Jacob Hornberger’s Blog [Blog Archives]
Iran and the Constitution
by Jacob G. Hornberger
Amidst all the talk about whether President Bush is going to wage another war of aggression — this time against Iran — it’s important that we keep one fact in mind: Under the U.S. Constitution, President Bush is precluded from waging war against Iran without a declaration of war from Congress.
That is, despite what President Bush claims, when it comes to declaring war it is not Bush who is the legitimate and legal “decider.” It is the Congress. That’s the law — the law of the Constitution — the law that the people of the United States have imposed on the president and all other federal officials.
The purpose of the Constitution is to limit the power of those who are in office, including the president. It is designed to prevent the rise of dictatorial power, even by officials who have been elected into office. Federal officials, from the president on down, are expected to comply with this higher law as much as they expect us to comply with their laws. When they break our law, they become lawbreakers, which is exactly what President Bush is — by virtue of his undeclared war of aggression against Iraq — and will be, by virtue of his possible upcoming war of aggression against Iran.
So, why does President Bush claim that he, not Congress, is “the decider” when it comes to deciding whether war will be waged against another country? Did the American people amend the Constitution to transfer the power to declare war to the president? No. President Bush feels that because previous presidents have ignored this constitutional restraint, he has the power to do so as well. But obviously that is a ridiculous notion. Simply because previous presidents have broken the law does not operate as a de facto amendment to the Constitution that empowers subsequent presidents to break the law.
With the debacle in Iraq becoming an ever-lengthening quagmire into which our nation is trapped — a quagmire that will certainly deepen if Bush attacks Iran, Americans will have plenty of time to reflect upon the wisdom of the Framers in separating the power to declare war and the power to wage war. One issue will be how big a price Americans will have to pay to learn this important lesson in constitutional law.
Mr. Hornberger is founder and president of The Future of Freedom Foundation.
Full Version: Snuffymith's Blog-Sept. 17 - Nov. 29, 2007
Common Ground Common Sense > National & International News > Op-Ed Articles from the Mainstream Media > Op-Ed Articles from the Mainstream Media Archive
Pages: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42
Nervous about the falling dollar
http://archive.gulfnews.com/articles/07/10/06/10158300.html
10/06/2007 07:14 PM | Reuters
When does a gentle slide become a dangerous skid?
That is the big question as the dollar's decline gathers pace. The greenback fell almost two per cent against a basket of major currencies in the week after the Federal Reserve cut America's short-term interest rates on September 18, hitting a new low for the post-1973 floating era. The fall was particularly pronounced against the euro, where the dollar fell to a record $1.41 per euro on September 25.
Those nervously inclined see plenty of reason to fret. Some worry that central banks and other official investors may be about to dump dollars. Saudi Arabia's decision not to follow the Fed's lead and cut interest rates fuelled speculation last week that the kingdom was about to break its 21-year peg with the greenback. Others fear that a plunging dollar will fuel inflationary pressure in America and thus limit the Fed's ability to cut interest rates further.
In Europe there are worries that a stratospheric euro will imperil the region's growth. Nicolas Sarkozy, France's president, recently declared that the currency's rise above $1.40 was a "problem" for euro-zone competitiveness.
Some of this nervousness is exaggerated. With inflation rising in Saudi Arabia, the link to a falling dollar is causing a headache. A revaluation against the dollar or, better, a link to a basket of currencies - similar to the one Kuwait now has - would make more sense.
Commitment
But the Saudi government has denied that it plans anything of the sort. Its central bank governor repeated a commitment to the dollar peg on September 26. More important, a change in Saudi Arabia's currency regime - or that of other oil exporters - need not cause a dollar crash. Shifting to a currency peg does not mean a central bank would suddenly dump its dollar assets.
The inflationary risks from a weaker dollar are also easily overdone. Most economists reckon that the pass-through from a weaker dollar to higher import prices has weakened in recent years, and is particularly low in the US.
A new study by Robert Vigfusson, Nathan Sheets and Joseph Gagnon, three economists at the Federal Reserve, suggests that countries are more willing to absorb a rising exchange rate in their profit margins when exporting to America than when they export elsewhere, perhaps because they are keen to protect their share of America's huge market. Such a profit squeeze cannot continue indefinitely, of course, but as yet there is little sign that the dollar's weakness is aggravating price pressure.
For the moment, the dollar's decline is reflecting investors' expectations of Fed policy rather than tying the central bankers' hands. Financial markets increased the odds of more short-term interest-rate cuts last week after a barrage of grim economic news. The pace of home sales fell again in August; the backlog of unsold existing homes rose to ten-months' worth of supply; and consumer confidence plunged. As the gloomy economic news piled up, yields on ten-year Treasury bonds, which had risen on inflation jitters after the Fed's rate-cut, fell back.
Europe worries
Today's pessimism is centred on America - hence the tumbling dollar. But there may soon be reasons to worry about Europe. Germany's Ifo index of business confidence fell again last week for the fourth consecutive month, to a 19-month low. The aftershocks of the credit crisis coupled with a surging euro could make life difficult for Europe's firms.
So far, the European Central Bank has played down these risks and is signalling the likelihood of higher rates ahead. That hawkishness is part of the reason for the euro's rise. But if America's economy is truly in trouble, the outlook for the euro zone will darken too. America's currency will become others' problem.
- The Economist
Euro/dollar volatility will probably rise in coming weeks, while it will be lower for sterling/dollar and dollar/yen than it was over the past month, according to a foreign exchange poll.
The conclusion is based on the standard deviation of forecasts in the October currency survey, coupled with the actual levels of volatility seen last month. The poll implied monthly annualised volatility of 9.2 per cent for the euro against the dollar in October, up from the 5.3 per cent seen in September.
For the yen against the dollar, the poll suggested a volatility level of 9.3 per cent, lower than the 11 per cent actual volatility last month. For sterling against dollar, volatility was seen falling to 6.7 per cent this month from an actual 7.6 per cent in September. Analysts say the divergence of forecasts in Reuters currency polls offers a leading indicator of exchange rate volatility in the following month.
Statistical analysis suggests the more analysts' forecast divergence for a currency pair, the higher the actual volatility is likely to be in that currency in the following month.
Estimates of future volatility are used to calculate the value of currency options, which give investors the right to buy or sell a currency at a fixed price in the future.
As a measure of financial risk, the wider the expected trading range for a currency the higher the cost of purchasing an option to trade it.
http://archive.gulfnews.com/articles/07/10/06/10158300.html
10/06/2007 07:14 PM | Reuters
When does a gentle slide become a dangerous skid?
That is the big question as the dollar's decline gathers pace. The greenback fell almost two per cent against a basket of major currencies in the week after the Federal Reserve cut America's short-term interest rates on September 18, hitting a new low for the post-1973 floating era. The fall was particularly pronounced against the euro, where the dollar fell to a record $1.41 per euro on September 25.
Those nervously inclined see plenty of reason to fret. Some worry that central banks and other official investors may be about to dump dollars. Saudi Arabia's decision not to follow the Fed's lead and cut interest rates fuelled speculation last week that the kingdom was about to break its 21-year peg with the greenback. Others fear that a plunging dollar will fuel inflationary pressure in America and thus limit the Fed's ability to cut interest rates further.
In Europe there are worries that a stratospheric euro will imperil the region's growth. Nicolas Sarkozy, France's president, recently declared that the currency's rise above $1.40 was a "problem" for euro-zone competitiveness.
Some of this nervousness is exaggerated. With inflation rising in Saudi Arabia, the link to a falling dollar is causing a headache. A revaluation against the dollar or, better, a link to a basket of currencies - similar to the one Kuwait now has - would make more sense.
Commitment
But the Saudi government has denied that it plans anything of the sort. Its central bank governor repeated a commitment to the dollar peg on September 26. More important, a change in Saudi Arabia's currency regime - or that of other oil exporters - need not cause a dollar crash. Shifting to a currency peg does not mean a central bank would suddenly dump its dollar assets.
The inflationary risks from a weaker dollar are also easily overdone. Most economists reckon that the pass-through from a weaker dollar to higher import prices has weakened in recent years, and is particularly low in the US.
A new study by Robert Vigfusson, Nathan Sheets and Joseph Gagnon, three economists at the Federal Reserve, suggests that countries are more willing to absorb a rising exchange rate in their profit margins when exporting to America than when they export elsewhere, perhaps because they are keen to protect their share of America's huge market. Such a profit squeeze cannot continue indefinitely, of course, but as yet there is little sign that the dollar's weakness is aggravating price pressure.
For the moment, the dollar's decline is reflecting investors' expectations of Fed policy rather than tying the central bankers' hands. Financial markets increased the odds of more short-term interest-rate cuts last week after a barrage of grim economic news. The pace of home sales fell again in August; the backlog of unsold existing homes rose to ten-months' worth of supply; and consumer confidence plunged. As the gloomy economic news piled up, yields on ten-year Treasury bonds, which had risen on inflation jitters after the Fed's rate-cut, fell back.
Europe worries
Today's pessimism is centred on America - hence the tumbling dollar. But there may soon be reasons to worry about Europe. Germany's Ifo index of business confidence fell again last week for the fourth consecutive month, to a 19-month low. The aftershocks of the credit crisis coupled with a surging euro could make life difficult for Europe's firms.
So far, the European Central Bank has played down these risks and is signalling the likelihood of higher rates ahead. That hawkishness is part of the reason for the euro's rise. But if America's economy is truly in trouble, the outlook for the euro zone will darken too. America's currency will become others' problem.
- The Economist
Euro/dollar volatility will probably rise in coming weeks, while it will be lower for sterling/dollar and dollar/yen than it was over the past month, according to a foreign exchange poll.
The conclusion is based on the standard deviation of forecasts in the October currency survey, coupled with the actual levels of volatility seen last month. The poll implied monthly annualised volatility of 9.2 per cent for the euro against the dollar in October, up from the 5.3 per cent seen in September.
For the yen against the dollar, the poll suggested a volatility level of 9.3 per cent, lower than the 11 per cent actual volatility last month. For sterling against dollar, volatility was seen falling to 6.7 per cent this month from an actual 7.6 per cent in September. Analysts say the divergence of forecasts in Reuters currency polls offers a leading indicator of exchange rate volatility in the following month.
Statistical analysis suggests the more analysts' forecast divergence for a currency pair, the higher the actual volatility is likely to be in that currency in the following month.
Estimates of future volatility are used to calculate the value of currency options, which give investors the right to buy or sell a currency at a fixed price in the future.
As a measure of financial risk, the wider the expected trading range for a currency the higher the cost of purchasing an option to trade it.
Quote of the Day: "Diplomacy is the sewer through which flows the scum and refuse of the political puddle. A man not fit to stay at home is just the man to send abroad."
--New York Herald Tribune (1857); cited in Chas Freeman, "Diplomacy in the Age of Terror" (Middle East Policy Council, October 4)
http://www.mepc.org/whats/100407.asp
DIPLOMACY IN THE AGE OF TERROR CHAS FREEMAN (MIDDLE EAST POLICY COUNCIL, OCTOBER 4): Now the United States has brought the Palestinian experience -- of humiliation, dislocation, and death -- to millions more in Afghanistan and Iraq. Israel and the United States each have our reasons for what we are doing, but no amount of public diplomacy can persuade the victims of our policies that their suffering is justified, or spin away their anger, or assuage their desire for reprisal and revenge. Since winning the Cold War, we have again surprised the world -- by reverting to ineffectual unilateralism, this time compounding it with militarism, swagger, self-righteousness, and complacent ignorance. To regain both spiritual strength and allied support, we must restore our country's reputation as the speaker for the world's conscience, not its most powerful abuser.
http://www.mepc.org/whats/100407.asp
IS U.S. WAGING WAR WITH RADICAL ISLAMISTS AGGRESSIVELY ENOUGH? - MORT KONDRACKE (ROLL CALL, OCTOBER 4): The question is, how aggressive is Hughes -- and the U.S. government -- in confronting not only al-Qaida, but the underlying ideology of radical Islam? Hughes and some of her aides often are so leery of offending Muslims that they hesitate even to use the term 'jihadist' because it has a religious interpretation. And even some officials who defend Hughes admit that the effort to combat radicalism needs more personnel and money.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/...th_radical.html
SURE, HE'S GOT GUNS FOR HIRE. BUT THEY'RE JUST NOT WORTH IT - P.W. SINGER (WASHINGTON POST, OCTOBER 7): In Iraq, the clear pattern shows that military outsourcing hurts American efforts in the "war of ideas," in Iraq and beyond. As one Iraqi official explained, even before the recent shootings: "They are part of the reason for all the hatred that is directed at Americans because people don't know them as Blackwater, they know them only as Americans. They are planting hatred because of these irresponsible acts." http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...0501677_pf.html
DIPLOMATIC CONVOYS IN IRAQ GET NEW RULE: RICE ORDERS PRESENCE OF GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS - PETER SPIEGEL (BALTIMORE SUN, OCTOBER 6): Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has ordered all diplomatic convoys in Baghdad to travel under the supervision of US government security officials, a drastic overhaul of operations in the wake of allegations that the department's private guards, Blackwater USA, have engaged in unnecessary violence in the Iraqi capital. U.S. officials and outside analysts said the move was a reaction to growing international outrage that was further eroding U.S. standing in both Europe and the Middle East. In those regions, the officials said, news reports about Blackwater's involvement in a Sept. 16 shooting that left at least 11 Iraqis dead have run repeatedly on local media, hindering the department's public diplomacy efforts.
http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/world/ira...0,3275969.story
BLACKWATER HIRES PR GIANT [BURSON-MARSTELLER ] IN IMAGE SEIGE - ASSOCIATED PRESS (NEW YORK TIMES, OCTOBER 5): http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/us/AP-Blac...agewanted=print
NEW DIPLO-BLOG STAR IN KABUL JOSHUA KEATING (PASSPORT, FOREIGN POLICY, OCTOBER 4): The US State Department's disappointing new blog Dipnote does not mean that the new genre of diplomatic blogging has no potential. To see how it's done right, check out the site of Sherard Cowper-Coles, the UK's ambassador to Afghanistan.
http://blog.foreignpolicy.com/node/6557 SHERARD COWPER-COLES BLOG AT
http://blogs.fco.gov.uk/blogs/sherard_cowper-coles/
BILL CLINTON WANTS TO IMPROVE U.S. IMAGE (UNITED PRESS INTERNATIONAL, OCTOBER 5): Former U.S. President Bill Clinton told interviewers in London that if his wife becomes president he could make public diplomacy his job.
http://www.upi.com/NewsTrack/Top_News/2007..._us_image/7902/
US, IRAN PLAY WITH FIRE - RAMESH THAKUR (BOSTON GLOBE, OCTOBER 4): The recent in-your-face introduction by Columbia University president Lee Bollinger of Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad may have delighted the US audience, but it has compounded America's image problem in the rest of the world.
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial...th_fire?mode=PF
OPENING OF US EMBASSY IN IRAQ DELAYED - ASSOCIATED PRESS (NEW YORK TIMES, OCTOBER 5) The opening of a mammoth, $600 million US Embassy in Baghdad, which had been planned for last month, has now been delayed well into next year, US officials said Thursday. The Vatican-sized compound, which will be the world's largest diplomatic mission, has been beset by construction and logistical problems.
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/us/AP-US-I...agewanted=print
IRAQ EMBASSY COST RISES $144 MILLION AMID PROJECT DELAYS: PLANNING, WORKMANSHIP CITED AS PROBLEMS - GLENN KESSLER (WASHINGTON POST, OCTOBER 7)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...0601450_pf.html SEE ALSO
THEY'RE SUPERSIZING THE BAGHDAD EMBASSY. BIG MISTAKE - JOHN BROWN (WASHINGTON POST, JULY 1, 2004)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/artic...-2004Jul10.html A MODEST PROPOSAL: LET?S JUST HAVE THE NEW AMERICAN EMBASSY IN BAGHDAD IN SECOND LIFE! - JOHN BROWN (COMMON DREAMS, JUNE 1, 2007)
http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/06/11/1803/
THE REALITY IN IRAQ DEPENDS ON WHO'S COUNTING - CLARK HOYT (NEW YORK TIMES, OCTOBER 7): There is plenty of evidence that civilian deaths from war-related violence have gone down since the end of last year -- although the cause of the decline is the subject of fierce argument. Whatever the numbers say, it isn't a pretty picture.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/07/opinion/...agewanted=print
STATE DEPT. IGNORED BLACKWATER WARNINGS: DIPLOMATS HAD RAISED CONCERNS ABOUT GUARDS' ENDANGERING OF IRAQI CIVILIANS, BUT THE COMPLAINTS GOT LITTLE ATTENTION - PAUL RICHTER (LOS ANGELES TIMES, OCTOBER 7)
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/na...1,4463745.story
I SURVIVED BLACKWATER: A FORMER U.S. OFFICIAL RECEIVED THE SECURITY COMPANY'S SERVICES -- AND WITNESSED ITS DISREGARD FOR IRAQI LIVES - JANESSA GANS (LOS ANGELES TIMES, OCTOBER 6): http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-...-opinion-center
BLACKWATER'S ENABLERS AT THE STATE DEPARTMENT ? JOHN NICHOLS (NATION, OCTOBER 2): When the State Department helps the company pay off the families of its victims and helps to extract killers from circumstances in which they might be arrested and prosecuted, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and her cronies become for more appropriate subjects of scrutiny than Erik Prince.
http://www.thenation.com/blogs/notion?pid=239181
OUTSOURCING WAR IS BAD BUSINESS - P.W. SINGER (WASHINGTON POST, OCTOBER 7)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...0501677_pf.html
BLACK MARKS FOR BLACKWATER ? EDITORIAL (BOSTON GLOBE, OCTOBER 6): There is no good reason for the Blackwater guards to operate outside US laws.
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial...ckwater?mode=PF
MARK OF TROUBLE - MICHAEL GRUNWALD (TIME, OCTOBER 4): The U.S. now has more private contractors than troops in Iraq. Blackwater's federal workload has grown from $204,000 to nearly $600 million since 2000. You could call it Halliburton with guns, except Halliburton has some guns too.
http://www.time.com/time/printout/0,8816,1668455,00.html
BLACKWATER IS JUST THE TIP OF THE ICEBERG - SUSAN RICE (HUFFINGTON POST, OCTOBER 5): By failing to control the contractors, or giving contracts to criminal enterprises, we squander our moral authority, waste tax dollars and undercut our men and women in uniform fighting far from home.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/susan-rice/b...ti_b_67379.html
BLACKWATER'S BACKWASH: THEIR LEGAL STATUS NEEDS CLARITY, BUT BUSH HASN'T RAMBO-IZED IRAQ - REVIEW & OUTLOOK (OPINION JOURNAL FROM THE WALL STREET JOURNAL EDITORIAL PAGE, OCTOBER 5)
http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/fe...ml?id=110010693
OPPOSING THE KURDISTAN OPTION FOR WITHDRAWAL - MATAN CHOREV (BOSTON GLOBE, OCTOBER 4): Among the runt options for Iraq drawdown, a redeployment of troops as a transition force might be the strategic and wise thing to do; adding Iraqi Kurdistan as the 51st state is not.
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial...hdrawal?mode=PF
IRAQ EXIT LOGISTICS - ARNAUD DE BORCHGRAVE (WASHINGTON TIMES, OCTOBER 7): Clearly any major withdrawal from Iraq would have to be a phased operation and some equipment would have to be destroyed or transferred to the new Iraqi army.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.d...mplate=printart
MY BATTLE WITH NORMAN PODHORETZ. WORLD WAR V - TODD GITLIN (NEW REPUBLIC, SEPTEMBER 28): The awful trouble is, Iraq is not bound for glory. Psychologically, this poses a problem for true believers like Podhoretz, author World War IV: The Long Struggle Against Islamofascism. What better solution than to point a withering finger at the barbarians at home?
http://www.tnr.com/doc_posts.mhtml?i=20071...;s=gitlin100807
WHY ARE THERE NO WAR CRIMES TRIALS? - ANDREW GREELEY (CHICAGO SUN-TIMES, OCTOBER 5/COMMON DREAMS): Why was it necessary to invade Iraq? Because they attacked us? But they did not. Most of the 9/11 killers were in fact Saudis. Because they had weapons that might kill us? It turns out that they did not. Why is it necessary to continue this pointless, never-ending war? For the sake of democracy in Iraq? For victory? Because the president says it?s the ?right thing? to do? So that a future president will be blamed for ?weakness??
http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/10/05/4344/
BUSH'S GIFT OF VICTORY TO IRAN'S HARDMEN: WITH ITS EVERY MOVE IN IRAQ, THE WHITE HOUSE HAS STRENGTHENED THE HAND OF TEHRAN - PETER GALBRAITH (SUNDAY TIMES, LONDON OCTOBER 7)
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/worl...icle2602615.ece
MAKING THE SAME MISTAKE TWICE CHARLIE REESE (ANTIWAR.COM, OCTOBER 6): If we do attack Iran, there will be hell to pay.
http://www.antiwar.com/reese/?articleid=11716
THE FALLOUT FROM AN ATTACK ON IRAN WOULD BE DEVASTATING: THE DRUMBEAT OF WAR IN WASHINGTON IS GROWING - AND SO MUST PUBLIC PRESSURE AGAINST BRITISH INVOLVEMENT IN SUCH FOLLY ? SEUMAS MILNE (GUARDIAN, OCTOBER 5/COMMON DREAMS)
http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/10/05/4353/
THE GUARDS RUN THE SHOW IN IRAN: THEY HAVE A HAND IN THE NUCLEAR PROGRAM, ATTACKS IN IRAQ, AND POLITICS - ABBAS WILLIAM SAMII (CHRISTIAN SCIENCE MONITOR, OCTOBER 5): A combination of assertive diplomacy and robust sanctions that target the real engines of the regime -- its energy sector, trade, and finance -- is likely to affect Iranian behavior.
http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/1005/p09s02-coop.html
FIVE BEST: PERSIAN GULF -- INSIGHTS INTO IRAN CAN BE GLEANED FROM THESE MASTERLY WORKS - MICHAEL LEDEEN (OPINION JOURNAL FROM THE WALL STREET JOURNAL EDITORIAL PAGE, OCTOBER 6)
http://www.opinionjournal.com/weekend/fivebest/?id=110010701
SO WHO'S AFRAID OF THE ISRAEL LOBBY? - RAY MCGOVERN (ANTIWAR.COM, OCTOBER 6): Israel's illegal 40-year control over and confiscation of land in the occupied territories and US enabling support (particularly the one-sided support by the current U.S. administration) go a long way toward explaining why it is that 1.3 bllion Muslims "hate us."
http://www.antiwar.com/mcgovern/?articleid=11719
TWO KNIGHTS AND A DRAGON: THE POWER OF THE ISRAEL LOBBY ? URI AVNERY (ANTIWAR.COM, OCTOBER 4): John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt, the authors of The Israel Lobby and US Foreign Policy, are, of course, accused of anti-Semitism, racism and hatred of Israel. What Israel? It is the Isreal Lobby itself that hates a large part of Israel. Bush and his people believe -- even without the input of the Lobby -- that it would be advantageous for the U.S. to establish a permanent American military presence in the middle of this region of huge oil reserves. This counter-productive act was one of the main objectives of the Iraq war, side by side with the desire to eliminate one of Israel's most dangerous enemies.
http://www.antiwar.com/avnery/?articleid=11718
MILTON VIORST ON 'THE ISRAEL LOBBY' - MILTON VIORST (TRUTHDIG, OCTOBER 4): Why, when it comes to AIPAC, do so many Americans abandon the skepticism they apply to other interests within the political spectrum? Europe is much less accommodating to Israel. AIPAC, naturally, blames the difference on Europe?s anti-Semitism, though -- apart from Europe?s Muslims, who start with political grievances against Israel -- there is little evidence to support its theory. Mearsheimer and Walt credit AIPAC?s skillful manipulation of the system, but the search for an answer needs more.
http://www.truthdig.com/arts_culture/item/...e_israel_lobby/ "IT DOESN'T GET ANY WORSE THAN THAT, RAY": UNMASKING AIPAC - WILLIAM A. COOK (COUNTERPUNCH, OCTOBER 5): ?Isn't it obvious today that the direction of America's policies regarding Iran, and our almost certain to be pre-emptive invasion of this nation on behalf of Israel, is directed by the same coterie of men who pushed us into the disastrous war against Iraq -- Podhoretz, Wurmser, Perle, Feith, Crystal, Kagan, Krouthammer [sic], Abrams and others too numerous to mention, the hounds of war that find no guilt in sending the sons and daughters of others to fight the wars they wage so eloquently in their heads as they sit in front of their computers guiding to their deaths those they never met.?
http://www.counterpunch.org/cook10052007.html
LOBBYING DEGREE ZERO - DANIEL LAZARE (NATION, OCTOBER 4): If Mearsheimer and Walt have accomplished anything, it is to demonstrate that nothing is beyond criticism, including the American-Israeli alliance.
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20071022/lazare
CONSPIRACY THEORY: WHO REALLY DRIVES AMERICA'S POLICY TOWARD THE MIDDLE EAST? [REVIEW OF THE ISRAEL LOBBY AND U.S. FOREIGN POLICY BY JOHN J. MEARSHEIMER AND STEPHEN M. WALT; THE DEADLIEST LIES: THE ISRAEL LOBBY AND THE MYTH OF JEWISH CONTROL BY ABRAHAM H. FOXMAN] - SAMUEL G. FREEDMAN (WASHINGTON POST, OCTOBER 7): Mearsheimer and Walt simply refuse to believe that all the lobbying in the world on Israel's behalf couldn't have succeeded had there not also been enough voters, the vast number of them non-Jews, who genuinely do believe in the moral and strategic foundations of the unique, and uniquely controversial, U.S.-Israeli relationship.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...0402101_pf.html
COLUMN ONE: RICE'S RABBIT HOLE ? CAROLINE GLICK (JERUSALEM POST, OCTOBER 4): It is far from clear what American interests Rice is advancing with her unswerving effort to reach a peace accord between Israel and Fatah. Indeed, Rice's efforts are detrimental to US interests in the region. Unfortunately, due to Rice's missteps, the US today has little influence over the Arab states.
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid...ticle%2FPrinter
BIG DEAL WITH NORTH KOREA EDITORIAL (BOSTON GLOBE, OCTOBER 6): It has been a long time coming, but President Bush has finally begun to cut the deals with North Korea that were always required to eliminate the world's most dangerous weapons from the Korean peninsula.
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial...ith_north_korea? mode=PF BUSH-RICE ENDURING VICTORY GORDON PRATHER (ANTIWAR.COM, OCTOBER 6): What is clear is that, irrespective of what the Six-Party talks accomplish, both Koreas are deadly serious about negotiating -- in a separate forum -- a peace treaty to formally end the Korean War, which began in 1950. But there?s a problem. Bush.
http://www.antiwar.com/prather/?articleid=11715
A FLAWED NORTH KOREA DEAL EDITORIAL (WASHINGTON TIMES, OCTOBER 5): Congress would do well to take a long, careful look at the merits of the U.S. agreement with North Korea.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article? AID=/20071005/EDITORIAL/110050001/1013/editorial&template=printart
NORTH KOREAN MYSTERY - JIM HOAGLAND (WASHINGTON POST, OCTOBER 7): Why is President Bush accepting the promises of a regime he has regularly excoriated -- at a time when officials in his administration make a credible case that North Korea has just been caught helping Syria with nuclear technology?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...0501765_pf.html
VERIFICATION HOLDS THE KEY - ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN (WASHINGTON TIMES, OCTOBER 7): If we are to have any confidence of truly ending North Korea's nuclear threat, we must change our deal-at-any-cost approach to the negotiations and stop making unilateral concessions to the regime. Instead, we must insist on Pyongyang's taking complete, verifiable and irreversible steps to dismantle its nuclear program. North Korea should earn its rewards, or it will simply come to view them as its by right. (Ileana Ros-Lehtinen of Florida serves is the senior Republican on the U.S. House of Representatives' Foreign Affairs Committee.)
http://www.washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.d...mplate=printart
BURMA'S BLOODY SILENCE: WHILE THE REGIME CRUSHES POPULAR PROTESTS, THE U.N. SECURITY COUNCIL PREPARES TO . . . LISTEN TO A REPORT - EDITORIAL (WASHINGTON POST, OCTOBER 5): The response of the Bush administration and European countries to the situation in Burma has been relatively tough: The US Embassy has been authorized to provide honest reports on the crackdown to the outside world, and Europe is working on a tightening of its visa restrictions and other sanctions against the junta.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...0402234_pf.html
A NEW STRATEGY FOR BURMA - JARED GENSER (BOSTON GLOBE, OCTOBER 5): The Burmese people have, yet again, signaled to the world that they yearn to be free. The question is whether the international community will heed their cry for help.
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial...r_burma?mode=PF
MANY CZECHS LOVE U.S., BUT SAY 'HOLD THE RADAR' - NICHOLAS KULISH (INTERNATIONAL HERALD TRIBUNE, OCTOBER 1): In Poland, proposed US missile interceptors, part of the same defense system, are unpopular but have not become a serious political issue. But in the Czech Republic, with the lower house of Parliament closely divided between the center-right government and the left-wing opposition, the fight is a high-profile one and passage of the United States proposal is anything but certain -- even though Czech politicians of almost all stripes speak of the debt their country owes the United States for its freedom.
http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/10/01/europe/01czech.php
DON'T MILITARIZE U.S.-AFRICA TIES - FRIDA BERRIGAN AND WILLIAM D. HARTUNG (BALTIMORESUN.COM, OCTOBER 5)
www.baltimoresun.com/news/opinion/oped/bal-op.africa05oct05,0,7098822.story
THE WAY WE LIVE NOW: DEMOCRATOSIS - NOAH FELDMAN (NEW YORK TIMES, OCTOBER 7): The expansion of democracy is for us what empire was for the great world powers before us: a rallying cry that makes us proud and keeps us unified -- while also serving our interests. Our national faith in the value of democracy is not wrong, whatever the world?s skepticism and our evident shortcomings in implementing it.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/07/magazine...agewanted=print
TORTURE, CONTINUED - DAN FROOMKIN (WASHINGTONPOST.COM, OCTOBER 4): Finding out what our government has been doing in our name, and openly debating our interrogation policies, should have been high on the national agenda since the disclosure of the shockingly inhumane treatment of prisoners at Abu Ghraib. Few other issues speak so clearly to how we see ourselves as a people -- and how others see us. But the White House's non-denial denials, disingenuous euphemisms and oppressive secrecy have repeatedly stifled any genuine discourse. Bush shuts down discussion by declaring that "we don't torture" -- yet he won't even say how he defines the term.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...0401359_pf.html
THE LATEST REVELATIONS OF LAWBREAKING, TORTURE AND EXTREMISM - GLENN GREENWALD (SALON, OCTOBER 4)
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/200...ness/index.html
THE SECRET STATE OF TORTURE - TOM HAYDEN (NATION, OCTOBER 5): If torture is winning on the field of rhetoric, it must be stopped in reality. Otherwise, we will be accepting America's status as an emptied democracy that cannot put an end to its own gulags.
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20071022/hayden
MORE TORTURE MEMOS: THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION'S SECRET LEGAL DECISIONS DEFY CONGRESS AND THE COURTS ? EDITORIAL (WASHINGTON POST, OCTOBER 7): President Bush said Friday, as he has many times before, that "this government does not torture people." But presidential declarations can't change the facts.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...0600940_pf.html
ON TORTURE AND AMERICAN VALUES - EDITORIAL (NEW YORK TIMES, OCTOBER 7): Once upon a time, it was the United States that urged all nations to obey the letter and the spirit of international treaties and protect human rights and liberties. American leaders denounced secret prisons where people were held without charges, tortured and killed. And the people in much of the world, if not their governments, respected the United States for its values. The Bush administration has dishonored that history and squandered that respect.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/07/opinion/...amp;oref=slogin
GITMO: AMERICA'S BLACK HOLE - CLIVE STAFFORD SMITH (LOS ANGELES TIMES, OCOTBER 5/COMMON DREAMS): Most of the secrecy in Guantanamo involves suppressing bad news about the base rather than anything that should really be classified.
http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/10/05/4351/
EIGHT MORE WRONGLY IMPRISONED MEN ARE QUIETLY RELEASED: THE ANONYMOUS VICTIMS OF GUANTÁNAMO - ANDY WORTHINGTON (COUNTERPUNCH, OCTOBER 5)
http://www.counterpunch.org/worthington10052007.html
RESTORE HABEAS, RESTORE SECURITY: EVEN IN RISKY TIMES, CHAMPIONING THE RULE OF LAW IS THE BEST WAY TO PROTECT AMERICAN SOCIETY AND ITS FOUNDING VALUES - WILLIAM H. NEUKOM (CHRISTIAN SCIENCE MONITOR, OCTOBER 5): Some argue that military necessity makes normal court review for detainees an unaffordable luxury, but they should consider this: Even Israel, which lives in constant threat of deadly attack, ensures a prompt court review of all suspected terrorists.
http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/1005/p09s01-coop.html
GOODBYE, GWOT AL KAMEN (IN THE LOOP, WASHINGTON POST, OCTOBER 5): Seems the incoming chairman of the Joint Chiefs, Adm. Michael Mullen, has banned the use of the phrase "Global War on Terror" (GWOT) and has prohibited using it "in any future correspondence," according to a Sept. 27 e-mail from a Mullen aide. Bush, at a White House meeting of senior officials, reportedly objected to the change, noting that no one had checked with him. It was still a war as far as he was concerned, he said. By July, Rumsfeld was back to using GWOT in his speeches. So the Decider has Decided.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...0402281_pf.html
'3:10 TO YUMA' HAS OBVIOUS SIMILARITIES WITH THE WAR IN IRAQ - DAVID CORBETT (SFGATE, SEPTEMBER 30): Will the Iraq campaign, and the larger war on terror, reduce to the grim choice: an honorable but tragic sacrifice on one hand, a morally tainted survival on the other? Whose blood, and how much of it, needs to be lost before we know?
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?...0/INM7SDEDK.DTL
A NUCLEAR-FREE WORLD - IVO DAALDER AND JOHN HOLUM (BOSTON GLOBE, OCTOBER 5): There is much that the United States can do to lift the dark nuclear shadow over the world.
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial...e_world?mode=PF
--New York Herald Tribune (1857); cited in Chas Freeman, "Diplomacy in the Age of Terror" (Middle East Policy Council, October 4)
http://www.mepc.org/whats/100407.asp
DIPLOMACY IN THE AGE OF TERROR CHAS FREEMAN (MIDDLE EAST POLICY COUNCIL, OCTOBER 4): Now the United States has brought the Palestinian experience -- of humiliation, dislocation, and death -- to millions more in Afghanistan and Iraq. Israel and the United States each have our reasons for what we are doing, but no amount of public diplomacy can persuade the victims of our policies that their suffering is justified, or spin away their anger, or assuage their desire for reprisal and revenge. Since winning the Cold War, we have again surprised the world -- by reverting to ineffectual unilateralism, this time compounding it with militarism, swagger, self-righteousness, and complacent ignorance. To regain both spiritual strength and allied support, we must restore our country's reputation as the speaker for the world's conscience, not its most powerful abuser.
http://www.mepc.org/whats/100407.asp
IS U.S. WAGING WAR WITH RADICAL ISLAMISTS AGGRESSIVELY ENOUGH? - MORT KONDRACKE (ROLL CALL, OCTOBER 4): The question is, how aggressive is Hughes -- and the U.S. government -- in confronting not only al-Qaida, but the underlying ideology of radical Islam? Hughes and some of her aides often are so leery of offending Muslims that they hesitate even to use the term 'jihadist' because it has a religious interpretation. And even some officials who defend Hughes admit that the effort to combat radicalism needs more personnel and money.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/...th_radical.html
SURE, HE'S GOT GUNS FOR HIRE. BUT THEY'RE JUST NOT WORTH IT - P.W. SINGER (WASHINGTON POST, OCTOBER 7): In Iraq, the clear pattern shows that military outsourcing hurts American efforts in the "war of ideas," in Iraq and beyond. As one Iraqi official explained, even before the recent shootings: "They are part of the reason for all the hatred that is directed at Americans because people don't know them as Blackwater, they know them only as Americans. They are planting hatred because of these irresponsible acts." http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...0501677_pf.html
DIPLOMATIC CONVOYS IN IRAQ GET NEW RULE: RICE ORDERS PRESENCE OF GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS - PETER SPIEGEL (BALTIMORE SUN, OCTOBER 6): Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has ordered all diplomatic convoys in Baghdad to travel under the supervision of US government security officials, a drastic overhaul of operations in the wake of allegations that the department's private guards, Blackwater USA, have engaged in unnecessary violence in the Iraqi capital. U.S. officials and outside analysts said the move was a reaction to growing international outrage that was further eroding U.S. standing in both Europe and the Middle East. In those regions, the officials said, news reports about Blackwater's involvement in a Sept. 16 shooting that left at least 11 Iraqis dead have run repeatedly on local media, hindering the department's public diplomacy efforts.
http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/world/ira...0,3275969.story
BLACKWATER HIRES PR GIANT [BURSON-MARSTELLER ] IN IMAGE SEIGE - ASSOCIATED PRESS (NEW YORK TIMES, OCTOBER 5): http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/us/AP-Blac...agewanted=print
NEW DIPLO-BLOG STAR IN KABUL JOSHUA KEATING (PASSPORT, FOREIGN POLICY, OCTOBER 4): The US State Department's disappointing new blog Dipnote does not mean that the new genre of diplomatic blogging has no potential. To see how it's done right, check out the site of Sherard Cowper-Coles, the UK's ambassador to Afghanistan.
http://blog.foreignpolicy.com/node/6557 SHERARD COWPER-COLES BLOG AT
http://blogs.fco.gov.uk/blogs/sherard_cowper-coles/
BILL CLINTON WANTS TO IMPROVE U.S. IMAGE (UNITED PRESS INTERNATIONAL, OCTOBER 5): Former U.S. President Bill Clinton told interviewers in London that if his wife becomes president he could make public diplomacy his job.
http://www.upi.com/NewsTrack/Top_News/2007..._us_image/7902/
US, IRAN PLAY WITH FIRE - RAMESH THAKUR (BOSTON GLOBE, OCTOBER 4): The recent in-your-face introduction by Columbia University president Lee Bollinger of Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad may have delighted the US audience, but it has compounded America's image problem in the rest of the world.
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial...th_fire?mode=PF
OPENING OF US EMBASSY IN IRAQ DELAYED - ASSOCIATED PRESS (NEW YORK TIMES, OCTOBER 5) The opening of a mammoth, $600 million US Embassy in Baghdad, which had been planned for last month, has now been delayed well into next year, US officials said Thursday. The Vatican-sized compound, which will be the world's largest diplomatic mission, has been beset by construction and logistical problems.
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/us/AP-US-I...agewanted=print
IRAQ EMBASSY COST RISES $144 MILLION AMID PROJECT DELAYS: PLANNING, WORKMANSHIP CITED AS PROBLEMS - GLENN KESSLER (WASHINGTON POST, OCTOBER 7)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...0601450_pf.html SEE ALSO
THEY'RE SUPERSIZING THE BAGHDAD EMBASSY. BIG MISTAKE - JOHN BROWN (WASHINGTON POST, JULY 1, 2004)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/artic...-2004Jul10.html A MODEST PROPOSAL: LET?S JUST HAVE THE NEW AMERICAN EMBASSY IN BAGHDAD IN SECOND LIFE! - JOHN BROWN (COMMON DREAMS, JUNE 1, 2007)
http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/06/11/1803/
THE REALITY IN IRAQ DEPENDS ON WHO'S COUNTING - CLARK HOYT (NEW YORK TIMES, OCTOBER 7): There is plenty of evidence that civilian deaths from war-related violence have gone down since the end of last year -- although the cause of the decline is the subject of fierce argument. Whatever the numbers say, it isn't a pretty picture.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/07/opinion/...agewanted=print
STATE DEPT. IGNORED BLACKWATER WARNINGS: DIPLOMATS HAD RAISED CONCERNS ABOUT GUARDS' ENDANGERING OF IRAQI CIVILIANS, BUT THE COMPLAINTS GOT LITTLE ATTENTION - PAUL RICHTER (LOS ANGELES TIMES, OCTOBER 7)
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/na...1,4463745.story
I SURVIVED BLACKWATER: A FORMER U.S. OFFICIAL RECEIVED THE SECURITY COMPANY'S SERVICES -- AND WITNESSED ITS DISREGARD FOR IRAQI LIVES - JANESSA GANS (LOS ANGELES TIMES, OCTOBER 6): http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-...-opinion-center
BLACKWATER'S ENABLERS AT THE STATE DEPARTMENT ? JOHN NICHOLS (NATION, OCTOBER 2): When the State Department helps the company pay off the families of its victims and helps to extract killers from circumstances in which they might be arrested and prosecuted, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and her cronies become for more appropriate subjects of scrutiny than Erik Prince.
http://www.thenation.com/blogs/notion?pid=239181
OUTSOURCING WAR IS BAD BUSINESS - P.W. SINGER (WASHINGTON POST, OCTOBER 7)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...0501677_pf.html
BLACK MARKS FOR BLACKWATER ? EDITORIAL (BOSTON GLOBE, OCTOBER 6): There is no good reason for the Blackwater guards to operate outside US laws.
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial...ckwater?mode=PF
MARK OF TROUBLE - MICHAEL GRUNWALD (TIME, OCTOBER 4): The U.S. now has more private contractors than troops in Iraq. Blackwater's federal workload has grown from $204,000 to nearly $600 million since 2000. You could call it Halliburton with guns, except Halliburton has some guns too.
http://www.time.com/time/printout/0,8816,1668455,00.html
BLACKWATER IS JUST THE TIP OF THE ICEBERG - SUSAN RICE (HUFFINGTON POST, OCTOBER 5): By failing to control the contractors, or giving contracts to criminal enterprises, we squander our moral authority, waste tax dollars and undercut our men and women in uniform fighting far from home.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/susan-rice/b...ti_b_67379.html
BLACKWATER'S BACKWASH: THEIR LEGAL STATUS NEEDS CLARITY, BUT BUSH HASN'T RAMBO-IZED IRAQ - REVIEW & OUTLOOK (OPINION JOURNAL FROM THE WALL STREET JOURNAL EDITORIAL PAGE, OCTOBER 5)
http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/fe...ml?id=110010693
OPPOSING THE KURDISTAN OPTION FOR WITHDRAWAL - MATAN CHOREV (BOSTON GLOBE, OCTOBER 4): Among the runt options for Iraq drawdown, a redeployment of troops as a transition force might be the strategic and wise thing to do; adding Iraqi Kurdistan as the 51st state is not.
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial...hdrawal?mode=PF
IRAQ EXIT LOGISTICS - ARNAUD DE BORCHGRAVE (WASHINGTON TIMES, OCTOBER 7): Clearly any major withdrawal from Iraq would have to be a phased operation and some equipment would have to be destroyed or transferred to the new Iraqi army.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.d...mplate=printart
MY BATTLE WITH NORMAN PODHORETZ. WORLD WAR V - TODD GITLIN (NEW REPUBLIC, SEPTEMBER 28): The awful trouble is, Iraq is not bound for glory. Psychologically, this poses a problem for true believers like Podhoretz, author World War IV: The Long Struggle Against Islamofascism. What better solution than to point a withering finger at the barbarians at home?
http://www.tnr.com/doc_posts.mhtml?i=20071...;s=gitlin100807
WHY ARE THERE NO WAR CRIMES TRIALS? - ANDREW GREELEY (CHICAGO SUN-TIMES, OCTOBER 5/COMMON DREAMS): Why was it necessary to invade Iraq? Because they attacked us? But they did not. Most of the 9/11 killers were in fact Saudis. Because they had weapons that might kill us? It turns out that they did not. Why is it necessary to continue this pointless, never-ending war? For the sake of democracy in Iraq? For victory? Because the president says it?s the ?right thing? to do? So that a future president will be blamed for ?weakness??
http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/10/05/4344/
BUSH'S GIFT OF VICTORY TO IRAN'S HARDMEN: WITH ITS EVERY MOVE IN IRAQ, THE WHITE HOUSE HAS STRENGTHENED THE HAND OF TEHRAN - PETER GALBRAITH (SUNDAY TIMES, LONDON OCTOBER 7)
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/worl...icle2602615.ece
MAKING THE SAME MISTAKE TWICE CHARLIE REESE (ANTIWAR.COM, OCTOBER 6): If we do attack Iran, there will be hell to pay.
http://www.antiwar.com/reese/?articleid=11716
THE FALLOUT FROM AN ATTACK ON IRAN WOULD BE DEVASTATING: THE DRUMBEAT OF WAR IN WASHINGTON IS GROWING - AND SO MUST PUBLIC PRESSURE AGAINST BRITISH INVOLVEMENT IN SUCH FOLLY ? SEUMAS MILNE (GUARDIAN, OCTOBER 5/COMMON DREAMS)
http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/10/05/4353/
THE GUARDS RUN THE SHOW IN IRAN: THEY HAVE A HAND IN THE NUCLEAR PROGRAM, ATTACKS IN IRAQ, AND POLITICS - ABBAS WILLIAM SAMII (CHRISTIAN SCIENCE MONITOR, OCTOBER 5): A combination of assertive diplomacy and robust sanctions that target the real engines of the regime -- its energy sector, trade, and finance -- is likely to affect Iranian behavior.
http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/1005/p09s02-coop.html
FIVE BEST: PERSIAN GULF -- INSIGHTS INTO IRAN CAN BE GLEANED FROM THESE MASTERLY WORKS - MICHAEL LEDEEN (OPINION JOURNAL FROM THE WALL STREET JOURNAL EDITORIAL PAGE, OCTOBER 6)
http://www.opinionjournal.com/weekend/fivebest/?id=110010701
SO WHO'S AFRAID OF THE ISRAEL LOBBY? - RAY MCGOVERN (ANTIWAR.COM, OCTOBER 6): Israel's illegal 40-year control over and confiscation of land in the occupied territories and US enabling support (particularly the one-sided support by the current U.S. administration) go a long way toward explaining why it is that 1.3 bllion Muslims "hate us."
http://www.antiwar.com/mcgovern/?articleid=11719
TWO KNIGHTS AND A DRAGON: THE POWER OF THE ISRAEL LOBBY ? URI AVNERY (ANTIWAR.COM, OCTOBER 4): John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt, the authors of The Israel Lobby and US Foreign Policy, are, of course, accused of anti-Semitism, racism and hatred of Israel. What Israel? It is the Isreal Lobby itself that hates a large part of Israel. Bush and his people believe -- even without the input of the Lobby -- that it would be advantageous for the U.S. to establish a permanent American military presence in the middle of this region of huge oil reserves. This counter-productive act was one of the main objectives of the Iraq war, side by side with the desire to eliminate one of Israel's most dangerous enemies.
http://www.antiwar.com/avnery/?articleid=11718
MILTON VIORST ON 'THE ISRAEL LOBBY' - MILTON VIORST (TRUTHDIG, OCTOBER 4): Why, when it comes to AIPAC, do so many Americans abandon the skepticism they apply to other interests within the political spectrum? Europe is much less accommodating to Israel. AIPAC, naturally, blames the difference on Europe?s anti-Semitism, though -- apart from Europe?s Muslims, who start with political grievances against Israel -- there is little evidence to support its theory. Mearsheimer and Walt credit AIPAC?s skillful manipulation of the system, but the search for an answer needs more.
http://www.truthdig.com/arts_culture/item/...e_israel_lobby/ "IT DOESN'T GET ANY WORSE THAN THAT, RAY": UNMASKING AIPAC - WILLIAM A. COOK (COUNTERPUNCH, OCTOBER 5): ?Isn't it obvious today that the direction of America's policies regarding Iran, and our almost certain to be pre-emptive invasion of this nation on behalf of Israel, is directed by the same coterie of men who pushed us into the disastrous war against Iraq -- Podhoretz, Wurmser, Perle, Feith, Crystal, Kagan, Krouthammer [sic], Abrams and others too numerous to mention, the hounds of war that find no guilt in sending the sons and daughters of others to fight the wars they wage so eloquently in their heads as they sit in front of their computers guiding to their deaths those they never met.?
http://www.counterpunch.org/cook10052007.html
LOBBYING DEGREE ZERO - DANIEL LAZARE (NATION, OCTOBER 4): If Mearsheimer and Walt have accomplished anything, it is to demonstrate that nothing is beyond criticism, including the American-Israeli alliance.
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20071022/lazare
CONSPIRACY THEORY: WHO REALLY DRIVES AMERICA'S POLICY TOWARD THE MIDDLE EAST? [REVIEW OF THE ISRAEL LOBBY AND U.S. FOREIGN POLICY BY JOHN J. MEARSHEIMER AND STEPHEN M. WALT; THE DEADLIEST LIES: THE ISRAEL LOBBY AND THE MYTH OF JEWISH CONTROL BY ABRAHAM H. FOXMAN] - SAMUEL G. FREEDMAN (WASHINGTON POST, OCTOBER 7): Mearsheimer and Walt simply refuse to believe that all the lobbying in the world on Israel's behalf couldn't have succeeded had there not also been enough voters, the vast number of them non-Jews, who genuinely do believe in the moral and strategic foundations of the unique, and uniquely controversial, U.S.-Israeli relationship.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...0402101_pf.html
COLUMN ONE: RICE'S RABBIT HOLE ? CAROLINE GLICK (JERUSALEM POST, OCTOBER 4): It is far from clear what American interests Rice is advancing with her unswerving effort to reach a peace accord between Israel and Fatah. Indeed, Rice's efforts are detrimental to US interests in the region. Unfortunately, due to Rice's missteps, the US today has little influence over the Arab states.
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid...ticle%2FPrinter
BIG DEAL WITH NORTH KOREA EDITORIAL (BOSTON GLOBE, OCTOBER 6): It has been a long time coming, but President Bush has finally begun to cut the deals with North Korea that were always required to eliminate the world's most dangerous weapons from the Korean peninsula.
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial...ith_north_korea? mode=PF BUSH-RICE ENDURING VICTORY GORDON PRATHER (ANTIWAR.COM, OCTOBER 6): What is clear is that, irrespective of what the Six-Party talks accomplish, both Koreas are deadly serious about negotiating -- in a separate forum -- a peace treaty to formally end the Korean War, which began in 1950. But there?s a problem. Bush.
http://www.antiwar.com/prather/?articleid=11715
A FLAWED NORTH KOREA DEAL EDITORIAL (WASHINGTON TIMES, OCTOBER 5): Congress would do well to take a long, careful look at the merits of the U.S. agreement with North Korea.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article? AID=/20071005/EDITORIAL/110050001/1013/editorial&template=printart
NORTH KOREAN MYSTERY - JIM HOAGLAND (WASHINGTON POST, OCTOBER 7): Why is President Bush accepting the promises of a regime he has regularly excoriated -- at a time when officials in his administration make a credible case that North Korea has just been caught helping Syria with nuclear technology?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...0501765_pf.html
VERIFICATION HOLDS THE KEY - ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN (WASHINGTON TIMES, OCTOBER 7): If we are to have any confidence of truly ending North Korea's nuclear threat, we must change our deal-at-any-cost approach to the negotiations and stop making unilateral concessions to the regime. Instead, we must insist on Pyongyang's taking complete, verifiable and irreversible steps to dismantle its nuclear program. North Korea should earn its rewards, or it will simply come to view them as its by right. (Ileana Ros-Lehtinen of Florida serves is the senior Republican on the U.S. House of Representatives' Foreign Affairs Committee.)
http://www.washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.d...mplate=printart
BURMA'S BLOODY SILENCE: WHILE THE REGIME CRUSHES POPULAR PROTESTS, THE U.N. SECURITY COUNCIL PREPARES TO . . . LISTEN TO A REPORT - EDITORIAL (WASHINGTON POST, OCTOBER 5): The response of the Bush administration and European countries to the situation in Burma has been relatively tough: The US Embassy has been authorized to provide honest reports on the crackdown to the outside world, and Europe is working on a tightening of its visa restrictions and other sanctions against the junta.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...0402234_pf.html
A NEW STRATEGY FOR BURMA - JARED GENSER (BOSTON GLOBE, OCTOBER 5): The Burmese people have, yet again, signaled to the world that they yearn to be free. The question is whether the international community will heed their cry for help.
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial...r_burma?mode=PF
MANY CZECHS LOVE U.S., BUT SAY 'HOLD THE RADAR' - NICHOLAS KULISH (INTERNATIONAL HERALD TRIBUNE, OCTOBER 1): In Poland, proposed US missile interceptors, part of the same defense system, are unpopular but have not become a serious political issue. But in the Czech Republic, with the lower house of Parliament closely divided between the center-right government and the left-wing opposition, the fight is a high-profile one and passage of the United States proposal is anything but certain -- even though Czech politicians of almost all stripes speak of the debt their country owes the United States for its freedom.
http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/10/01/europe/01czech.php
DON'T MILITARIZE U.S.-AFRICA TIES - FRIDA BERRIGAN AND WILLIAM D. HARTUNG (BALTIMORESUN.COM, OCTOBER 5)
www.baltimoresun.com/news/opinion/oped/bal-op.africa05oct05,0,7098822.story
THE WAY WE LIVE NOW: DEMOCRATOSIS - NOAH FELDMAN (NEW YORK TIMES, OCTOBER 7): The expansion of democracy is for us what empire was for the great world powers before us: a rallying cry that makes us proud and keeps us unified -- while also serving our interests. Our national faith in the value of democracy is not wrong, whatever the world?s skepticism and our evident shortcomings in implementing it.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/07/magazine...agewanted=print
TORTURE, CONTINUED - DAN FROOMKIN (WASHINGTONPOST.COM, OCTOBER 4): Finding out what our government has been doing in our name, and openly debating our interrogation policies, should have been high on the national agenda since the disclosure of the shockingly inhumane treatment of prisoners at Abu Ghraib. Few other issues speak so clearly to how we see ourselves as a people -- and how others see us. But the White House's non-denial denials, disingenuous euphemisms and oppressive secrecy have repeatedly stifled any genuine discourse. Bush shuts down discussion by declaring that "we don't torture" -- yet he won't even say how he defines the term.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...0401359_pf.html
THE LATEST REVELATIONS OF LAWBREAKING, TORTURE AND EXTREMISM - GLENN GREENWALD (SALON, OCTOBER 4)
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/200...ness/index.html
THE SECRET STATE OF TORTURE - TOM HAYDEN (NATION, OCTOBER 5): If torture is winning on the field of rhetoric, it must be stopped in reality. Otherwise, we will be accepting America's status as an emptied democracy that cannot put an end to its own gulags.
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20071022/hayden
MORE TORTURE MEMOS: THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION'S SECRET LEGAL DECISIONS DEFY CONGRESS AND THE COURTS ? EDITORIAL (WASHINGTON POST, OCTOBER 7): President Bush said Friday, as he has many times before, that "this government does not torture people." But presidential declarations can't change the facts.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...0600940_pf.html
ON TORTURE AND AMERICAN VALUES - EDITORIAL (NEW YORK TIMES, OCTOBER 7): Once upon a time, it was the United States that urged all nations to obey the letter and the spirit of international treaties and protect human rights and liberties. American leaders denounced secret prisons where people were held without charges, tortured and killed. And the people in much of the world, if not their governments, respected the United States for its values. The Bush administration has dishonored that history and squandered that respect.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/07/opinion/...amp;oref=slogin
GITMO: AMERICA'S BLACK HOLE - CLIVE STAFFORD SMITH (LOS ANGELES TIMES, OCOTBER 5/COMMON DREAMS): Most of the secrecy in Guantanamo involves suppressing bad news about the base rather than anything that should really be classified.
http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/10/05/4351/
EIGHT MORE WRONGLY IMPRISONED MEN ARE QUIETLY RELEASED: THE ANONYMOUS VICTIMS OF GUANTÁNAMO - ANDY WORTHINGTON (COUNTERPUNCH, OCTOBER 5)
http://www.counterpunch.org/worthington10052007.html
RESTORE HABEAS, RESTORE SECURITY: EVEN IN RISKY TIMES, CHAMPIONING THE RULE OF LAW IS THE BEST WAY TO PROTECT AMERICAN SOCIETY AND ITS FOUNDING VALUES - WILLIAM H. NEUKOM (CHRISTIAN SCIENCE MONITOR, OCTOBER 5): Some argue that military necessity makes normal court review for detainees an unaffordable luxury, but they should consider this: Even Israel, which lives in constant threat of deadly attack, ensures a prompt court review of all suspected terrorists.
http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/1005/p09s01-coop.html
GOODBYE, GWOT AL KAMEN (IN THE LOOP, WASHINGTON POST, OCTOBER 5): Seems the incoming chairman of the Joint Chiefs, Adm. Michael Mullen, has banned the use of the phrase "Global War on Terror" (GWOT) and has prohibited using it "in any future correspondence," according to a Sept. 27 e-mail from a Mullen aide. Bush, at a White House meeting of senior officials, reportedly objected to the change, noting that no one had checked with him. It was still a war as far as he was concerned, he said. By July, Rumsfeld was back to using GWOT in his speeches. So the Decider has Decided.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...0402281_pf.html
'3:10 TO YUMA' HAS OBVIOUS SIMILARITIES WITH THE WAR IN IRAQ - DAVID CORBETT (SFGATE, SEPTEMBER 30): Will the Iraq campaign, and the larger war on terror, reduce to the grim choice: an honorable but tragic sacrifice on one hand, a morally tainted survival on the other? Whose blood, and how much of it, needs to be lost before we know?
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?...0/INM7SDEDK.DTL
A NUCLEAR-FREE WORLD - IVO DAALDER AND JOHN HOLUM (BOSTON GLOBE, OCTOBER 5): There is much that the United States can do to lift the dark nuclear shadow over the world.
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial...e_world?mode=PF
Dissenting At Your Own Risk
By Cecilie Surasky
04 October, 2007
Star-Telegram
Last year, I agreed to speak to a Jewish youth group about my organization, Jewish Voice for Peace, and our opposition to Israel's occupation. My talk was to follow one from a member of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, which calls itself "America's pro-Israel Lobby."
A week before, a shaken program leader said the AIPAC staffer had threatened to get the entire youth program's funding canceled if I was allowed in the door. The threat worked, and in disgust, they canceled the whole talk.
Pundits will surely argue for years about professors Stephen Walt and John Mearsheimer's explosive new book, The Israel Lobby, which blames poor U.S. policy in the Middle East on a loose network of individuals and pro-Israel advocacy groups.
But the book, and the response to it, opens up another controversy: the stifling of debate about unconditional U.S. support for Israeli policies.
Why is Israel's increasingly brutal 40-year occupation of Palestinian land regularly debated in the mainstream media abroad, including in Israel, but not here? And why is there an almost total lack of discussion among presidential candidates about the dollars that subsidize this occupation and the American diplomatic support that makes it possible?
In a society built on the free exchange of ideas, as Walt and Mearsheimer point out, one answer can be found by looking at the many self-appointed gatekeepers, such as Abraham Foxman and the Anti-Defamation League, or Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz, who use their Jewish identity as both a shield and cudgel. They work diligently to silence those who question ill-conceived policies of the Israeli and U.S. governments.
Non-Jewish critics, even former President Carter, are denounced as anti-Semites. Special ire is reserved for Jewish dissenters, who are branded as "self-hating" or "marginal," while Muslim and Arab-Americans are easily smeared and even criminalized with charges of supporting terrorism.
Stunned by the stifling of dissent, we decided to start a Web site, Muzzlewatch, to track the incidents. Just as we launched, Stanford Middle East Studies Professor Joel Beinin was disinvited from a speaking engagement at a high school with just 24 hours' notice.
After an unprecedented campaign of outside interference waged by Dershowitz, Professor Norman Finkelstein was refused tenure by DePaul University because of his criticism of U.S.-Israeli policy.
Palestinian-American anthropologist Nadia Abu El-Haj is fighting a political campaign to deny her tenure at Barnard.
Even Walt and Mearsheimer, who are getting plenty of exposure, couldn't have asked for better proof of their point that the lobby works to stifle dissent when an embarrassed head of the Chicago Council on Global Affairs told them that their scheduled speech was canceled. (They did speak before the World Affairs Council of Dallas/Fort Worth on Sept. 17.) This was apparently because Foxman was not available that day to "balance" their talk.
(They had initially been booked by themselves. The talk was not rescheduled.)
Many groups that started with the important work of fighting real anti-Semitism now rely on anti-Semitism to insist that to show one's love of Jews, one must offer uncritical support to Israel. They are especially displeased by Jews who believe that enabling Israeli violations of Palestinian human rights is not good for anyone.
Unless this atmosphere of intimidation is confronted, Americans will continue to lack access to information and perspectives necessary to formulate effective Middle East policies, virtually ensuring that Israel and the United States will be at war for many years to come.
'The Israel Lobby'
A podcast of Walt and Mearsheimer's presentation is available at http://podcast.dfwworld.org/2007_09-17_
The_Israel_Lobby.MP3://http://podcast.dfwworld.org/2007_09...srael_Lobby.MP3
Cecilie Surasky is communications director for the Oakland-based Jewish Voice for Peace.
By Cecilie Surasky
04 October, 2007
Star-Telegram
Last year, I agreed to speak to a Jewish youth group about my organization, Jewish Voice for Peace, and our opposition to Israel's occupation. My talk was to follow one from a member of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, which calls itself "America's pro-Israel Lobby."
A week before, a shaken program leader said the AIPAC staffer had threatened to get the entire youth program's funding canceled if I was allowed in the door. The threat worked, and in disgust, they canceled the whole talk.
Pundits will surely argue for years about professors Stephen Walt and John Mearsheimer's explosive new book, The Israel Lobby, which blames poor U.S. policy in the Middle East on a loose network of individuals and pro-Israel advocacy groups.
But the book, and the response to it, opens up another controversy: the stifling of debate about unconditional U.S. support for Israeli policies.
Why is Israel's increasingly brutal 40-year occupation of Palestinian land regularly debated in the mainstream media abroad, including in Israel, but not here? And why is there an almost total lack of discussion among presidential candidates about the dollars that subsidize this occupation and the American diplomatic support that makes it possible?
In a society built on the free exchange of ideas, as Walt and Mearsheimer point out, one answer can be found by looking at the many self-appointed gatekeepers, such as Abraham Foxman and the Anti-Defamation League, or Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz, who use their Jewish identity as both a shield and cudgel. They work diligently to silence those who question ill-conceived policies of the Israeli and U.S. governments.
Non-Jewish critics, even former President Carter, are denounced as anti-Semites. Special ire is reserved for Jewish dissenters, who are branded as "self-hating" or "marginal," while Muslim and Arab-Americans are easily smeared and even criminalized with charges of supporting terrorism.
Stunned by the stifling of dissent, we decided to start a Web site, Muzzlewatch, to track the incidents. Just as we launched, Stanford Middle East Studies Professor Joel Beinin was disinvited from a speaking engagement at a high school with just 24 hours' notice.
After an unprecedented campaign of outside interference waged by Dershowitz, Professor Norman Finkelstein was refused tenure by DePaul University because of his criticism of U.S.-Israeli policy.
Palestinian-American anthropologist Nadia Abu El-Haj is fighting a political campaign to deny her tenure at Barnard.
Even Walt and Mearsheimer, who are getting plenty of exposure, couldn't have asked for better proof of their point that the lobby works to stifle dissent when an embarrassed head of the Chicago Council on Global Affairs told them that their scheduled speech was canceled. (They did speak before the World Affairs Council of Dallas/Fort Worth on Sept. 17.) This was apparently because Foxman was not available that day to "balance" their talk.
(They had initially been booked by themselves. The talk was not rescheduled.)
Many groups that started with the important work of fighting real anti-Semitism now rely on anti-Semitism to insist that to show one's love of Jews, one must offer uncritical support to Israel. They are especially displeased by Jews who believe that enabling Israeli violations of Palestinian human rights is not good for anyone.
Unless this atmosphere of intimidation is confronted, Americans will continue to lack access to information and perspectives necessary to formulate effective Middle East policies, virtually ensuring that Israel and the United States will be at war for many years to come.
'The Israel Lobby'
A podcast of Walt and Mearsheimer's presentation is available at http://podcast.dfwworld.org/2007_09-17_
The_Israel_Lobby.MP3://http://podcast.dfwworld.org/2007_09...srael_Lobby.MP3
Cecilie Surasky is communications director for the Oakland-based Jewish Voice for Peace.
"It Doesn't Get Any Worse Than That, Ray"
Unmasking AIPAC
By William Cook
10/06/07 "Counterpunch" -- -- -Ray Suarez (PBS News Hour Reporter, October 2, 2007): "You're saying that the national legislature of this country, rather than doing the will of the citizens of the United States, passed that Iran resolution, sanctioning the Republican Guard, because of the American-Israeli Political Action Committee?"
Mike Gravel (Democratic Presidential Candidate): "Wait a second. They'll (sic) be some information coming out about how this thing was drafted. So the answer is yes, the short answer. ... This is what's at stake with this resolution. And it's the height of immorality, irresponsibility, and the United States Senate, with the Democrats in charge, voted for the passage of this resolution. It doesn't get any worse than that, Ray.".
In asking his question, Ray Suarez implies that our Senators capitulated to the desires of AIPAC, knowing their vote negated the expressed will of the American people. Gravel, once a Senator from Alaska during the Vietnam War period, answers unhesitatingly, "yes," the short answer is yes. The obvious follow-up question would appear to be: "Why do you think that our Senators would vote against the expressed wishes of their constituents in favor of a special interest lobby?" It was never asked. Fortunately, Sy Hersh, in an interview with Amy Goodman that same day, responded to a question posed by Goodman, a question drawn from a Gravel criticism of Hillary Clinton for having voted for this resolution. Goodman pointed to the 76 votes in favor, both Republican and Democrat, asking Hersh to respond to Gravel's critique: "This is fantasy land," Gravel commented, "We're talking about ending the war. My god, we're just starting a war right today. There was a vote in the Senate today. Joe Lieberman, who authored the Iraq resolution, has authored another resolution, and it is essentially a fig leaf to let George Bush go to war with Iran. And I want to congratulate Biden for voting against it, Dodd for voting against it, and I'm ashamed of you, Hillary, for voting for it. You're not going to get another shot at this, because what's happened, if this war ensues, we invade, and they're looking for an excuse to do it." Goodman's question is simple enough, why would 76 senators vote for such a resolution. Hersh's response: "Money. A lot of the Jewish money from New York. Come on, let's not kid about it. A significant percentage of Jewish money, and many leading American Jews support the Israeli position that Iran is an existential threat. And I think it is as simple as that. ... That's American politics circa 2007."
Gravel understands the consequences of giving Cheney and Bush the freedom to attack Iran's Republican Guard as a terrorist organization rather than as the legally constituted military of the state existing to protect the citizens of that state. They need no act of Congress to attack a terrorist organization and, citing the Encarta encyclopedia description of terrorism, "These violent acts are committed by non-governmental groups or individuals that is by those who are neither part of or officially serving in the military forces ...," they have defanged the definition of terrorism as it cannot be applied to a nation state. Cheney and Bush are now free to invade Iran to wipe out the terrorist organization harbored by that country. Why pretend that an established arm of the government of Iran is a terrorist organization when the opposite is so evident? Because Cheney and Bush and their Neo-con/AIPAC alliance have not been able to convince the American people of the threat to the US should Iran eventually acquire nuclear capability. The Kyl-Lieberman resolution gives this administration license to attack Iran using the original resolution passed by the Congress for the invasion of Afghanistan since Iran now harbors terrorists that threaten America.
How serious is this possibility we might ask. Newsweek carried an article in the October 1 issue about Israel's "secret" raid on Syria. In it, Sam Gardiner, a former Air Force Colonel, seen as an expert in simulation of military exercises, makes this observation: "Even if Israel goes it alone (attacks Iran's nuclear facilities), we will be blamed (the United States). Hence we would see retaliation against U.S. interests." In short, the United States is tied to Israel and its interests by an umbilical cord that determines how and when we go to war and with whom. Iran is Israel's primary nemesis as well as its primary target. The "mysterious raid deep in Syria" magnifies this point; only the media control created by "a nearly impenetrable wall of silence around the operation" has kept the American public from understanding the potential consequences of the Kyl-Lieberman resolution that passed October 2, only a month after Israel's "raid." Should Syria have responded to this unwarranted aggression by a missile or bomb attack on Israel, the U.S. Congress would have been forced to determine how to respond. With the Kyl-Lieberman resolution in place, only Bush has to respond by citing the Iranian terrorist organization's ties to Syria and especially to Hezbollah. A threat to Israel is a threat to the U.S.
It is this reality that makes the recent study by Mearsheimer and Walt so dangerous to the Israeli lobbies, especially AIPAC. Indeed, they define AIPAC by encompassing the multitude of Jewish lobbies under that umbrella while adding in non-Jewish Neo-cons, Christian evangelicals of the far right and other sympathizers.
Gravel's awareness of this threat as expressed to PBS represents the rare occurrence when the reality of our total support for Israel's interests is aired in public. An objective consideration of the "raid" of September 6, 2007 by the Israeli Air Force against Syria as it would have been reported in the American press had it been Syria attacking Israel would not have been headlined "The Whispers of War." Indeed that report did not focus on Israel's disregard for international law or its consequences, but rather on how Israel can deliver nuclear or standard bombs as far as Iran. It went further to turn this unprovoked operation to Israel's cause by noting how that state's very existence is threatened by one atomic bomb, thus presenting Israel as the potential victim not the perpetrator of an action contrary to the United Nations' charter. Had Syria attacked Israel, the explosiveness of such an unprovoked and uncalled for attack against an innocent country would have made front page headlines and the cover of all our news magazines. Yet Israel's unprovoked and uncalled for attack on Syria is presented in U.S. News as "Israel takes a swipe at Syria," hardly an item that would make the American people aware that they were at risk for their ally's illegal action against a neighbor. And as if that were not enough, the significance of one nation bombing another without provocation becomes only the 10% hike in Ehud Olmert's ratings as opposed to the death and destruction caused by this illegal action with an accompanying photo, not of the death and destruction, but of Olmert giving blood for his countrymen. No outcry follows this despicable behavior by the Teflon state not from the United States, not from the United Nations, not from the EU, not from NATO. Only silence.
Consider for example the consequences of Israel using its United States' gifts of nuclear bunker buster bombs on Syria or Iran, both possible scenarios as this "raid" ( the name of an insect repellent) makes clear: "... huge amounts of radioactive material will be lofted into the air to contaminate the people of Iran and surrounding countries ... This fallout will induce cancers, leukemia, and genetic disease in these populations for years to come, both a medical catastrophe and a war crime of immense proportions,"(Dr. Helen Caldicott, Nuclear Power Is Not the Answer.) No outcry, only silence. Why?
What does AIPAC's control of our Congress mean for the American people? Arguably, that influence propelled the U.S. into war against Iraq with its inevitable consequences in death, destruction and debt leaving the nation bereft of a resolution; it has solidified perception around the world that Israel's defiance of the UN resolutions demanding that it obey international law regarding right of return for Palestinians and return of occupied territory is not just condoned by the U.S. but is the policy of the U.S., making the United States a co-partner in international crime; it has made Israel's illegal treatment of the Palestinians in its indiscriminate killing of children and women, in its use of extrajudicial assassination, in its imprisonment of a whole people resulting in extreme poverty, malnutrition, and disease, in its total control of the lives of these people who have no recourse to overcome the occupation since they have no means to do so, practices condoned by the United States, and turned the U.S. from a compassionate and morally responsible nation to one that is amoral and hypocritical; and, in absolute despair, it has placed America on the thresh hold of one more devastating war against a people that has done nothing against the United States, has not occupied another nations's territory, has not invaded another nation, and has signed the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, all actions that are diametrically opposed to those of our client state, Israel. Such is the sell out by our representatives of their constituents as they grovel, unlike Mike Gravel, before the insidious lobby that controls our fate. No outcry, only silence. Why?
Ultimately the question comes back to why those 76 senators voted for a resolution that "wipes the desires of the American people off the map," to borrow an intentionally falsified and reiterated translation of the Iranian President's message to his people. But those 76 are not alone. Virtually everyone of our representatives are subservient to the same lobbies, passing on average 100 resolutions per year favorable to Israel and written by the lobbyists, obsequiously fawning before AIPAC's annual meeting where its very existence is touted as of "significant benefit for both the United States and Israel," and where no one dares to question or criticize the state of Israel lest they suffer the fate of those who have, and lose their seats in Congress. This one might argue is coercion. Can it be documented? One need only research the congressional and senate races that put Paul Findley, Cynthia McKenny, Charles Percy and the few other renegades that dared to be critical of Israel out of their positions. "The handful of members of Congress who have been critical of Israel over the last 40 years have been publicly chastised with a figurative dunce cap or, worse, lost their seats to AIPAC-backed opponents" (NewsMax.com, May 1, 2006. "Israel the Third Rail of American Foreign Policy," Arnaud de Borchgrava, Editor at large of the Washington Times).
Interestingly, the United States defines terrorism (18 USC 2331) as "violent acts or acts dangerous to human life that ... appear to be intended (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by assassination or kidnaping." Could one not make a case that our Congress in its total support for Israeli policies regardless of their negative impact on the country and its disregard for the expressed desires of its citizens as the Kyl-Lieberman resolution demonstrates is "influenced" by "intimidation and coercion" by these lobbies? Add to this reality the influence they wield in our media where they limit the perception of the public to the lies and mythologies they present that justifies the actions of the Israeli state, and the pervasiveness of the lobbies prevents the American people from controlling their own destinies. Does that not make them terrorists residing on K street in our nation's capitol?
Isn't it obvious today that the direction of America's policies regarding Iran, and our almost certain to be pre-emptive invasion of this nation on behalf of Israel, is directed by the same coterie of men who pushed us into the disastrous war against Iraq -- Podhoretz, Wurmser, Perle, Feith, Crystal, Kagan, Krouthammer, Abrams and others too numerous to mention, the hounds of war that find no guilt in sending the sons and daughters of others to fight the wars they wage so eloquently in their heads as they sit in front of their computers guiding to their deaths those they never met.
The Hounds of War are gathered round
To forge the battle plan,
They pat each other on the back,
And grasp their fellow's hand.
To battle stations they disperse
To carry on the fray,
These warriors of the word sublime
That makes us weep or pray.
They swing behind the keyboard now
That spits out their deceit;
Their goal, the end they desire,
That makes their life complete.
These victors suffer no regrets
As they pen brilliant epithets,
And so they ply their lonely craft,
And carve another's epitaph.
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
Unmasking AIPAC
By William Cook
10/06/07 "Counterpunch" -- -- -Ray Suarez (PBS News Hour Reporter, October 2, 2007): "You're saying that the national legislature of this country, rather than doing the will of the citizens of the United States, passed that Iran resolution, sanctioning the Republican Guard, because of the American-Israeli Political Action Committee?"
Mike Gravel (Democratic Presidential Candidate): "Wait a second. They'll (sic) be some information coming out about how this thing was drafted. So the answer is yes, the short answer. ... This is what's at stake with this resolution. And it's the height of immorality, irresponsibility, and the United States Senate, with the Democrats in charge, voted for the passage of this resolution. It doesn't get any worse than that, Ray.".
In asking his question, Ray Suarez implies that our Senators capitulated to the desires of AIPAC, knowing their vote negated the expressed will of the American people. Gravel, once a Senator from Alaska during the Vietnam War period, answers unhesitatingly, "yes," the short answer is yes. The obvious follow-up question would appear to be: "Why do you think that our Senators would vote against the expressed wishes of their constituents in favor of a special interest lobby?" It was never asked. Fortunately, Sy Hersh, in an interview with Amy Goodman that same day, responded to a question posed by Goodman, a question drawn from a Gravel criticism of Hillary Clinton for having voted for this resolution. Goodman pointed to the 76 votes in favor, both Republican and Democrat, asking Hersh to respond to Gravel's critique: "This is fantasy land," Gravel commented, "We're talking about ending the war. My god, we're just starting a war right today. There was a vote in the Senate today. Joe Lieberman, who authored the Iraq resolution, has authored another resolution, and it is essentially a fig leaf to let George Bush go to war with Iran. And I want to congratulate Biden for voting against it, Dodd for voting against it, and I'm ashamed of you, Hillary, for voting for it. You're not going to get another shot at this, because what's happened, if this war ensues, we invade, and they're looking for an excuse to do it." Goodman's question is simple enough, why would 76 senators vote for such a resolution. Hersh's response: "Money. A lot of the Jewish money from New York. Come on, let's not kid about it. A significant percentage of Jewish money, and many leading American Jews support the Israeli position that Iran is an existential threat. And I think it is as simple as that. ... That's American politics circa 2007."
Gravel understands the consequences of giving Cheney and Bush the freedom to attack Iran's Republican Guard as a terrorist organization rather than as the legally constituted military of the state existing to protect the citizens of that state. They need no act of Congress to attack a terrorist organization and, citing the Encarta encyclopedia description of terrorism, "These violent acts are committed by non-governmental groups or individuals that is by those who are neither part of or officially serving in the military forces ...," they have defanged the definition of terrorism as it cannot be applied to a nation state. Cheney and Bush are now free to invade Iran to wipe out the terrorist organization harbored by that country. Why pretend that an established arm of the government of Iran is a terrorist organization when the opposite is so evident? Because Cheney and Bush and their Neo-con/AIPAC alliance have not been able to convince the American people of the threat to the US should Iran eventually acquire nuclear capability. The Kyl-Lieberman resolution gives this administration license to attack Iran using the original resolution passed by the Congress for the invasion of Afghanistan since Iran now harbors terrorists that threaten America.
How serious is this possibility we might ask. Newsweek carried an article in the October 1 issue about Israel's "secret" raid on Syria. In it, Sam Gardiner, a former Air Force Colonel, seen as an expert in simulation of military exercises, makes this observation: "Even if Israel goes it alone (attacks Iran's nuclear facilities), we will be blamed (the United States). Hence we would see retaliation against U.S. interests." In short, the United States is tied to Israel and its interests by an umbilical cord that determines how and when we go to war and with whom. Iran is Israel's primary nemesis as well as its primary target. The "mysterious raid deep in Syria" magnifies this point; only the media control created by "a nearly impenetrable wall of silence around the operation" has kept the American public from understanding the potential consequences of the Kyl-Lieberman resolution that passed October 2, only a month after Israel's "raid." Should Syria have responded to this unwarranted aggression by a missile or bomb attack on Israel, the U.S. Congress would have been forced to determine how to respond. With the Kyl-Lieberman resolution in place, only Bush has to respond by citing the Iranian terrorist organization's ties to Syria and especially to Hezbollah. A threat to Israel is a threat to the U.S.
It is this reality that makes the recent study by Mearsheimer and Walt so dangerous to the Israeli lobbies, especially AIPAC. Indeed, they define AIPAC by encompassing the multitude of Jewish lobbies under that umbrella while adding in non-Jewish Neo-cons, Christian evangelicals of the far right and other sympathizers.
Gravel's awareness of this threat as expressed to PBS represents the rare occurrence when the reality of our total support for Israel's interests is aired in public. An objective consideration of the "raid" of September 6, 2007 by the Israeli Air Force against Syria as it would have been reported in the American press had it been Syria attacking Israel would not have been headlined "The Whispers of War." Indeed that report did not focus on Israel's disregard for international law or its consequences, but rather on how Israel can deliver nuclear or standard bombs as far as Iran. It went further to turn this unprovoked operation to Israel's cause by noting how that state's very existence is threatened by one atomic bomb, thus presenting Israel as the potential victim not the perpetrator of an action contrary to the United Nations' charter. Had Syria attacked Israel, the explosiveness of such an unprovoked and uncalled for attack against an innocent country would have made front page headlines and the cover of all our news magazines. Yet Israel's unprovoked and uncalled for attack on Syria is presented in U.S. News as "Israel takes a swipe at Syria," hardly an item that would make the American people aware that they were at risk for their ally's illegal action against a neighbor. And as if that were not enough, the significance of one nation bombing another without provocation becomes only the 10% hike in Ehud Olmert's ratings as opposed to the death and destruction caused by this illegal action with an accompanying photo, not of the death and destruction, but of Olmert giving blood for his countrymen. No outcry follows this despicable behavior by the Teflon state not from the United States, not from the United Nations, not from the EU, not from NATO. Only silence.
Consider for example the consequences of Israel using its United States' gifts of nuclear bunker buster bombs on Syria or Iran, both possible scenarios as this "raid" ( the name of an insect repellent) makes clear: "... huge amounts of radioactive material will be lofted into the air to contaminate the people of Iran and surrounding countries ... This fallout will induce cancers, leukemia, and genetic disease in these populations for years to come, both a medical catastrophe and a war crime of immense proportions,"(Dr. Helen Caldicott, Nuclear Power Is Not the Answer.) No outcry, only silence. Why?
What does AIPAC's control of our Congress mean for the American people? Arguably, that influence propelled the U.S. into war against Iraq with its inevitable consequences in death, destruction and debt leaving the nation bereft of a resolution; it has solidified perception around the world that Israel's defiance of the UN resolutions demanding that it obey international law regarding right of return for Palestinians and return of occupied territory is not just condoned by the U.S. but is the policy of the U.S., making the United States a co-partner in international crime; it has made Israel's illegal treatment of the Palestinians in its indiscriminate killing of children and women, in its use of extrajudicial assassination, in its imprisonment of a whole people resulting in extreme poverty, malnutrition, and disease, in its total control of the lives of these people who have no recourse to overcome the occupation since they have no means to do so, practices condoned by the United States, and turned the U.S. from a compassionate and morally responsible nation to one that is amoral and hypocritical; and, in absolute despair, it has placed America on the thresh hold of one more devastating war against a people that has done nothing against the United States, has not occupied another nations's territory, has not invaded another nation, and has signed the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, all actions that are diametrically opposed to those of our client state, Israel. Such is the sell out by our representatives of their constituents as they grovel, unlike Mike Gravel, before the insidious lobby that controls our fate. No outcry, only silence. Why?
Ultimately the question comes back to why those 76 senators voted for a resolution that "wipes the desires of the American people off the map," to borrow an intentionally falsified and reiterated translation of the Iranian President's message to his people. But those 76 are not alone. Virtually everyone of our representatives are subservient to the same lobbies, passing on average 100 resolutions per year favorable to Israel and written by the lobbyists, obsequiously fawning before AIPAC's annual meeting where its very existence is touted as of "significant benefit for both the United States and Israel," and where no one dares to question or criticize the state of Israel lest they suffer the fate of those who have, and lose their seats in Congress. This one might argue is coercion. Can it be documented? One need only research the congressional and senate races that put Paul Findley, Cynthia McKenny, Charles Percy and the few other renegades that dared to be critical of Israel out of their positions. "The handful of members of Congress who have been critical of Israel over the last 40 years have been publicly chastised with a figurative dunce cap or, worse, lost their seats to AIPAC-backed opponents" (NewsMax.com, May 1, 2006. "Israel the Third Rail of American Foreign Policy," Arnaud de Borchgrava, Editor at large of the Washington Times).
Interestingly, the United States defines terrorism (18 USC 2331) as "violent acts or acts dangerous to human life that ... appear to be intended (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by assassination or kidnaping." Could one not make a case that our Congress in its total support for Israeli policies regardless of their negative impact on the country and its disregard for the expressed desires of its citizens as the Kyl-Lieberman resolution demonstrates is "influenced" by "intimidation and coercion" by these lobbies? Add to this reality the influence they wield in our media where they limit the perception of the public to the lies and mythologies they present that justifies the actions of the Israeli state, and the pervasiveness of the lobbies prevents the American people from controlling their own destinies. Does that not make them terrorists residing on K street in our nation's capitol?
Isn't it obvious today that the direction of America's policies regarding Iran, and our almost certain to be pre-emptive invasion of this nation on behalf of Israel, is directed by the same coterie of men who pushed us into the disastrous war against Iraq -- Podhoretz, Wurmser, Perle, Feith, Crystal, Kagan, Krouthammer, Abrams and others too numerous to mention, the hounds of war that find no guilt in sending the sons and daughters of others to fight the wars they wage so eloquently in their heads as they sit in front of their computers guiding to their deaths those they never met.
The Hounds of War are gathered round
To forge the battle plan,
They pat each other on the back,
And grasp their fellow's hand.
To battle stations they disperse
To carry on the fray,
These warriors of the word sublime
That makes us weep or pray.
They swing behind the keyboard now
That spits out their deceit;
Their goal, the end they desire,
That makes their life complete.
These victors suffer no regrets
As they pen brilliant epithets,
And so they ply their lonely craft,
And carve another's epitaph.
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
How Clinton has built her lead
By Janet Hook and Mark Z. Barabak
Her base is voters who dominate the Democratic nominating process. But the
presidential campaign season is still young.
http://email.latimes.com/cgi-bin1/DM/y/eBZ...Io30G2B0I1dR0E8
By Janet Hook and Mark Z. Barabak
Her base is voters who dominate the Democratic nominating process. But the
presidential campaign season is still young.
http://email.latimes.com/cgi-bin1/DM/y/eBZ...Io30G2B0I1dR0E8
Iraqis tell of guards' reckless behavior
By Tina Susman
Residents of Hillah await answers and justice in the slayings of two men. They
believe those responsible for the deaths were Blackwater employees.
http://email.latimes.com/cgi-bin1/DM/y/eBZiq0IAIo30G2B0I1d
By Tina Susman
Residents of Hillah await answers and justice in the slayings of two men. They
believe those responsible for the deaths were Blackwater employees.
http://email.latimes.com/cgi-bin1/DM/y/eBZiq0IAIo30G2B0I1d
[b]PM Olmert denies report that Jordan will have custody of Temple Mount in final peace agreement [/b]
[b]The Battle for Jerusalem Begins: Pressure mounts on Israel to hand over half of the capital to the Palestinian Authority[/b]
[b]Minister for Strategic Threats Avigdor Lieberman Under Attack for Statement on Dividing Jerusalem[/b]
[b]Turkish FM warns of delicate situation in the Middle East: Tensions are escalating throughout the whole region[/b]
[b]Can Annapolis Host Mideast Peace? Time Editorial[/b]
[b]The Iranian bear hug: Arab leaders must form united front to counter Iranian threat before it's too late [/b]
[b]Senator Byrd Laments: Byrd: Senate’s ‘Saber-Rattling’ Is ‘Sleep-Walking’ America To War With Iran[/b]
[b]Bush’s gift of victory to Iran’s hardmen: With its every move in Iraq, the White House has strengthened the hand of Tehran [/b]
[b]Anti-Ahmadinejad Students Call for 'Death to Dictator'[/b]
FBI Puts Antiwar Protesters on Criminal Database; Canada Uses It To Ban Protesters From Entry [b]By Rob Kall "The FBI's placing of peace activists on an international criminal database is blatant political intimidation of US citizens opposed to Bush administration policies," says Colonel Wright, who was also Deputy US Ambassador in four countries. "The Canadian government should certainly not accept this FBI database as the criteria for entering the country."[/b]
"Where Have All the Leaders Gone?"
Remember Lee Iacocca, the man who rescued Chrysler Corporation from death throes? He has a new book, and here are some excerpts:
"Am I the only guy in this country who's fed up with what's happening? Where the hell is our outrage? We should be screaming bloody murder. We've got a gang of clueless bozos steering our ship of state right over a cliff.
We've got corporate gangsters stealing us blind, and we can't even clean up after a hurricane much less build a hybrid car. But instead of getting mad, everyone sits around and nods their heads when the politicians say, "Stay the course."
Stay the course? You've got to be kidding! This is America, not the damned Titanic.
I'll give you a sound bite: Throw the bums out! You might think I'm getting senile, that I've gone off my rocker, and maybe I have. But someone has to speak up. I hardly recognize this country anymore.
The President of the United States is given a free pass to ignore the Constitution, tap our phones, and lead us to war on a pack of lies. Congress responds to record deficits by passing a huge tax cut for the wealthy. (thanks, but I don't need it)
The most famous business leaders are not the innovators but the guys in handcuffs. While we're fiddling in Iraq, the Middle East is burning and nobody seems to know what to do. And the press is waving pom-poms instead of asking hard questions.
That's not the promise of America my parents and yours traveled across the ocean for.
I've had enough. How about you? I'll go a step further. You can't call yourself a patriot if you're not outraged. This is a fight I'm ready and willing to have
The Biggest C is Crisis!!!!!
Leaders are made, not born. Leadership is forged in times of crisis. It's easy to sit there with your feet up on the desk and talk theory. Or send someone else's kids off to war when you've never seen a battlefield yourself. It's another thing to lead when your world comes tumbling down.
On September 11, 2001, we needed a strong leader more than any other time in our history. We needed a steady hand to guide us out of the ashes. Where was George Bush? He was reading a story about a pet goat to kids in Florida when he heard about the attacks. He kept sitting there for twenty minutes with a baffled look on his face. It's all on tape. You can see it for yourself. Then, instead of taking the quickest route back to Washington and immediately going on the air to reassure the panicked people of this country, he decided it wasn't safe to return to the White House. He basically went into hiding for the day, and he told Vice President Dick Chaney to stay put in his bunker.
We were all frozen in front of our TVs, scared out of our wits, waiting for our leaders to tell us that we were going to be okay, and there was nobody home. It took Bush a couple of days to get his bearings and devise the right photo op at Ground Zero.
That was George Bush's moment of truth, and he was paralyzed. And what did he do when he'd regained his composure? He led us down the road to Iraq; a road his own father had considered disastrous when he was President. But Bush didn't listen to Daddy. He listened to a higher father. He prides himself on being faith based, not reality based. If that doesn't scare the crap out of you, I don't know what will
A Hell of a Mess. So here's where we stand. We're immersed in a bloody war with no plan for winning and no plan for leaving. We're running the biggest deficit in the history of the country. We're losing the manufacturing edge to Asia, while our once-great companies are getting slaughtered by health care costs. Gas prices are skyrocketing, and nobody in power has a coherent energy policy. Our schools are in trouble. Our borders are like sieves. The middle class is being squeezed every which way.
These are times that cry out for leadership. But when you look around, you've got to ask: "Where have all the leaders gone?" Where are the curious, creative communicators? Where are the people of character, courage, conviction, competence, and common sense? I may be a sucker for alliteration, but I think you get the point.
Name me a leader who has a better idea for homeland security than making us take off our shoes in airports and throw away our shampoo? We've spent billions of dollars building a huge new bureaucracy, and all we know how to do is react to things that have already happened.
Name me one leader who emerged from the crisis of Hurricane Katrina. Congress has yet to spend a single day evaluating the response to the hurricane, or demanding accountability for the decisions that were made in the crucial hours after the storm. Everyone's hunkering down, fingers crossed, hoping it doesn't happen again!
Now, that's just crazy. Storms happen. Deal with it. Make a plan. Figure out what you're going to do the next time.
Name me an industry leader who is thinking creatively about how we can restore our competitive edge in manufacturing. Who would have believed that there could ever be a time when "the Big Three" referred to Japanese car companies? How did this happen, and more important, what are we going to do about it?
Name me a government leader who can articulate a plan for paying down the debt, or solving the energy crisis, or managing the health care problem. The silence is deafening. But these are the crises that are eating away at our country and milking the middle class dry.
I have news for the gang in Congress. We didn't elect you to sit on your asses and do nothing and remain silent while our democracy is being hijacked and our greatness is being replaced with mediocrity. What is everybody so afraid of? That some bobblehead on Fox News will call them a name? Give me a break. Why don't you guys show some spine for a change?
Had Enough? Hey, I'm not trying to be the voice of gloom and doom here. I'm trying to light a fire. I'm speaking out because I have hope. I believe in America. In my lifetime I've had the privilege of living through some of America's greatest moments. I've also experienced some of our worst crises: the Great Depression, World War II, the Korean War, the Kennedy assassination, the Vietnam War, the 1970s oil crisis, and the struggles of recent years culminating with 9/11.
If I've learned one thing, it's this: You don't get anywhere by standing on the sidelines waiting for somebody else to take action. Whether it's building a better car or building a better future for our children, we all have a role to play. That's the challenge I'm raising in this book. It's a call to action for people who, like me, believe in America.
It's not too late, but it's getting pretty close. So let's shake off the horse "expletive deleted" and go to work. Let's tell 'em all we've had enough."
Excerpted from "Where Have All the Leaders Gone?."
Copyright C-2007 by Lee Iacocca. All rights reserve
Remember Lee Iacocca, the man who rescued Chrysler Corporation from death throes? He has a new book, and here are some excerpts:
"Am I the only guy in this country who's fed up with what's happening? Where the hell is our outrage? We should be screaming bloody murder. We've got a gang of clueless bozos steering our ship of state right over a cliff.
We've got corporate gangsters stealing us blind, and we can't even clean up after a hurricane much less build a hybrid car. But instead of getting mad, everyone sits around and nods their heads when the politicians say, "Stay the course."
Stay the course? You've got to be kidding! This is America, not the damned Titanic.
I'll give you a sound bite: Throw the bums out! You might think I'm getting senile, that I've gone off my rocker, and maybe I have. But someone has to speak up. I hardly recognize this country anymore.
The President of the United States is given a free pass to ignore the Constitution, tap our phones, and lead us to war on a pack of lies. Congress responds to record deficits by passing a huge tax cut for the wealthy. (thanks, but I don't need it)
The most famous business leaders are not the innovators but the guys in handcuffs. While we're fiddling in Iraq, the Middle East is burning and nobody seems to know what to do. And the press is waving pom-poms instead of asking hard questions.
That's not the promise of America my parents and yours traveled across the ocean for.
I've had enough. How about you? I'll go a step further. You can't call yourself a patriot if you're not outraged. This is a fight I'm ready and willing to have
The Biggest C is Crisis!!!!!
Leaders are made, not born. Leadership is forged in times of crisis. It's easy to sit there with your feet up on the desk and talk theory. Or send someone else's kids off to war when you've never seen a battlefield yourself. It's another thing to lead when your world comes tumbling down.
On September 11, 2001, we needed a strong leader more than any other time in our history. We needed a steady hand to guide us out of the ashes. Where was George Bush? He was reading a story about a pet goat to kids in Florida when he heard about the attacks. He kept sitting there for twenty minutes with a baffled look on his face. It's all on tape. You can see it for yourself. Then, instead of taking the quickest route back to Washington and immediately going on the air to reassure the panicked people of this country, he decided it wasn't safe to return to the White House. He basically went into hiding for the day, and he told Vice President Dick Chaney to stay put in his bunker.
We were all frozen in front of our TVs, scared out of our wits, waiting for our leaders to tell us that we were going to be okay, and there was nobody home. It took Bush a couple of days to get his bearings and devise the right photo op at Ground Zero.
That was George Bush's moment of truth, and he was paralyzed. And what did he do when he'd regained his composure? He led us down the road to Iraq; a road his own father had considered disastrous when he was President. But Bush didn't listen to Daddy. He listened to a higher father. He prides himself on being faith based, not reality based. If that doesn't scare the crap out of you, I don't know what will
A Hell of a Mess. So here's where we stand. We're immersed in a bloody war with no plan for winning and no plan for leaving. We're running the biggest deficit in the history of the country. We're losing the manufacturing edge to Asia, while our once-great companies are getting slaughtered by health care costs. Gas prices are skyrocketing, and nobody in power has a coherent energy policy. Our schools are in trouble. Our borders are like sieves. The middle class is being squeezed every which way.
These are times that cry out for leadership. But when you look around, you've got to ask: "Where have all the leaders gone?" Where are the curious, creative communicators? Where are the people of character, courage, conviction, competence, and common sense? I may be a sucker for alliteration, but I think you get the point.
Name me a leader who has a better idea for homeland security than making us take off our shoes in airports and throw away our shampoo? We've spent billions of dollars building a huge new bureaucracy, and all we know how to do is react to things that have already happened.
Name me one leader who emerged from the crisis of Hurricane Katrina. Congress has yet to spend a single day evaluating the response to the hurricane, or demanding accountability for the decisions that were made in the crucial hours after the storm. Everyone's hunkering down, fingers crossed, hoping it doesn't happen again!
Now, that's just crazy. Storms happen. Deal with it. Make a plan. Figure out what you're going to do the next time.
Name me an industry leader who is thinking creatively about how we can restore our competitive edge in manufacturing. Who would have believed that there could ever be a time when "the Big Three" referred to Japanese car companies? How did this happen, and more important, what are we going to do about it?
Name me a government leader who can articulate a plan for paying down the debt, or solving the energy crisis, or managing the health care problem. The silence is deafening. But these are the crises that are eating away at our country and milking the middle class dry.
I have news for the gang in Congress. We didn't elect you to sit on your asses and do nothing and remain silent while our democracy is being hijacked and our greatness is being replaced with mediocrity. What is everybody so afraid of? That some bobblehead on Fox News will call them a name? Give me a break. Why don't you guys show some spine for a change?
Had Enough? Hey, I'm not trying to be the voice of gloom and doom here. I'm trying to light a fire. I'm speaking out because I have hope. I believe in America. In my lifetime I've had the privilege of living through some of America's greatest moments. I've also experienced some of our worst crises: the Great Depression, World War II, the Korean War, the Kennedy assassination, the Vietnam War, the 1970s oil crisis, and the struggles of recent years culminating with 9/11.
If I've learned one thing, it's this: You don't get anywhere by standing on the sidelines waiting for somebody else to take action. Whether it's building a better car or building a better future for our children, we all have a role to play. That's the challenge I'm raising in this book. It's a call to action for people who, like me, believe in America.
It's not too late, but it's getting pretty close. So let's shake off the horse "expletive deleted" and go to work. Let's tell 'em all we've had enough."
Excerpted from "Where Have All the Leaders Gone?."
Copyright C-2007 by Lee Iacocca. All rights reserve
<h1 style="margin: 0in 0in 6pt; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">TIME</h1> <h1 style="margin: 0in 0in 6pt; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">10/5/07</h1> <h1 style="margin: 0in 0in 6pt; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">The Pointless Scuffle Over Torture </h1> Robert Baer
The CIA is still torturing, according to the New York Times, and the Administration is still denying it. "The government does not torture," Bush said Friday.
So what do you call simulated drownings — waterboarding — and slapping and freezing, techniques that were approved in a 2005 secret Department of Justice legal opinion? If the Eighth Amendment prohibits American police from waterboarding suspects, common sense tells me it's illegal.
But legal or not, the important thing to remember is that torture doesn't work. When I was in the CIA I never came across a country that systematically tortures its citizens and at the same time produces useful intelligence. The objective of torture, invariably, is intimidation.
When Stalin asked the KGB to find out how to make an atomic bomb, the KGB didn't kidnap and torture American and British scientists. It recruited spies. And Stalin got his bomb.
The Israelis figured all of this out a long time ago. For the last three years I have been in and out of Israeli jails interviewing members of Hamas and Islamic Jihad. Many of them had been in suicide bomber cells — just the kind of people the Israelis would want to extract every last detail out of. None of them, however, claimed to have been tortured. The Israelis found out what they needed to know using traditional, legal police methods. It simply isn't worth it for them to risk damaging their already shaky international reputation by torturing suspects on the slim hope they just may get a lead.
Another thing the Israelis learned is that the "ticking bomb" scenario so popular on shows like 24 (and even in recent presidential debates) is a false choice. Any terrorist group capable of carrying off a sophisticated attack knows enough to "compartmentalize" its attack — the operatives are told only what they need to know. Or the attacks are so closely timed that it is impossible to stop them. For instance, had we arrested one of the 9/11 teams, there would not have been enough time to physically coerce its members into telling us about the other three hijacking teams.
One of the ironies of the story is that even a repressive state such as Saudi Arabia has evolved its counter-terrorism policy, while the Bush Administration is still stuck on torture. On October 1, 2007, the Grand Mufti, the highest religious authority in Saudi Arabia, issued a decree (fatwa), which forbids Saudis from joining the jihad abroad. The mufti knows that if the Saudis don't get out of the suicide bombing business, it will come back to bite them.
If the Saudis can learn, why can't we? As long as the Administration takes its lead from Jack Bauer, we're going to continue to spend a lot of international capital for very little return.
Robert Baer, a former CIA field officer assigned to the Middle East, is TIME.com's intelligence columnist and the author of See No Evil and, most recently, the novel Blow the House Down.
The CIA is still torturing, according to the New York Times, and the Administration is still denying it. "The government does not torture," Bush said Friday.
So what do you call simulated drownings — waterboarding — and slapping and freezing, techniques that were approved in a 2005 secret Department of Justice legal opinion? If the Eighth Amendment prohibits American police from waterboarding suspects, common sense tells me it's illegal.
But legal or not, the important thing to remember is that torture doesn't work. When I was in the CIA I never came across a country that systematically tortures its citizens and at the same time produces useful intelligence. The objective of torture, invariably, is intimidation.
When Stalin asked the KGB to find out how to make an atomic bomb, the KGB didn't kidnap and torture American and British scientists. It recruited spies. And Stalin got his bomb.
The Israelis figured all of this out a long time ago. For the last three years I have been in and out of Israeli jails interviewing members of Hamas and Islamic Jihad. Many of them had been in suicide bomber cells — just the kind of people the Israelis would want to extract every last detail out of. None of them, however, claimed to have been tortured. The Israelis found out what they needed to know using traditional, legal police methods. It simply isn't worth it for them to risk damaging their already shaky international reputation by torturing suspects on the slim hope they just may get a lead.
Another thing the Israelis learned is that the "ticking bomb" scenario so popular on shows like 24 (and even in recent presidential debates) is a false choice. Any terrorist group capable of carrying off a sophisticated attack knows enough to "compartmentalize" its attack — the operatives are told only what they need to know. Or the attacks are so closely timed that it is impossible to stop them. For instance, had we arrested one of the 9/11 teams, there would not have been enough time to physically coerce its members into telling us about the other three hijacking teams.
One of the ironies of the story is that even a repressive state such as Saudi Arabia has evolved its counter-terrorism policy, while the Bush Administration is still stuck on torture. On October 1, 2007, the Grand Mufti, the highest religious authority in Saudi Arabia, issued a decree (fatwa), which forbids Saudis from joining the jihad abroad. The mufti knows that if the Saudis don't get out of the suicide bombing business, it will come back to bite them.
If the Saudis can learn, why can't we? As long as the Administration takes its lead from Jack Bauer, we're going to continue to spend a lot of international capital for very little return.
Robert Baer, a former CIA field officer assigned to the Middle East, is TIME.com's intelligence columnist and the author of See No Evil and, most recently, the novel Blow the House Down.
TIME
10/6/07
Can Annapolis Host Mideast Peace?
Scott MacLeod
You could read the Bush administration's choice of Maryland for next month's Middle East peace conference as a good omen. Jimmy Carter's Camp David talks in 1978 produced the historic peace deal between Israel and Egypt. On the other hand, Bill Clinton's gathering at the presidential retreat in 2000 broke down in failure and triggered Israeli-Palestinian warfare. Little wonder that leaders from the region are approaching the latest Maryland summit — planned for Annapolis this time rather than history-burdened Camp David — with caution and skepticism.
Indeed, key Arab governments are deeply concerned that the Bush administration will turn the peace conference into a "photo-op," which they believe could backfire against Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas and boost his militant rivals in the Islamic Hamas group, leaving the Middle East in a bigger mess. Senior Arab sources in several Middle East capitals tell TIME that they are skeptical about this conference because the Israeli-Palestinian gap remains wide and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, with less than two months to go, does not appear to have laid sufficient groundwork for the meeting's success. "A lot of homework needs to be done, and there's not much time," says an Arab source.
The fear, the sources tell TIME, is that while Rice may see holding the autumn conference as a success in itself, the Arabs believe the U.S. will disregard their demands for a detailed framework and timetable for Israeli-Palestinian negotiations. That failure to signal that serious negotiations are at last being re-launched could critically undermine the standing of Arab peace advocates. "If it becomes just a photo-op, then things on the ground will get worse," complains one Arab official. Adds another senior Arab source: "People will see this, at best, as another protracted process, and we'll be back to square one." That source adds, referring to Abbas by his nickname: "Abu Mazen will be hit hard. Hamas will have a heyday, and say, 'We told you so.' We want to avoid that scenario at all costs." Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert apparently prefers a looser conference agenda, one unlikely to commit to fresh negotiations.
Rice says that she hopes the conference will build on understandings that Abbas and Olmert have reached during six rounds of bilateral talks this year and advance the aim of establishing a Palestinian state. She apparently plans to invite several Arab countries, including Saudi Arabia and Syria, to Annapolis. Saudi Arabia chairs the Arab League committee which promotes the 2002 Arab peace initiative; and Syria seeks the return of the occupied Golan Heights from Israel. Syrian President Bashar Assad said last week his country will not attend if the Golan is not discussed. The Saudis are also hesitant, preferring to withhold tacit recognition of Israel until significant progress is made toward a Palestinian state. Jordan and Egypt, which already have peace treaties with Israel, are concerned that failure will benefit the region's Islamic radicals.
The Arab worry, sources say, reflects persistent doubts about how far Bush is really prepared to go — for example, in applying pressure on Israel to make concessions — to broker a historic peace deal. "The record of the administration does not bode well," says an Arab official. "This administration has not done anything on the Palestinian issue, apart from saying in 2002 that they want a Palestinian state but failing to follow up on that. Getting anything out of them has involved getting it with a big wrench."
The skepticism has been reinforced by Arab perceptions that Olmert will eventually decline to make the politically difficult compromises on core issues like territorial withdrawal, refugees and control over Jerusalem that Palestinians believe are necessary to end the nearly 60-year-old conflict. "The devil is going to be in the detail," says an Arab official. "The gaps are going to be huge." Moreover, in talks with Rice in New York two weeks ago, Saudi Foreign Minister Prince Saud al-Faisal complained that Israel's failure to halt the construction of West Bank settlements raised questions about its good faith going into negotiations. Addressing reporters later, he said that to prove Israel's seriousness about reaching a deal "there should be a moratorium" on settlements as well as construction on Israel's separation wall.
As Arab sources see it, the lack of such an Israeli gesture is one of the signs that Rice has not finished preparing the way for the conference's success. They worry, for example, that Rice has not developed a Plan B if Abbas and Olmert can't agree on a framework and timetable that charts the future of their negotiations. "What if the Palestinians and Israelis do not reach a general framework?" asks an Arab source. "Do the Americans have something ready that they can pull out of their pocket and say, 'These are our suggestions?' And will they be willing, then, to use any kind of encouragement or pressure on Israel to accept certain issues?"
Egyptian Foreign Minister Ahmed Abul-Gheit told an Arabic newspaper recently that in discussions with Arab diplomats Rice had articulated a more encouraging American vision for the peace process. "But I am being perfectly clear here," he added, unless a framework for a peace deal is established first, "this meeting will not meet its goals and will instead reflect negatively on the Palestinian-Israeli future, the future of the entire region, and perhaps even the future of the relationship between the Arab-Islamic world and the Western world." Such dire warnings may be pre-conference jockeying, but perhaps wisdom to take to heart, considering the tumultuous events — the second intifadah — that followed the collapse of peace hopes seven autumns ago in Camp David. Who knows what Annapolis will deliver.
10/6/07
Can Annapolis Host Mideast Peace?
Scott MacLeod
You could read the Bush administration's choice of Maryland for next month's Middle East peace conference as a good omen. Jimmy Carter's Camp David talks in 1978 produced the historic peace deal between Israel and Egypt. On the other hand, Bill Clinton's gathering at the presidential retreat in 2000 broke down in failure and triggered Israeli-Palestinian warfare. Little wonder that leaders from the region are approaching the latest Maryland summit — planned for Annapolis this time rather than history-burdened Camp David — with caution and skepticism.
Indeed, key Arab governments are deeply concerned that the Bush administration will turn the peace conference into a "photo-op," which they believe could backfire against Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas and boost his militant rivals in the Islamic Hamas group, leaving the Middle East in a bigger mess. Senior Arab sources in several Middle East capitals tell TIME that they are skeptical about this conference because the Israeli-Palestinian gap remains wide and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, with less than two months to go, does not appear to have laid sufficient groundwork for the meeting's success. "A lot of homework needs to be done, and there's not much time," says an Arab source.
The fear, the sources tell TIME, is that while Rice may see holding the autumn conference as a success in itself, the Arabs believe the U.S. will disregard their demands for a detailed framework and timetable for Israeli-Palestinian negotiations. That failure to signal that serious negotiations are at last being re-launched could critically undermine the standing of Arab peace advocates. "If it becomes just a photo-op, then things on the ground will get worse," complains one Arab official. Adds another senior Arab source: "People will see this, at best, as another protracted process, and we'll be back to square one." That source adds, referring to Abbas by his nickname: "Abu Mazen will be hit hard. Hamas will have a heyday, and say, 'We told you so.' We want to avoid that scenario at all costs." Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert apparently prefers a looser conference agenda, one unlikely to commit to fresh negotiations.
Rice says that she hopes the conference will build on understandings that Abbas and Olmert have reached during six rounds of bilateral talks this year and advance the aim of establishing a Palestinian state. She apparently plans to invite several Arab countries, including Saudi Arabia and Syria, to Annapolis. Saudi Arabia chairs the Arab League committee which promotes the 2002 Arab peace initiative; and Syria seeks the return of the occupied Golan Heights from Israel. Syrian President Bashar Assad said last week his country will not attend if the Golan is not discussed. The Saudis are also hesitant, preferring to withhold tacit recognition of Israel until significant progress is made toward a Palestinian state. Jordan and Egypt, which already have peace treaties with Israel, are concerned that failure will benefit the region's Islamic radicals.
The Arab worry, sources say, reflects persistent doubts about how far Bush is really prepared to go — for example, in applying pressure on Israel to make concessions — to broker a historic peace deal. "The record of the administration does not bode well," says an Arab official. "This administration has not done anything on the Palestinian issue, apart from saying in 2002 that they want a Palestinian state but failing to follow up on that. Getting anything out of them has involved getting it with a big wrench."
The skepticism has been reinforced by Arab perceptions that Olmert will eventually decline to make the politically difficult compromises on core issues like territorial withdrawal, refugees and control over Jerusalem that Palestinians believe are necessary to end the nearly 60-year-old conflict. "The devil is going to be in the detail," says an Arab official. "The gaps are going to be huge." Moreover, in talks with Rice in New York two weeks ago, Saudi Foreign Minister Prince Saud al-Faisal complained that Israel's failure to halt the construction of West Bank settlements raised questions about its good faith going into negotiations. Addressing reporters later, he said that to prove Israel's seriousness about reaching a deal "there should be a moratorium" on settlements as well as construction on Israel's separation wall.
As Arab sources see it, the lack of such an Israeli gesture is one of the signs that Rice has not finished preparing the way for the conference's success. They worry, for example, that Rice has not developed a Plan B if Abbas and Olmert can't agree on a framework and timetable that charts the future of their negotiations. "What if the Palestinians and Israelis do not reach a general framework?" asks an Arab source. "Do the Americans have something ready that they can pull out of their pocket and say, 'These are our suggestions?' And will they be willing, then, to use any kind of encouragement or pressure on Israel to accept certain issues?"
Egyptian Foreign Minister Ahmed Abul-Gheit told an Arabic newspaper recently that in discussions with Arab diplomats Rice had articulated a more encouraging American vision for the peace process. "But I am being perfectly clear here," he added, unless a framework for a peace deal is established first, "this meeting will not meet its goals and will instead reflect negatively on the Palestinian-Israeli future, the future of the entire region, and perhaps even the future of the relationship between the Arab-Islamic world and the Western world." Such dire warnings may be pre-conference jockeying, but perhaps wisdom to take to heart, considering the tumultuous events — the second intifadah — that followed the collapse of peace hopes seven autumns ago in Camp David. Who knows what Annapolis will deliver.
The Big Lie: 'Iran Is a Threat' By Scott Ritter Iran has never manifested itself as a serious threat to the national security of the United States, or by extension as a security threat to global security. At the height of Iran's "exportation of the Islamic Revolution" phase, in the mid-1980's, the Islamic Republic demonstrated a less-than-impressive ability to project its power beyond the immediate borders of Iran, and even then this projection was limited to war-torn Lebanon.
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article18521.htm
Derailing a Deal By Noam Chomsky NUCLEAR-armed states are criminal states. They have a legal obligation, confirmed by the World Court, to live up to Article 6 of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, which calls on them to carry out good-faith negotiations to eliminate nuclear weapons entirely. None of the nuclear states has lived up to it.
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article18522.htm
Politicians Use Fear to Justify Wars, Paul Says GOP candidate calls for troop withdrawal By Margot Sanger-Katz Rep. Ron Paul believes political leaders are pumping up the threat of terrorism to accomplish political goals. Paul, the 10-term Texas congressman, told Monitor reporters and editors that concerns about the country's security have been overblown to justify needless foreign invasions and domestic surveillance programs.
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article18519.htm
I was Lobbied by the 'Israel lobby' A dispatch from inside the soft sell By Elaine McArdle Among AIPAC's many lobbying activities - it has a 200-person staff and an annual budget of $47 million - are the well-known tours it organizes to Israel three or four times a year, not just for journalists but for politicians, too. This summer, it hosted 40 US congressmen from both parties.
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article18523.htm
The Israel Lobby. Portrait of a Great Taboo The Power of the Israel Lobby in the United States This is a must watch video Includes interviews with John Mearsheimer, former chief of staff to United States Secretary of State Colin Powell, Lawrence Wilkerson, cofounder of the Christians United for Israel lobbying group John Hagee, neoconservative Richard Perle and historian Tony Judt express their views in Marije Meermans and William de Bruijns documentary
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article17525.htm
U.S. Considered Radiological Weapon By Robert Burns, AP Military Writer In one of the longest-held secrets of the Cold War, the U.S. Army explored the potential for using radioactive poisons to assassinate "important individuals" such as military or civilian leaders, according to newly declassified documents obtained by The Associated Press.
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article18520.htm
October 12th: A Day To Celebrate? The white man's myth By Victor Montoya I can no longer accept that October 12th is still celebrated as "Day of the Race", despite the fact that we, the mestizos of America, though we may look at ourselves in the mirrors of Europe, will not cease to be the bastard children of the conquest, of the plundering and the rape, just as were the children of La Malinche in Mexico and the daughters of Atahuallpa in Peru.
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article18524.htm
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article18521.htm
Derailing a Deal By Noam Chomsky NUCLEAR-armed states are criminal states. They have a legal obligation, confirmed by the World Court, to live up to Article 6 of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, which calls on them to carry out good-faith negotiations to eliminate nuclear weapons entirely. None of the nuclear states has lived up to it.
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article18522.htm
Politicians Use Fear to Justify Wars, Paul Says GOP candidate calls for troop withdrawal By Margot Sanger-Katz Rep. Ron Paul believes political leaders are pumping up the threat of terrorism to accomplish political goals. Paul, the 10-term Texas congressman, told Monitor reporters and editors that concerns about the country's security have been overblown to justify needless foreign invasions and domestic surveillance programs.
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article18519.htm
I was Lobbied by the 'Israel lobby' A dispatch from inside the soft sell By Elaine McArdle Among AIPAC's many lobbying activities - it has a 200-person staff and an annual budget of $47 million - are the well-known tours it organizes to Israel three or four times a year, not just for journalists but for politicians, too. This summer, it hosted 40 US congressmen from both parties.
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article18523.htm
The Israel Lobby. Portrait of a Great Taboo The Power of the Israel Lobby in the United States This is a must watch video Includes interviews with John Mearsheimer, former chief of staff to United States Secretary of State Colin Powell, Lawrence Wilkerson, cofounder of the Christians United for Israel lobbying group John Hagee, neoconservative Richard Perle and historian Tony Judt express their views in Marije Meermans and William de Bruijns documentary
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article17525.htm
U.S. Considered Radiological Weapon By Robert Burns, AP Military Writer In one of the longest-held secrets of the Cold War, the U.S. Army explored the potential for using radioactive poisons to assassinate "important individuals" such as military or civilian leaders, according to newly declassified documents obtained by The Associated Press.
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article18520.htm
October 12th: A Day To Celebrate? The white man's myth By Victor Montoya I can no longer accept that October 12th is still celebrated as "Day of the Race", despite the fact that we, the mestizos of America, though we may look at ourselves in the mirrors of Europe, will not cease to be the bastard children of the conquest, of the plundering and the rape, just as were the children of La Malinche in Mexico and the daughters of Atahuallpa in Peru.
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article18524.htm
US steps up accusations against Iran: Statements like those by General Petraeus could be part of an attempt to turn US public opinion in favour of military action against Iran - in particular, air strikes against revolutionary guard bases.
http://abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/10/08/...m?section=world
http://abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/10/08/...m?section=world
Britain 'on board' for US strikes on Iran : British defence officials have held talks with their Pentagon counterparts about how they could help out if America chose to bomb Iran.
http://snipurl.com/1rxdi
http://snipurl.com/1rxdi
Army needs three to four years to recover from Iraq strains: chief
Washington (AFP) Oct 8, 2007 - The US Army will need three or four years to recover from the strains of repeated deployments to Iraq even with a planned drawdown of US forces next year, the service's chief said Monday. General George Casey said the army is "out of balance" after six years of warfare in Afghanistan and Iraq, and facing unpredictable demands in an era of "persistent conflict." "Out of balance is not bro ... more
Washington (AFP) Oct 8, 2007 - The US Army will need three or four years to recover from the strains of repeated deployments to Iraq even with a planned drawdown of US forces next year, the service's chief said Monday. General George Casey said the army is "out of balance" after six years of warfare in Afghanistan and Iraq, and facing unpredictable demands in an era of "persistent conflict." "Out of balance is not bro ... more
Hydrogen Economy: Hype Or Potential Reality
Palo Alto CA (SPX) Oct 09, 2007 - Exciting innovations take place in hydrogen production and storage technologies as countries across the world realize the need to identify alternate and self-sustaining sources of energy. This need is caused by spiraling oil and gas prices, along with mounting concerns about greenhouse gas emissions. New research from Frost and Sullivan, Innovations in Hydrogen Production and Storage Technologie ... more
Palo Alto CA (SPX) Oct 09, 2007 - Exciting innovations take place in hydrogen production and storage technologies as countries across the world realize the need to identify alternate and self-sustaining sources of energy. This need is caused by spiraling oil and gas prices, along with mounting concerns about greenhouse gas emissions. New research from Frost and Sullivan, Innovations in Hydrogen Production and Storage Technologie ... more
Iraqis divided by constitution's treatment of women
By Tina Susman
Supporters say Article 41 will keep the state out of civil affairs. Critics say
it will usher in Sharia.
http://email.latimes.com/cgi-bin1/DM/y/eBZ...Io30G2B0I1pm0Es
By Tina Susman
Supporters say Article 41 will keep the state out of civil affairs. Critics say
it will usher in Sharia.
http://email.latimes.com/cgi-bin1/DM/y/eBZ...Io30G2B0I1pm0Es
In a significant new article in the October Armed Forces Journal, Col. Douglas Macgregor explains the basis for the comprehensive failure of national security policy and, unlike many, offers a cohesive basis for fundamental reform. Nineteenth century strategic and World War Two operational thinking are not just inappropriate for the twenty-first century; they are a manifest disaster. The failure to adapt is all to clear not just among the leaders in this and previous Pentagons and White Houses, it also pervades today's self-appointed candidates for political and military leadership. This concise but important article can be found in the new issue of Armed Forces Journal and it its website at http://www.armedforcesjournal.com/2007/10/2865287.
It is also reproduced below.
Washington’s war
BY COL. DOUGLAS MACGREGOR (RET.).
The human and material cost of America’s occupation of Iraq is reaching a climax. The ongoing “surge” of ground combat troops into Baghdad and its surroundings is producing higher U.S. casualties, exacerbating inter-sectarian violence and draining the last reserves of American patience.
Like the French Army in Algeria and the British Army in Ireland, the generals in Baghdad are discovering that soldiers and Marines in Iraq control only what they stand on, and when they no longer stand on it, they don’t control it. Meanwhile, the Army grinds itself to pieces while the national military leadership stands by watching, clinging to the promise of more troops for a larger ground force in the future — a promise that is irrelevant to the challenge we now face: getting out of Iraq.
Like so many tragic events in human history, the occupation of Iraq could have been avoided if military and political leaders in Washington had recognized the tectonic shift in international relations created by decolonization after World War II. This shift made any occupation, with the exception of very brief American or European military triumphs over non-Europeans, especially Muslim Arabs, impossible. But the decision to occupy and govern Iraq with American military power was driven by ideology, not strategy. And, when ideology masquerades as strategy, disaster is inevitable.
The U.S. needs a new national military strategy, a strategy designed to enhance America’s role as the world’s engine of prosperity, making the American way of life attractive, not threatening, to others. However, for a new, more effective national military strategy to emerge that can rationalize the structure and content of the armed forces for operations in the aftermath of Iraq, both policymakers and the flag officers who command our forces must reorient their thinking to a strategy that exalts economy of force in expeditionary operations and rejects plans to optimize the Army and Marine Corps for any more misguided occupations. This is a strategy that deliberately limits the commitment of U.S. military resources to attainable goals and objectives consistent with U.S. strategic interests and avoids the kind of open-ended ideological warfare that nearly destroyed Western civilization in the 20th century.
With another presidential election just around the corner, it’s time to begin answering the all-important questions of “What is the strategic purpose for which the U.S. armed forces will fight in the aftermath of Iraq?” and “How should a new president and secretary of defense define strategic objectives for U.S. forces?” How these questions are answered will determine whether our forces and their missions are aligned with the nation’s security needs.
Soon after the terrorist attacks against New York City and the Pentagon on Sept. 11, 2001, President Bush invoked the images of World War II, demanding total victory over a new, demonized enemy: Islamist terrorism. Those who were not with us in the new ideological struggle to democratize the Middle East were suddenly against us. When American forces intervened two years later in Iraq, they did so not in search of indigenous friends and allies in a country tyrannized for a generation, but in search of new enemies to destroy.
With the passage of time, politicians imbued military action to destroy Islamist terrorism with a meaning it never had, equating the unnecessary and destructive American military occupation of Muslim-Arab Iraq with America’s special mission to spread freedom throughout the world. Worse, Iraq’s forced democratization unleashed reactionary forces Americans did not anticipate. These forces strengthened Iranian regional power and influence, precipitating a dangerous anti-American backlash abroad and creating economic vulnerability at home. We cannot easily reverse the outcome in Iraq, but we can avoid repeating the pattern of behavior that made the Iraqi quagmire inevitable.
In the xenophobic, tribal and desperately poor populations of the Middle East and much of Africa, occupying Chris
It is also reproduced below.
Washington’s war
BY COL. DOUGLAS MACGREGOR (RET.).
The human and material cost of America’s occupation of Iraq is reaching a climax. The ongoing “surge” of ground combat troops into Baghdad and its surroundings is producing higher U.S. casualties, exacerbating inter-sectarian violence and draining the last reserves of American patience.
Like the French Army in Algeria and the British Army in Ireland, the generals in Baghdad are discovering that soldiers and Marines in Iraq control only what they stand on, and when they no longer stand on it, they don’t control it. Meanwhile, the Army grinds itself to pieces while the national military leadership stands by watching, clinging to the promise of more troops for a larger ground force in the future — a promise that is irrelevant to the challenge we now face: getting out of Iraq.
Like so many tragic events in human history, the occupation of Iraq could have been avoided if military and political leaders in Washington had recognized the tectonic shift in international relations created by decolonization after World War II. This shift made any occupation, with the exception of very brief American or European military triumphs over non-Europeans, especially Muslim Arabs, impossible. But the decision to occupy and govern Iraq with American military power was driven by ideology, not strategy. And, when ideology masquerades as strategy, disaster is inevitable.
The U.S. needs a new national military strategy, a strategy designed to enhance America’s role as the world’s engine of prosperity, making the American way of life attractive, not threatening, to others. However, for a new, more effective national military strategy to emerge that can rationalize the structure and content of the armed forces for operations in the aftermath of Iraq, both policymakers and the flag officers who command our forces must reorient their thinking to a strategy that exalts economy of force in expeditionary operations and rejects plans to optimize the Army and Marine Corps for any more misguided occupations. This is a strategy that deliberately limits the commitment of U.S. military resources to attainable goals and objectives consistent with U.S. strategic interests and avoids the kind of open-ended ideological warfare that nearly destroyed Western civilization in the 20th century.
With another presidential election just around the corner, it’s time to begin answering the all-important questions of “What is the strategic purpose for which the U.S. armed forces will fight in the aftermath of Iraq?” and “How should a new president and secretary of defense define strategic objectives for U.S. forces?” How these questions are answered will determine whether our forces and their missions are aligned with the nation’s security needs.
Soon after the terrorist attacks against New York City and the Pentagon on Sept. 11, 2001, President Bush invoked the images of World War II, demanding total victory over a new, demonized enemy: Islamist terrorism. Those who were not with us in the new ideological struggle to democratize the Middle East were suddenly against us. When American forces intervened two years later in Iraq, they did so not in search of indigenous friends and allies in a country tyrannized for a generation, but in search of new enemies to destroy.
With the passage of time, politicians imbued military action to destroy Islamist terrorism with a meaning it never had, equating the unnecessary and destructive American military occupation of Muslim-Arab Iraq with America’s special mission to spread freedom throughout the world. Worse, Iraq’s forced democratization unleashed reactionary forces Americans did not anticipate. These forces strengthened Iranian regional power and influence, precipitating a dangerous anti-American backlash abroad and creating economic vulnerability at home. We cannot easily reverse the outcome in Iraq, but we can avoid repeating the pattern of behavior that made the Iraqi quagmire inevitable.
In the xenophobic, tribal and desperately poor populations of the Middle East and much of Africa, occupying Chris