdown is no different from the justification that Bush has used for his actions: the terrorists! And don’t forget—In the mind of a neo-con, Musharraf is standing for “law and order” while the resisters are breaking the “law” by going out on the streets and protesting.

Since it never occurs to the standard neo-con that Bush’s justification for his actions is nothing but a crock, why should it occur to him it’s a crock insofar as Musharraf’s actions are concerned? And don’t forget that Musharraf is a close partner and ally of Bush in the “war on terrorism.” Would President Bush even consider cavorting with a known tyrant or dictator? “Not on your life! Not our president!” the standard neo-con would answer. Thus, because he is aligned with President Bush, the neo-con would reason, he must be the good guy and his opponents the bad guys. That’s in fact why neo-cons remained silent with respect to the shah of Iran, Saddam Hussein, and other tyrants and dictators who have partnered with U.S. presidents.

Moreover, the fact that the resistance to Musharraf’s crackdown is being led by the country’s lawyers and judges is the worst nightmare of the neo-cons, not to mention that the resistance is citing the principles of an independent judiciary and the rule of law as their cause. In the mind of a neocon, what could be worse than that? Haven’t the neo-cons done everything they can to undermine the power of the U.S. federal judiciary to interfere with Bush’s “war on terrorism”? Haven’t the condemned federal interference with Bush’s torture and sex-abuse camp at Gitmo? Didn’t they remove the power of the federal courts to grant habeas corpus to foreigners held as “enemy combatants” in the “war on terrorism”? Haven’t they mocked and ridiculed the very notion of judicial interference with Bush’s “commander-in-chief” powers?

Thus, the neo-con temptation is to side with President Bush’s partner, Pervez Musharraf, and to give him the benefit of the doubt.

But on the flip side, the neo-con knows that siding with dictators and tyrants might not be a good idea during a presidential campaign season.

Thus, the paralyzing silence.

And you haven’t seen anything yet. Because if Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul breaks into the ranks of the major contenders, I predict that you’re going to see some major quivering and quaking within the neo-con community.

Suppose that Ron Paul and Hillary Clinton win their party’s presidential nominations. What would neo-cons do (besides have a heart attack)? President Paul would dismantle the U.S. overseas empire and end the federal government’s role as international policeman — anathema for the neocons!

Yet, on the other hand, even though President Clinton would be pro-empire, pro-intervention, and pro-war, all of which is standard neo-con philosophy, among the worst nightmares of the neo-cons is the prospect of having to salute President Clinton and support and obey her commands. Again, don’t forget that for the last 7 years, the neo-cons have maintained that that’s the duty of the “patriotic” citizen, especially in time of “war.”

My prediction: If it’s Ron Paul vs. Hillary Clinton — there will be more paralyzing silence among the neo-cons.

The neo-cons have brought nothing but death, destruction, and damage to our country and to the world. Wouldn’t it be wonderful if they took a vow of permanent silence?

Mr. Hornberger is founder and president of The Future of Freedom Foundation.


http://fff.org/blog/index.asp

EDWARD LAZARUS Why Attorney General Nominee Michael Mukasey Should Be Confirmed, Even Despite His Refusal to Condemn Waterboarding as Illegal Torture FindLaw columnist, attorney, and author Edward Lazarus argues that the Senate should vote to confirm nominee and former U.S. District Judge Michael Mukasey as Attorney General, despite Mukasey's noncommittal stance on the use of "waterboarding" in interrogation. In support of his position, Lazarus points out that Mukasey has said that Congress has the power to outlaw waterboarding on the grounds that it is torture, and that, if Congress did so, the President would be bound to abide by the law Congress passed. In addition, Lazarus argues that from a pragmatic standpoint, Mukasey is a better Attorney General nominee than one might have expected from the current Administration.

JOANNE MARINER A Guantanamo Index FindLaw columnist and human rights attorney Joanne Mariner offers an index, much like the famous Harper's Magazine "Harper's Index," that provides a quantitative perspective on the Guantanamo Bay detention facility and the fates of the detainees there. The figures she compiles range from the shocking (the total days of the longest detentions without charge; the age of the youngest prisoner), to the deeply upsetting (number of apparent and attempted suicides; estimated number of detentions of farmers, aid workers, missionaries, and refugees totally unconnected to terrorism), to the appalling (hours for which, according to an FBI agent, two detainees were left chained in a fetal position).
Wednesday, Nov. 07, 2007

As Pakistanis risk life and limb to oppose Musharraf, US elite rallies round military regime- by Keith Jones - 2007-11-08

National State of Emergency in Pakistan condemned by National Lawyers Guild - 2007-11-07

Yes, It's Torture
by Joseph L. Galloway, McClatchy Newspapers
From someone who has seen waterboarding first-hand: It's a crime against humanity.

Israeli Officials Express Alarm Over Iran's Nuclear Program
Voice of America -
Israel criticizes IAEA head over Iran Reuters
Israel minister: Sack ElBaradei BBC News

Senator Hagel's Speech Should be Retitled "Who in Washington Lost the World?!"

Senator Chuck Hagel's speech title today, "The U.S. and Iran: At a Dangerous Crossroads" is all wrong.

What his speech should have been called is "WHO IN WASHINGTON LOST THE WORLD?!"

Here is a quick tour de force of grim global realities and America's eroding position from Senator Hagel's comments before a session organized by the Center for Strategic and International Studies:

Martial law declared in Pakistan; state of emergency in Georgia; Turkey threatens to invade Iraq; six members of the Afghan parliament along with scores of others killed in one of Afghanistan's largest ever suicide attacks; an escalating drumbeat of U.S.-Iran tensions; seventy six U.S. Senators supported a resolution urging the President to designate an entire branch of Iran's military as a terrorist organization. . .and the President announced unprecedented unilateral sanctions against Iran's forces; and, finally, President Bush warned of World War III unless Iran acts to stop its efforts to develop a nuclear weapons capability. These events are one frame of a broad confluence of events occurring in the world today. In the Middle East, Iraq is mired in a deep and dangerous civil war, with dim prospects for national political reconciliation. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict festers and worsens, and intra-Palestinian divisions present a pivotal obstacle, creating uncertain prospects for a U.S.-hosted peace conference. Syria is ostracized and insecure. Lebanon is paralyzed by a devastating political deadlock; Iran casts an unpredictable and ominous shadow over the region; and Egypt, Jordan and Saudi Arabia are trapped in this dangerous net.

Globally, our relations with Russia have sunk to a new post-Cold War low. U.S.-Turkey relations are in tatters over our inability to translate Turkey's 21st Century Government and objectives into a relationship of mutual interests that has been the case since World War II. The U.S.-India civil nuclear assistance deal has been set back and is now in a state of uncertainty. Afghanistan continues to lose ground. . .including record-breaking opium production. . .and Al Qaeda has re-emerged stronger than at any time since it was ousted from Afghanistan six years ago. The border between Afghanistan and Pakistan represents the most dangerous zone in the world. . .and we have little control and limited influence over it. Nuclear armed India casts a wary eye on its nuclear armed neighbor to the west.

And, the price of oil edges close to $100 per barrel. Record-breaking energy prices and surging demand are reshaping the global geopolitical economic power landscape. . .from Russia, China and India. . .to Angola, Nigeria, Venezuela, Norway. . .and the United States. The world is witnessing a diffusion of power never seen before that will increasingly be the norm for the 21st century.

Events are overtaking governments as they swirl in wild gyrations around us. All too often, we mistakenly try to compartmentalize and isolate events and issues, and do not stop to consider how a series of events are interconnected and impact the world. No nation can affect these events acting alone. Unless nations work to shape, influence and guide the course of global events, events will shape themselves…and the world, leading to an ever more dangerous planet.

Continue Reading "Senator Hagel's Speech Should be Retitled "Who in Washington Lost the World?!""
11:08 AM | Permalink | Comments (6)

SECRECY NEWS
from the FAS Project on Government Secrecy
Volume 2007, Issue No. 112
November 8, 2007

Secrecy News Blog: http://www.fas.org/blog/secrecy/

** RICHARD BARLOW AND THE PAKISTANI NUCLEAR PROGRAM
** NATIONAL SPECIAL SECURITY EVENTS
** MANAGING THE NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE, AND MORE FROM CRS


RICHARD BARLOW, NUCLEAR WEAPONS AND PAKISTAN

The declaration of emergency rule in Pakistan has focused new concern
on the status of Pakistan's nuclear arsenal. It may also bring renewed
attention to the case of Richard Barlow, the former intelligence officer
who attempted to warn Congress two decades ago about Pakistan's
clandestine acquisition of U.S. nuclear technology and who was punished
for his trouble.

In a classic whistleblower tale, Mr. Barlow's security clearances were
suspended, the state secrets privilege was invoked, and he was
personally vilified after he attempted to notify Congress of
irregularities and illegalities in Pakistan's U.S. acquisitions
program. Yet his allegations about Pakistani export control violations
and official attempts to conceal those violations were ultimately
corroborated.

A summary account of Mr. Barlow's actions and experiences was presented
in one of two pending amendments introduced by Sen. Jeff Bingaman (D-NM)
last summer to provide belated compensation for his losses. See:

http://www.fas.org/sgp/congress/2007/barlow.html

Mr. Barlow's story, and much else about the clandestine development of
the Pakistani nuclear weapons program, is presented in a new book
called "Deception: Pakistan, the United States, and the Secret Trade in
Nuclear Weapons" by Adrian Levy and Catherine Scott-Clark (Walker &
Company, 2007):

http://www.walkerbooks.com/books/catalog.php?key=690

The Congressional Research Service examined "Pakistan's Political
Crisis and State of Emergency" in a new report dated November 6, 2007:

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/row/RL34240.pdf

See also "Pakistan-U.S. Relations," updated October 18, 2007:

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/row/RL33498.pdf

And "Direct Overt U.S. Aid to Pakistan, FY2001-FY2008," November 8,
2007:

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/row/pakaid.pdf


NATIONAL SPECIAL SECURITY EVENTS

National Special Security Events (NSSEs) are public events that are
deemed to require national-level security planning. They include
Presidential inaugurations and nominating conventions, major sporting
events like the Super Bowl, and international summits.

Between September 1998 and February 2007, there have been 27 designated
NSSEs, according to a new report from the Congressional Research
Service, which helpfully tabulated them and provided as much related
background as anyone might want.

See "National Special Security Events," November 6, 2007:

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RS22754.pdf


MANAGING THE NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE, AND MORE FROM CRS

Noteworthy new reports from the Congressional Research Service that
have not been made readily available to the public include the
following.

"Managing the Nuclear Fuel Cycle: Policy Implications of Expanding
Global Access to Nuclear Power," November 1, 2007:

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/nuke/RL34234.pdf

"F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) Program: Background, Status, and
Issues," updated October 25, 2007:

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/weapons/RL30563.pdf

"Navy DDG-1000 Destroyer Program: Background, Oversight Issues, and
Options for Congress," updated October 25, 2007:

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/weapons/RL32109.pdf

"Operation Iraqi Freedom and Detainee Issues: Major Votes from the
110th Congress," October 22, 2007:

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RL34172.pdf

"Journalists' Privilege: Overview of the Law and Legislation in the
109th and 110th Congresses," updated October 18, 2007:

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/secrecy/RL34193.pdf

"Japan-U.S. Relations: Issues for Congress," updated September 27,
2007:

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/row/RL33436.pdf

"National Emergency Powers," updated August 30, 2007:

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/98-505.pdf



_______________________________________________
Secrecy News is written by Steven Aftergood and published by the
Federation of American Scientists.

Commentary: New terrorist nexus
Washington (UPI) Nov 8, 2007 - Iraq and President Bush's war on terrorism -- and Washington's inability to focus on more than one major foreign crisis at a time -- have overshadowed the geographic nexus of Islamist extremism. Afghanistan, where suicide bombers are now striking throughout the country; the Afghan-Pakistan border, where Taliban and al-Qaida have reconstituted their strongholds with virtual impunity; and a chao ... more


+ Israel gets US aid for anti-missile system
Jerusalem (AFP) Nov 8, 2007 - The United States has given Israel 155 million dollars to develop an advanced missile interception system, Defence Minister Ehud Barak's office said in a statement on Thursday. The money, which Congress approved on Wednesday, will help advance the development of a multi-layered anti-missile system that Barak presented to his US counterpart Robert Gates in Washington last month, the statement ... more

Analysis: Kurds say Kirkuk is Turkey's aim
Washington (UPI) Nov 6, 2007 - The protest sign was plain enough, black ink on white poster board. But the message Jamel Numan was carrying amidst 200 of America's Iraqi Kurds rallying outside the White House Monday was both simply blunt and highlighted the overlooked complexity of Turkey's beef with the Kurdistan Workers' Party guerrillas: "Is this really about PKK? Or is this about Kirkuk?" Numan, a 53-year-old now ... more

Pentagon says Pakistan nuclear arsenal of 'concern'
Washington (AFP) Nov 7, 2007 - A top Pentagon official on Wednesday said the fate of Pakistan's military arsenal was a "primary concern" after President Pervez Musharraf imposed a state of emergency in his country. Washington was keeping a close eye on Pakistan's nuclear arsenal following the recent upheaval, said Lieutenant General Carter Ham, Director of Operations with the US Joint Chiefs of Staff. "We will watch t ... more

http://www.antiwar.com/scheuer/?articleid=11871

November 8, 2007 The Anti-Americanism of the Israel-Firsters
by Michael Scheuer "Too soon old and too late smart." That saying was one of my Dad's favorites, and one he used when one of us in the family re-made a past mistake, having not learned from the first error. I am guilty of that in regard to the current game being played by Commentary's Gabriel Schoenfeld and his Goebbels-wannabes at the National Review, the American Thinker, and other organs of the Israel-first media. Mr. Schoenfeld has accused me of leaking information to the media about an Islamist fighter/ideologue who was rendered to Egypt from Croatia in 1995. On the basis of this supposed action on my part, Mr. Schoenfeld compares me to Philip Agee and argues that the accused Israeli spy Larry Franklin did nothing worse than I did. Even for Commentary, the sweep of this "Big Lie" is impressive.

Now, let us settle first things first. Even a mediocre former CIA officer – and I like to believe that I was at least that – will do a Google search to find out what is available in the open-source world on the subject a journalist wants to speak to him or her about. This is especially true when the journalist is a European who, these days, is likely to be anti-American, especially on the subject of rendition. The Google search I did on the 1995 rendition in question, turned up all of the information that is contained in the article that has Mr. Schoenfled and his acolytes in their current let's-hang-Scheuer-to-clear-Larry-Franklin snit. A few examples follow from a quick search using Google News.

– "Talaat Fouad Qassem, 38, a known leader of the Al-Gama'a al-Islamiyya (the Islamic Group), an Egyptian extremist organization, is arrested and detained in Croatia as he travels to Bosnia from Denmark, where he has been been living after being granted political asylum. He is suspected of clandestine support of terrorist operations, including the 1993 World Trade Center bombing. He also allegedly led mujaheddin efforts in Bosnia since 1990. In a joint operation, he is arrested by Croatian intelligence agents and handed over to the CIA. Qassem is then interrogated by US officials aboard a US ship off the Croatian coast in the Adriatic Sea and sent to Egypt, which has a rendition agreement with the US. An Egyptian military tribunal has already sentenced him to death in absentia, and he is executed soon after he arrives. [Associated Press, 10/31/1995; Wash Post, 3/11/02, A01; Mahle, 05, pp. 204-205; New Yorker, 2/8/05] " (CRHC)

– "A second and more sophisticated form of cooperation aims at impeding Islamist activity in Western countries, and using legal means to track down fugitive activists with the minimum of fuss. The third form of security cooperation involves the collaboration of Egyptian and Western security authorities in executing sensitive operations, including the tracing or arrest of Islamists, possibly across international borders, as in the case of Talaat Fouad Qassem." Al-Ahram Weekly, 22-28 October 1998, Issue No.400.

– "With Bosnian war hostilities drawing to a close in September 1995, Anwar Shaaban and his Italian-based Al-Gama'at al-Islamiyya cohorts were free to turn their attention and resources to issues of "more critical" importance. In late September, one of the most important Al-Gama'at al-Islamiyya leaders hiding in Europe – Abu Talal al-Qasimy (a.k.a. Talaat Fouad Qassem) – was captured by Croat HVO forces as he attempted to cross through Croatian territory into Bosnia-Herzegovina. Within days, the Croats quietly rendered al-Qasimy through U.S. custody into the hands of Egyptian authorities. At the time, a government official in Cairo noted, "[Al-Qasimy's] arrest proves what we have always said, which is that these terror groups are operating on a worldwide scale, using places like Afghanistan and Bosnia to form their fighters who come back to the Middle East… European countries like Denmark, Sweden, Switzerland, England and others, which give sanctuary to these terrorists, should now understand it will come back to haunt them where they live." By, Evan F. Kohlmann, The Afghan-Bosnian Mujahideen Network in Europe, (2004)

There are a dozen or more other pre-2007, open-source descriptions of this operation available (citations on request), so we can safely assume that nothing new has been revealed in 2007, and Mr. Schoenfeld, et. al are either unaware of the Google news search capability, or they are playing for bigger game than a creaky and unimportant former CIA officer like me.

The truth is, of course, that Mr. Schoenfeld and his allies are not dumb people, they are simply anti-American. Their tarting-up of the rendition operation described above is just part of their ongoing attempt to discredit the case and to try to convince Americans that U.S. and Israeli interests are identical, and so spying on America for Israel – and suborning American citizens to commit treason – is really an okay and even admirable activity. Time will tell what the final verdicts will be, but Mr. Schoenfeld, et. al are clearly guilty of trying to create an environment in which the U.S. public accepts the idea that engaging in espionage against their own country on Israel's behalf is consonant with the duties of American citizenship.

Finally, I wish to directly refute Mr. Schoenfeld's claim that I "cast aspersions on American Jews." I do not cast aspersions, I forthrightly damn, and pray that God damns, any American – Jew, Catholic, Evangelical, Irish, German, Hindu, hermaphrodite, thespian, or otherwise – who flogs the insane idea that American and Israeli interests are one and the same. The nation-state of Israel is an intolerable burden to the treasury and security of the United States, and Washington's current relationship with Israel – sanctioned by the AIPAC-funded political leaders of both parties – is one of several factors that are leading to full-scale American participation in other peoples' religious wars, religious wars that David Horowitz's recent "Islamofascist Awareness Week" manifestly wants to bring to the streets of the United States.

Israeli DM: Attacking Iran a 'Viable' Option

Iran Becomes the Trade-Off for Northern Iraq

Bush Defends World War Three Comments on Iran

Iran Reaches Key Nuclear Target: Ahmadinejad

Print
Copyright © 2007 The Daily Star Friday, November 09, 2007 Saudi king urges Iran to avoid escalating tensions with West


Compiled by Daily Star staff


Saudi Arabia's King Abdullah urged Iran to avoid escalation in its standoff with the West over its nuclear program as Israel's deputy prime minister called for the resignation of the head of the UN nuclear watchdog. King Abdullah called for a solution that would allow Tehran to use atomic energy for peaceful purposes.

The Saudi king's remarks, published on Thursday, come a week after Saudi Arabia's foreign minister said Iran's Gulf neighbors were willing to set up a body to provide it with enriched uranium.

"The world fears that Iran's nuclear program will lead to developing nuclear weapons. Iran has announced its nuclear program is intended for peaceful use," the king said in an interview with German newspaper Frankfurter Allgemeine, carried by the official Saudi news agen-cy SPA. "If this is the case, then we don't see any justification for escalation, confrontation

and challenge, which only makes issues more complicated."

Saudi Arabia and other Gulf countries share US concerns that Iran's nuclear energy program is a cover for developing nuclear weapons. Iran insists its plans are peaceful.

Iran's deputy chief nuclear negotiator said last Saturday that Tehran welcomed proposals for joint enrichment projects with other countries, "but if the condition is stopping

enrichment in Iran, it will not be acceptable."

EU foreign policy chief Javier Solana also pushed for a shared enrichment center and warned that existing non-proliferation rules were in danger of collapse because many countries perceived imbalances in the current treaty regime that favor existing nuclear powers.

He noted that Arab states such as Morocco, Egypt and Jordan had started ambitious nuclear programs in the last year, while Iran was enriching uranium for non-existent power stations.

"The only way of finding a lasting solution to these problems is ... by creating an international enrichment center under multilateral supervision. All states would have access to this enriched fuel on equal terms and at competitive prices," he said according to a text of his speech.

Israel's deputy Prime Minister Shaul Mofaz called on Thursday for Mohamed ElBaradei to be replaced as head of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), accusing him of complacency over Iran's nuclear ambitions.

Mofaz' comments coincided with an Israeli newspaper report quoting Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert as telling confidants in private conversations that ElBaradei, an Egyptian, was "no lover of Zion," a reference to the Jewish state.

Speaking on Israel Radio, Mofaz said ElBaradei should be replaced because of his "irresponsible and slow actions" in dealing with Iran.

In Paris, France's Foreign Ministry voiced support for ElBaradei in response to Mofaz' call for him to go.

"France is very attached to the IAEA, the international organization of which Mr. ElBaradei is the director general. In that capacity he has our full support," the French Foreign Ministry said.

"As for the Iranian nuclear program, the IAEA reports have regularly highlighted important grey areas. That is why we will examine with the greatest of attention the report that is to be handed over soon by Mr. ElBaradei on the dialogue launched with Iran on 'outstanding questions,'" the ministry said.

Iran and the IAEA were to hold more talks Thursday to resolve doubts about its nuclear work, officials said, a week ahead of an IAEA report key to deciding on tougher sanctions against Tehran. Iran had said at the end of four days of talks in Tehran a week ago that it had provided all information the IAEA needed to remove ambiguities about its development of centrifuges and there would be no more discussions about it.

But an IAEA official said Mohammad Saeedi, deputy director of Iran's Atomic Energy Organization, would meet Olli Heinonen, the UN watchdog's deputy head in charge of non-proliferation safeguards, at agency headquarters in Vienna in the late afternoon.

China on Thursday called on Tehran to heed world concerns a day after Iran's president defiantly ruled out any concessions on its nuclear program.

Declaring that Iran "couldn't care less" about UN sanctions threats, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said Wednesday that Iran had 3,000 centrifuges up and running for uranium enrichment. - Agencies


Copyright © 2007 The Daily Star _uacct = "UA-360006-1"; urchinTracker();

US: Iran attack plans ready if needed

By ROBERT BURNS, AP Military WriterThu Nov 8, 2:11 PM ET

U.S. defense officials have signaled that up-to-date attack plans are available if needed in the escalating crisis over Iran's nuclear aims, although no strike appears imminent.

The Army and Marine Corps are under enormous strain from years of heavy ground fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan. Still, the United States has ample air and naval power to strike Iran if President Bush decided to target nuclear sites or to retaliate for alleged Iranian meddling in neighboring Iraq.

Among the possible targets, in addition to nuclear installations like the centrifuge plant at Natanz: Iran's ballistic missile sites, Republican Guard bases, and naval warfare assets that Tehran could use in a retaliatory closure of the Straits of Hormuz, a vital artery for the flow of Gulf oil.

The Navy has an aircraft carrier in the Persian Gulf area with about 60 fighters and other aircraft that likely would feature prominently in a bombing campaign. And a contingent of about 2,200 Marines are on a standard deployment to the Gulf region aboard ships led by the USS Kearsarge, an amphibious assault ship. Air Force fighters and bombers are available elsewhere in the Gulf area, including a variety of warplanes in Iraq and at a regional air operations center in Qatar.

But there has been no new buildup of U.S. firepower in the region. In fact there has been some shrinkage in recent months. After adding a second aircraft carrier in the Gulf early this year — a move that Secretary of Defense Robert Gates said was designed to underscore U.S. long-term stakes in the region — the Navy has quietly returned to a one-carrier presence.

Talk of a possible U.S. attack on Iran has surfaced frequently this year, prompted in some cases by hard-line statements by White House officials. Vice President Dick Cheney, for example, stated on Oct. 21 that the United States would "not allow Iran to have a nuclear weapon," and that Iran would face "serious consequences" if it continued in that direction. Gates, on the other hand, has emphasized diplomacy.

Bush suggested on Oct. 17 that Iran's continued pursuit of nuclear arms could lead to "World War III." Yet on Wednesday, in discussing Iran at a joint press conference with French President Nicolas Sarkozy, Bush made no reference to the military option.

"The idea of Iran having a nuclear weapon is dangerous, and, therefore, now is the time for us to work together to diplomatically solve this problem," Bush said, adding that Sarkozy also wants a peaceful solution.

Iran's conventional military forces are generally viewed as limited, not among the strongest in the Middle East. But a leading expert on the subject, Anthony Cordesman of the Center for Strategic and International Studies, says it would be a mistake to view the Islamic republic as a military weakling.

"Its strengths in overt conflict are more defensive than offensive, but Iran has already shown it has great capability to resist outside pressure and any form of invasion and done so under far more adverse and divisive conditions than exist in Iran today," Cordesman wrote earlier this year.

Cordesman estimates that Iran's army has an active strength of around 350,000 men.

At the moment, there are few indications of U.S. military leaders either advising offensive action against Iran or taking new steps to prepare for that possibility. Gates has repeatedly emphasized that while military action cannot be ruled out, the focus is on diplomacy and tougher economic sanctions.

Asked in late October whether war planning had been ramped up or was simply undergoing routine updates, Gates replied, "I would characterize it as routine." His description of new U.S. sanctions announced on Oct. 25 suggested they are not a harbinger of war, but an alternative.

A long-standing responsibility of the Joint Chiefs of Staff is to maintain and update what are called contingency plans for potential military action that a president might order against any conceivable foe. The secret plans, with a range of timelines and troop numbers, are based on a variety of potential scenarios — from an all-out invasion like the March 2003 march on Baghdad to less demanding missions.

Another military option for Washington would be limited, clandestine action by U.S. special operations commandos, such as Delta Force soldiers, against a small number of key nuclear installations.

The man whose responsibility it would be to design any conventional military action against Iran — and execute it if ordered by Bush — is Adm. William Fallon, the Central Command chief. He is playing down prospects of conflict, saying in a late September interview that there is too much talk of war.

"This constant drumbeat of conflict is what strikes me, which is not helpful and not useful," Fallon told Al-Jazeera television, adding that he does not expect a war against Iran. During a recent tour of the Gulf region, Fallon made a point of telling U.S. allies that Iran is not as strong as it portrays itself.

"Not militarily, economically or politically," he said.

Fallon's immediate predecessor, retired Army Gen. John Abizaid, raised eyebrows in September when he suggested that initiating a war against Iran would be a mistake. He urged vigorous efforts to stop Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons, but failing that, he said, "There are ways to live with a nuclear Iran." He also said he believed Iran's leaders could be dissuaded from using nuclear arms, once acquired.

The possibility of U.S. military action raises many tough questions, beginning perhaps with the practical issue of whether the United States knows enough about Iran's network of nuclear sites — declared sites as well as possible clandestine ones — to sufficiently set back or destroy their program.

Among other unknowns: Iran's capacity to retaliate by unleashing terrorist strikes against U.S. targets.

Nonmilitary specialists who have studied Iran's nuclear program are doubtful of U.S. military action.

"There is a nontrivial chance that there will be an attack, but it's not likely," said Jeffrey Lewis, director of a nuclear strategy project at the New America Foundation, a nonpartisan public policy group.

Copyright © 2007 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.
Copyright © 2007 Yahoo! Inc. All rights reserved.

Hillary Clinton: A Bilderberg Presidency
( Published on Thursday, November 08, 2007 )
While President Bush’s approval rating falls to record lows, the torch is being prepared to pass on to Hillary Clinton, with full endorsement from the global elite

Recasting Long War as Joint Sino-American Venture – Thomas Barnett, Esquire
The Marines: Premier Expeditionary Warriors - Frank Hoffman, FPRI E-note
How to Stop IEDs - Gian Gentile, San Francisco Chronicle
Last Chance for Public Diplomacy – Clifford May, National Review
Rebel Diplomats – Fred Gedrich, New York Post
Blackwater’s Impunity – Los Angeles Times editorial
Pakistan Upheaval Rouses U.S. Concerns – USA Today editorial roundup
Musharraf’s Latest Pledge – Washington Times editorial
Time’s Up, Mr. Musharraf – The Economist editorial
Pakistan-U.S. Relationship is Bankrupt – London Daily Telegraph editorial
Marcos… Pinochet… Musharraf? – Charles Krauthammer, Washington Post
The Real Musharraf – Asma Jahangir, Washington Post
Musharraf's Grip Looking Unbreakable – Haroon Siddiqui, Toronto Star
Pakistan on the Brink – Diana West, Washington Times
An India-U.S. Alliance? – Austin Bay, Washington Times
Why Europe Won't Sanction Iran - Robert Maginnis, Human Events
Italy’s Immigration Agita – Gerald Robbins, Weekly Standard
Deal With Colombia – Washington Post editorial
Frontline Troops Spending Must be Increased – London Times editorial
Al Qaeda’s Generational Split – Gregory Johnsen, Boston Globe
Radical Islam Behind Bars – Stephen Schwartz, Weekly Standard
The War Against Women in Congo – Kevin Sites, Chicago Tribune
Kiwi Terror Law Debate - New Zealand Herald opinion question
TSA “Working Diligently” – Kip Hawley, USA Today
A Post-Iraq G.I. Bill? – Jim Webb and Chuck Hagle, New York Times
Who Saw the Latest Anti-War Movie? – Jonah Goldberg, Miami Herald

Iran Still Far From Bomb: Despite optimistic declarations, Iranians facing numerous technical problems

US National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) Spooks refuse to toe Cheney's line on Iran

Bush defends world war comments

Saudi king urges Iran to avoid escalating tensions with West

Senator Obama vows softer approach to engage Iran

Thirty Senators warn Bush has no authority to launch an attack on Iran

Russia suspends arms treaty - Conventional Forces in Europe Treaty (CFE)

Kathleen & Bill Christison
Meeting the Other in Israel and Palestine

William Loren Katz
Waterboarding in American History

Mike Whitney
The Long Fall: a Market Without Parachutes

Silencing the opposition
Benazir Bhutto, leader of the Pakistan People's Party, is put under house arrest

COLUMN: Europe.view

Over a barrel
The oily politics of silence

FINANCE & ECONOMICS: The dollar
Ready for a rout?
The dollar’s decline acceleratesNov 8th 2007

LEADERS: Martial law in Pakistan
Time's up, Mr Musharraf
No longer the potential solution, the general has become a big part of Pakistan's problem

SPECIAL REPORT: Technology in India and China
Running fast
China and India have much to offer the world of technology, argues Simon Cox, but more still to gain from it

Paying for the Wars’ Wounded
Col. Daniel Smith, U.S. Army (Ret.)
Nov 9, 2007

Rule of Force vs. Rule of Law in Pakistan
Zia Mian and A.H. Nayyar
Nov 8, 2007

Making Democracy Safe for the World
Yu Bin
Nov 8, 2007

Taiwan's Right to a State
Ian Williams
Nov 8, 2007

Seven Countries Considering Abandoning the US Dollar- by Jessica Hupp - 2007-11-08
International Bar Association calls upon the world’s bars and law societies to support lawyers and judges in Pakistan - 2007-11-08

Turkish parliament passes bill to build nuclear plants

Korea urges US to remove its terrorism tag

Apocalyptic' if Egypt, Saudi go nuclear: Israel minister

France is top intelligence provider on Iran: US lawmaker

Increasing alarm in Washington over Pakistan nuclear arsenal

EU's Solana suggests 'international enrichment centre'

Indian PM heads to Russia to sign defence, energy deals

Israel says UN nuclear chief should go

Japan, US conduct mock nuclear disaster drill

China urges Iran to heed nuclear concerns