An Intray
Wednesday, March 31, 2004
Sheikh Ahmed Yassin:
Economist.com: "Sheikh Ahmed Yassin | Mar 25th 2004 | From The Economist print edition | Ahmed Yassin, a Hamas leader, died on March 22nd, aged about 66
“DEATH threats do not frighten us, we are in search of martyrdom,” declared Sheikh Ahmed Yassin a couple of months ago after Israel's deputy defence minister had named him “marked for death”. Before his own “martyrdom” came about on Monday—he was killed by missiles fired from Israeli helicopters as he emerged in his wheelchair from dawn prayers in Gaza City—the frail, half-blind, quadriplegic man of God had inspired many young Palestinians to strap explosives to their bodies and blow up themselves, and as many Israelis as they could muster, in the name of that martyrdom.
Suicide bombs, Sheikh Yassin would have argued, are the weapons of the weak; the Palestinians' counter to Israel's tanks. He never wavered in his belief that the “armed struggle” was the only way to get Israel out of the occupied West Bank and Gaza, he believed killing innocent Israeli civilians was justified by the deaths of innocent Palestinians in Israeli raids, and he would never, probably, have been able to bring himself to recognise the legitimacy of the Israeli state. Hamas is a radical Islamist party that is quite willing to use terror as a means of persuasion. By these standards, the sheikh's was reckoned to be a relatively pragmatic voice.
...
His way of life appealed. In blazing contrast to the extravagant and often corrupt leaders of the Palestine Liberation Organisation (PLO), he lived modestly, raising vast sums for his education and welfare charities and, no doubt, for weapons too. ...
...
Hamas stridently opposed the two-state solution that was the basis of the Oslo accords, and many of its members still speak of the Jewish state in blood-curdling terms. But there has been a sea-change that Sheikh Yassin cautiously encouraged, and sometimes reflected. It amounts roughly to this: if Israel were to get out of the West Bank and Gaza, fulfilling all the conditions Palestinians demand, the armed struggle to get back the rest of the Mandate of Palestine would be suspended—though the right of future generations to resume it would not be denied.
The Israelis, quite reasonably, snort at such a loaded half-offer. Why have a truce that allows the other side to prepare for battle, they ask? Still, it is probably the closest that Hamas, with Sheikh Yassin at its head, would have gone in formally recognising Israel's rights. Without him, the movement is unlikely to go that far: his successors are thought to be more “radical” than he was.
Economist.com: "Sheikh Ahmed Yassin | Mar 25th 2004 | From The Economist print edition | Ahmed Yassin, a Hamas leader, died on March 22nd, aged about 66
“DEATH threats do not frighten us, we are in search of martyrdom,” declared Sheikh Ahmed Yassin a couple of months ago after Israel's deputy defence minister had named him “marked for death”. Before his own “martyrdom” came about on Monday—he was killed by missiles fired from Israeli helicopters as he emerged in his wheelchair from dawn prayers in Gaza City—the frail, half-blind, quadriplegic man of God had inspired many young Palestinians to strap explosives to their bodies and blow up themselves, and as many Israelis as they could muster, in the name of that martyrdom.
Suicide bombs, Sheikh Yassin would have argued, are the weapons of the weak; the Palestinians' counter to Israel's tanks. He never wavered in his belief that the “armed struggle” was the only way to get Israel out of the occupied West Bank and Gaza, he believed killing innocent Israeli civilians was justified by the deaths of innocent Palestinians in Israeli raids, and he would never, probably, have been able to bring himself to recognise the legitimacy of the Israeli state. Hamas is a radical Islamist party that is quite willing to use terror as a means of persuasion. By these standards, the sheikh's was reckoned to be a relatively pragmatic voice.
...
His way of life appealed. In blazing contrast to the extravagant and often corrupt leaders of the Palestine Liberation Organisation (PLO), he lived modestly, raising vast sums for his education and welfare charities and, no doubt, for weapons too. ...
...
Hamas stridently opposed the two-state solution that was the basis of the Oslo accords, and many of its members still speak of the Jewish state in blood-curdling terms. But there has been a sea-change that Sheikh Yassin cautiously encouraged, and sometimes reflected. It amounts roughly to this: if Israel were to get out of the West Bank and Gaza, fulfilling all the conditions Palestinians demand, the armed struggle to get back the rest of the Mandate of Palestine would be suspended—though the right of future generations to resume it would not be denied.
The Israelis, quite reasonably, snort at such a loaded half-offer. Why have a truce that allows the other side to prepare for battle, they ask? Still, it is probably the closest that Hamas, with Sheikh Yassin at its head, would have gone in formally recognising Israel's rights. Without him, the movement is unlikely to go that far: his successors are thought to be more “radical” than he was.
Army suicides higher in Iraq: 52% of troops reported low or very low morale: 75% of the groups reported ... leadership was poor
Guardian Unlimited | Special reports | Pentagon counts the psychological cost of Iraq war as survey reveals suicide levels: "Suzanne Goldenberg in Washington | Monday March 29, 2004 | The Guardian
...
There have been 24 soldier suicides in Iraq since the start of the war, according to the Pentagon's count. That figure does not include Seeley, or William Howell, 36. Howell, a special forces veteran, shot himself in the head on March 13 after chasing his wife around the garden of his Colorado home with a handgun. He was at least the seventh soldier believed to have committed suicide after returning from Iraq.
The Pentagon's figure also does not account for several other deaths in Iraq that were attributed to non-combat related bullet injuries.
But as the war in Iraq enters its second year, the Pentagon has been forced to make its fullest acknowledgement to date of the psychological toll exacted by the conflict. In a painful report, the Pentagon last week made available for the first time its findings on the extent of suicide in Iraq, low morale in the ranks, and soldiers' access to mental health care.
The survey was commissioned by the commander of US forces in Iraq, General Ricardo Sanchez, after five soldiers committed suicide during the month of July. The findings were so disturbing to the Pentagon that officials withheld its release for three months.
The survey confirmed figures released earlier by the Pentagon that the suicide rate among soldiers in Iraq was higher than the army average, with 15.6 for every 100,000 troops.
It also suggests that the extended American occupation of Iraq is claiming a toll on service personnel and their families far beyond that measured in the casualty rate.
...
A survey published in the Washington Post yesterday suggests the US military could confront a serious troop shortage. In the survey of military spouses, 50% said they expected the army was heading for a problem with retaining personnel, as families grow weary of prolonged and repeated deployments.
That disillusionment has already surfaced within the ranks now serving in Iraq. In the Pentagon survey, 52% of troops reported low or very low morale, and 72% said their units suffered low morale. More disturbing for the Pentagon, the soldiers had little faith in their commanding officers.
"Nearly 75% of the groups reported that their battalion-level command leadership was poor," the report says. The troops also believed their officers showed little concern for their wellbeing. ...
Guardian Unlimited | Special reports | Pentagon counts the psychological cost of Iraq war as survey reveals suicide levels: "Suzanne Goldenberg in Washington | Monday March 29, 2004 | The Guardian
...
There have been 24 soldier suicides in Iraq since the start of the war, according to the Pentagon's count. That figure does not include Seeley, or William Howell, 36. Howell, a special forces veteran, shot himself in the head on March 13 after chasing his wife around the garden of his Colorado home with a handgun. He was at least the seventh soldier believed to have committed suicide after returning from Iraq.
The Pentagon's figure also does not account for several other deaths in Iraq that were attributed to non-combat related bullet injuries.
But as the war in Iraq enters its second year, the Pentagon has been forced to make its fullest acknowledgement to date of the psychological toll exacted by the conflict. In a painful report, the Pentagon last week made available for the first time its findings on the extent of suicide in Iraq, low morale in the ranks, and soldiers' access to mental health care.
The survey was commissioned by the commander of US forces in Iraq, General Ricardo Sanchez, after five soldiers committed suicide during the month of July. The findings were so disturbing to the Pentagon that officials withheld its release for three months.
The survey confirmed figures released earlier by the Pentagon that the suicide rate among soldiers in Iraq was higher than the army average, with 15.6 for every 100,000 troops.
It also suggests that the extended American occupation of Iraq is claiming a toll on service personnel and their families far beyond that measured in the casualty rate.
...
A survey published in the Washington Post yesterday suggests the US military could confront a serious troop shortage. In the survey of military spouses, 50% said they expected the army was heading for a problem with retaining personnel, as families grow weary of prolonged and repeated deployments.
That disillusionment has already surfaced within the ranks now serving in Iraq. In the Pentagon survey, 52% of troops reported low or very low morale, and 72% said their units suffered low morale. More disturbing for the Pentagon, the soldiers had little faith in their commanding officers.
"Nearly 75% of the groups reported that their battalion-level command leadership was poor," the report says. The troops also believed their officers showed little concern for their wellbeing. ...
Sunday, March 28, 2004
Israel Plays With Fire: The US government must not merely urge "restraint"--but prevent its Israeli ally from leading the region into catastrophe.
Israel Plays With Fire: " March 25, 2004 | by Roane Carey & Adam Shatz
At 5:20 on the morning of March 22, Sheik Ahmed Yassin, the spiritual leader of Palestinian Hamas, was leaving a mosque in the Gaza Strip when he was killed in an Israeli helicopter gunship attack--a "targeted" assassination that left nine others dead and caused several serious injuries. A half-blind quadriplegic in his late 60s, Yassin was in his wheelchair when he died; his body will be added to the trail of thousands of Palestinian and Arab corpses that Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon (who is reported to have personally supervised the Gaza hit) has piled up since the 1950s, when he conducted brutal raids against Arab villagers across Israel's border. The attack--condemned by the entire world apart from the United States--is yet another reminder of Sharon's disregard not only of Arab life but of the lives of his fellow Israelis, many of whom are likely to perish in the "earthquake" of revenge Hamas has promised in retaliation.
Sheik Yassin, to be sure, was not a man of peace. His group has killed hundreds of Israeli civilians in suicide attacks since the mid-1990s. But Yassin, along with Ismail Abu Shanab, who was assassinated last year, represented the more moderate current within Hamas; although Yassin refused to recognize the legitimacy of the Jewish state, he had spoken favorably of a "hundred-year truce" with it and had indicated that violent resistance would cease once Israel withdrew to its 1967 borders. Now that Yassin is dead, the only men left standing are the hard-liners ...
...
Yassin's killing can only reinforce the intercommunal, religious dimension of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, with repercussions that are profoundly alarming not only for Israelis and Palestinians but for those beyond the region. As veteran Israeli peace activist Uri Avnery put it, "This is the beginning of a new chapter.... It moves the conflict from the level of solvable national conflict to the level of religious conflict, which by its very nature is insoluble." Yassin was a revered cleric throughout the Muslim world, and his death has enraged millions not only against Israel but against Washington, its indispensable patron; in Iraq, the pre-eminent Shiite leader Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani condemned the assassination as "an ugly crime against the Palestinian people" and protesters in Mosul chanted, "Do not worry, Palestine. Iraq will avenge the assassination of Sheik Yassin." Hamas has indicated for the first time that it also holds America directly responsible for the killing of its leaders. It is also worth recalling that when Israel killed Hezbollah leader Sheik Abbas Musawi in a similar helicopter gunship attack, revenge came not in Israel but in Argentina, where Shiite militants bombed the Israeli Embassy, killing twenty-nine. The US government must not merely urge "restraint"--its timorous response to Yassin's killing--but prevent its Israeli ally from leading the region into catastrophe.
Israel Plays With Fire: " March 25, 2004 | by Roane Carey & Adam Shatz
At 5:20 on the morning of March 22, Sheik Ahmed Yassin, the spiritual leader of Palestinian Hamas, was leaving a mosque in the Gaza Strip when he was killed in an Israeli helicopter gunship attack--a "targeted" assassination that left nine others dead and caused several serious injuries. A half-blind quadriplegic in his late 60s, Yassin was in his wheelchair when he died; his body will be added to the trail of thousands of Palestinian and Arab corpses that Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon (who is reported to have personally supervised the Gaza hit) has piled up since the 1950s, when he conducted brutal raids against Arab villagers across Israel's border. The attack--condemned by the entire world apart from the United States--is yet another reminder of Sharon's disregard not only of Arab life but of the lives of his fellow Israelis, many of whom are likely to perish in the "earthquake" of revenge Hamas has promised in retaliation.
Sheik Yassin, to be sure, was not a man of peace. His group has killed hundreds of Israeli civilians in suicide attacks since the mid-1990s. But Yassin, along with Ismail Abu Shanab, who was assassinated last year, represented the more moderate current within Hamas; although Yassin refused to recognize the legitimacy of the Jewish state, he had spoken favorably of a "hundred-year truce" with it and had indicated that violent resistance would cease once Israel withdrew to its 1967 borders. Now that Yassin is dead, the only men left standing are the hard-liners ...
...
Yassin's killing can only reinforce the intercommunal, religious dimension of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, with repercussions that are profoundly alarming not only for Israelis and Palestinians but for those beyond the region. As veteran Israeli peace activist Uri Avnery put it, "This is the beginning of a new chapter.... It moves the conflict from the level of solvable national conflict to the level of religious conflict, which by its very nature is insoluble." Yassin was a revered cleric throughout the Muslim world, and his death has enraged millions not only against Israel but against Washington, its indispensable patron; in Iraq, the pre-eminent Shiite leader Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani condemned the assassination as "an ugly crime against the Palestinian people" and protesters in Mosul chanted, "Do not worry, Palestine. Iraq will avenge the assassination of Sheik Yassin." Hamas has indicated for the first time that it also holds America directly responsible for the killing of its leaders. It is also worth recalling that when Israel killed Hezbollah leader Sheik Abbas Musawi in a similar helicopter gunship attack, revenge came not in Israel but in Argentina, where Shiite militants bombed the Israeli Embassy, killing twenty-nine. The US government must not merely urge "restraint"--its timorous response to Yassin's killing--but prevent its Israeli ally from leading the region into catastrophe.
[Prior to Iraq] American media did not play the role of checking and balancing the exercise of power that the standard theory of democracy requires.
MEDIA COVERAGE OF
WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION Susan D. Moeller | Philip Merrill College of Journalism | University of Maryland, College Park | March 9, 2004 | Center for International and Security Studies at Maryland
The study makes three important observations.
First, it documents that virtually all of the news coverage accepted without serious question the political formulation “weapons of mass destruction” as a single category of threat. The very extensive objective differences in destructive potential among the various agents included in that category were barely noted if at all.
Second, the paper analyzes the media’s habit of associating mass destruction agents with the phenomenon of terrorism. That is undoubtedly an accurate reflection of common fears, but it is not an accurate representation of established fact. No terrorist organization has yet demonstrated the capacity to perform an act of mass destruction under a strict definition of that term. There is an important difference between common fears, however prudent they might seem, and actionable threat. It is extremely important that those who wield American military power understand the difference. Media coverage did not acknowledge that distinction during the periods examined, and that is an evident defect.
Third, the paper notes that established operating principles of the American media make it easier for the incumbent President, whoever that might be, to dominate news coverage by setting the terms of public discussion. Journalistic standards that are meant to ensure objectivity and guard against political bias had the effect of insulating the president from informed critical scrutiny. That effect was compounded during the latter periods under review by the media’s inclination to amplify what was considered to be patriotic sentiment. As a result, the American media did not play the role of checking and balancing the exercise of power that the standard theory of democracy requires.
It is important to note an important substantive omission in media coverage during the second and third time periods examined. It would have been especially irresponsible for the United States military to have initiated military action against Iraq believing that the country might be able to improvise massively destructive retaliation but not knowing where the relevant assets were located. It seems evident in retrospect, however, that American military commanders were in fact confident in Fall 2002 and Spring 2003 that Iraq did not have any truly serious capacity to harm the United States or any country in the region. That judgment, which would have undermined the justification for war, was not recorded in the news reports reviewed.
...
The British news outlets were the ones most likely to point out that the Bush administration used
the term “terrorist” as a conscious element in its foreign policy — with groups or countries it wants
to condemn, it applies the term terrorist, while with groups it is interested in allying itself with, it
will ignore a prior label of terrorist.
MEDIA COVERAGE OF
WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION Susan D. Moeller | Philip Merrill College of Journalism | University of Maryland, College Park | March 9, 2004 | Center for International and Security Studies at Maryland
The study makes three important observations.
First, it documents that virtually all of the news coverage accepted without serious question the political formulation “weapons of mass destruction” as a single category of threat. The very extensive objective differences in destructive potential among the various agents included in that category were barely noted if at all.
Second, the paper analyzes the media’s habit of associating mass destruction agents with the phenomenon of terrorism. That is undoubtedly an accurate reflection of common fears, but it is not an accurate representation of established fact. No terrorist organization has yet demonstrated the capacity to perform an act of mass destruction under a strict definition of that term. There is an important difference between common fears, however prudent they might seem, and actionable threat. It is extremely important that those who wield American military power understand the difference. Media coverage did not acknowledge that distinction during the periods examined, and that is an evident defect.
Third, the paper notes that established operating principles of the American media make it easier for the incumbent President, whoever that might be, to dominate news coverage by setting the terms of public discussion. Journalistic standards that are meant to ensure objectivity and guard against political bias had the effect of insulating the president from informed critical scrutiny. That effect was compounded during the latter periods under review by the media’s inclination to amplify what was considered to be patriotic sentiment. As a result, the American media did not play the role of checking and balancing the exercise of power that the standard theory of democracy requires.
It is important to note an important substantive omission in media coverage during the second and third time periods examined. It would have been especially irresponsible for the United States military to have initiated military action against Iraq believing that the country might be able to improvise massively destructive retaliation but not knowing where the relevant assets were located. It seems evident in retrospect, however, that American military commanders were in fact confident in Fall 2002 and Spring 2003 that Iraq did not have any truly serious capacity to harm the United States or any country in the region. That judgment, which would have undermined the justification for war, was not recorded in the news reports reviewed.
...
The British news outlets were the ones most likely to point out that the Bush administration used
the term “terrorist” as a conscious element in its foreign policy — with groups or countries it wants
to condemn, it applies the term terrorist, while with groups it is interested in allying itself with, it
will ignore a prior label of terrorist.
In rush to defend White House, Rice trips over own words
In rush to defend White House, Rice trips over own words: "Walter Pincus, Dana Milbank, Washington Post Friday, March 26, 2004
Washington -- This week's testimony and media blitz by former White House counterterrorism chief Richard Clarke has returned unwanted attention to his former boss, national security adviser Condoleezza Rice.
The refusal by President Bush's top security aide to testify publicly before the commission investigating the Sept. 11 attacks elicited rebukes by commission members as they held open hearings this week. Thomas Kean, the former New Jersey governor Bush named to be chairman of the commission, said: 'I think this administration shot itself in the foot by not letting her testify in public.'
At the same time, some of Rice's rebuttals of Clarke's broadside against Bush, which she delivered in a flurry of media interviews and statements rather than in testimony, contradicted other administration officials and her own previous statements.
Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage contradicted Rice's claim that the White House had a strategy before Sept. 11 for military operations against al Qaeda and the Taliban. The CIA contradicted Rice's earlier assertion that Bush had requested a CIA briefing in the summer of 2001 because of elevated terrorist threats. And Rice's assertion this week that Bush had told her on Sept. 16, 2001, that 'Iraq is to the side' appeared to be contradicted by an order signed by Bush on Sept. 17 directing the Pentagon to begin planning military options for an invasion of Iraq. ... [and so on]
In rush to defend White House, Rice trips over own words: "Walter Pincus, Dana Milbank, Washington Post Friday, March 26, 2004
Washington -- This week's testimony and media blitz by former White House counterterrorism chief Richard Clarke has returned unwanted attention to his former boss, national security adviser Condoleezza Rice.
The refusal by President Bush's top security aide to testify publicly before the commission investigating the Sept. 11 attacks elicited rebukes by commission members as they held open hearings this week. Thomas Kean, the former New Jersey governor Bush named to be chairman of the commission, said: 'I think this administration shot itself in the foot by not letting her testify in public.'
At the same time, some of Rice's rebuttals of Clarke's broadside against Bush, which she delivered in a flurry of media interviews and statements rather than in testimony, contradicted other administration officials and her own previous statements.
Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage contradicted Rice's claim that the White House had a strategy before Sept. 11 for military operations against al Qaeda and the Taliban. The CIA contradicted Rice's earlier assertion that Bush had requested a CIA briefing in the summer of 2001 because of elevated terrorist threats. And Rice's assertion this week that Bush had told her on Sept. 16, 2001, that 'Iraq is to the side' appeared to be contradicted by an order signed by Bush on Sept. 17 directing the Pentagon to begin planning military options for an invasion of Iraq. ... [and so on]
Israeli Report Cites Faulty Info on Iraq: Israel had not tried to mislead Israel's Western allies: Estimates of Iraq's weapons increased ahead of war
Yahoo! News - Israeli Report Cites Faulty Info on Iraq: "Sun Mar 28, 8:52 AM ET | By STEVE WEIZMAN, Associated Press Writer
JERUSALEM - Erroneous Israeli warnings about Iraq (news - web sites)'s weapons of mass destruction ahead of last year's U.S.-led invasion were based on speculation, not fact, parliamentary investigators said Sunday, but stressed that intelligence agencies had not tried to mislead Israel's Western allies.
A report released Sunday said Israeli intelligence concluded there was a high probability that Saddam Hussein (news - web sites) possessed weapons of mass destruction, despite little evidence backing that assessment, the report said. Estimates of Iraq's weapons arsenal also increased inexplicably ahead of the war, the report found.
Still, the report stressed that the intelligence agencies did not deliberately mislead Israeli officials or try to push the United States into war. The report delivered a blow to the reputation of Israel's intelligence agencies which were seen as highly effective.
"The committee ... did not find any signs that show an attempt to distort the intelligence picture in order to stress the necessity of going to war," it said.
Yahoo! News - Israeli Report Cites Faulty Info on Iraq: "Sun Mar 28, 8:52 AM ET | By STEVE WEIZMAN, Associated Press Writer
JERUSALEM - Erroneous Israeli warnings about Iraq (news - web sites)'s weapons of mass destruction ahead of last year's U.S.-led invasion were based on speculation, not fact, parliamentary investigators said Sunday, but stressed that intelligence agencies had not tried to mislead Israel's Western allies.
A report released Sunday said Israeli intelligence concluded there was a high probability that Saddam Hussein (news - web sites) possessed weapons of mass destruction, despite little evidence backing that assessment, the report said. Estimates of Iraq's weapons arsenal also increased inexplicably ahead of the war, the report found.
Still, the report stressed that the intelligence agencies did not deliberately mislead Israeli officials or try to push the United States into war. The report delivered a blow to the reputation of Israel's intelligence agencies which were seen as highly effective.
"The committee ... did not find any signs that show an attempt to distort the intelligence picture in order to stress the necessity of going to war," it said.
Palestinians: U.S. Veto Gives Israel License to Kill: Washington alone among major powers
Yahoo! News - Palestinians: U.S. Veto Gives Israel License to Kill: "Fri Mar 26, 1:58 PM ETAdd World - Reuters to My Yahoo! | By Nidal al-Mughrabi
GAZA (Reuters) - Palestinians accused the United States on Friday of granting Israel a license to kill by vetoing U.N. condemnation of its assassination of Hamas leader Sheikh Ahmed Yassin.
Israeli forces, taking action after the Islamic militant group said it would launch "earthquake-like" attacks to avenge Yassin's death, killed two Hamas frogmen who came ashore overnight near a Jewish settlement in the Gaza Strip (news - web sites).
Palestinians denounced the U.S. veto and thousands demonstrated in the West Bank and Gaza Strip to protest Yassin's killing. In Tehran, about 5,000 people marched in protest as well, chanting "Death to Israel, death to America."
"I'm afraid this U.S. veto will be taken by Israel as encouragement to continue on the path of violence and escalation, assassinations and reoccupation (of Palestinian territory)," cabinet minister Saeb Erekat told Reuters.
Hamas political leader Mohammad Ghazal, calling the United States the "chairman of the axis of evil in the world," said the U.N. Security Council veto was "Israel's green light to carry out assaults and crimes."
...
At the United Nations (news - web sites) Security Council, the United States blocked a resolution by Arab nations late on Thursday intended to censure Israel for assassinating Hamas's wheelchair-bound founder in a missile strike outside a Gaza mosque.
Washington, alone among major powers in not condemning Monday's assassination as an extrajudicial killing, rejected the resolution because it did not also denounce Hamas for suicide bombings in Israel. The vote was 11 in favor, three abstentions, and the United States veto that killed the measure.
Yahoo! News - Palestinians: U.S. Veto Gives Israel License to Kill: "Fri Mar 26, 1:58 PM ETAdd World - Reuters to My Yahoo! | By Nidal al-Mughrabi
GAZA (Reuters) - Palestinians accused the United States on Friday of granting Israel a license to kill by vetoing U.N. condemnation of its assassination of Hamas leader Sheikh Ahmed Yassin.
Israeli forces, taking action after the Islamic militant group said it would launch "earthquake-like" attacks to avenge Yassin's death, killed two Hamas frogmen who came ashore overnight near a Jewish settlement in the Gaza Strip (news - web sites).
Palestinians denounced the U.S. veto and thousands demonstrated in the West Bank and Gaza Strip to protest Yassin's killing. In Tehran, about 5,000 people marched in protest as well, chanting "Death to Israel, death to America."
"I'm afraid this U.S. veto will be taken by Israel as encouragement to continue on the path of violence and escalation, assassinations and reoccupation (of Palestinian territory)," cabinet minister Saeb Erekat told Reuters.
Hamas political leader Mohammad Ghazal, calling the United States the "chairman of the axis of evil in the world," said the U.N. Security Council veto was "Israel's green light to carry out assaults and crimes."
...
At the United Nations (news - web sites) Security Council, the United States blocked a resolution by Arab nations late on Thursday intended to censure Israel for assassinating Hamas's wheelchair-bound founder in a missile strike outside a Gaza mosque.
Washington, alone among major powers in not condemning Monday's assassination as an extrajudicial killing, rejected the resolution because it did not also denounce Hamas for suicide bombings in Israel. The vote was 11 in favor, three abstentions, and the United States veto that killed the measure.
As Israel waited to assassinate man marked for death, US did nothing: 'They did not seek our approval. We did not approve it'
As Israel waited to assassinate man marked for death, US did nothing - SpecialsMiddleEastConflict - www.smh.com.au: "By Marian Wilkinson in Washington | March 27, 2004
Just hours after Hamas's spiritual leader, Sheik Ahmed Yassin, was killed, the Israeli Foreign Minister was sitting in the office of the US Secretary of State, Colin Powell, discussing the assassination and outlining Israel's plans for withdrawing from the Gaza Strip.
Yet all that day and the next, US officials insisted they had no prior knowledge of Israel's plot to assassinate Yassin, even though the Israeli cabinet had approved it at least a week earlier.
'They did not tell us. They did not seek our approval. We did not approve it,' Mr Powell's spokesman told reporters. But the US did not stop it either. Israel's Defence Minister publicly announced the intention to kill Yassin in January, saying the Hamas leader was, 'marked for death' after a suicide bombing at a Gaza checkpoint in January.
While the State Department said it was deeply troubled by the Yassin assassination, President George Bush and his National Security Adviser, Condoleezza Rice, supported Israel's "right to defend herself from terror". Bush did add that he hoped Israel would keep the "consequences" in mind and, "make sure we stay on the path to peace".
But Bush did not criticise the assassination, in part because the destruction of Hamas is a key aim of the White House as well as of Israel's Prime Minister, Ariel Sharon. Destroying Hamas is now becoming a critical issue in the delicate negotiations between the US and Israel over how to revive the moribund Middle East peace process called the road map, once a centrepiece of Bush's foreign policy.
As Israel waited to assassinate man marked for death, US did nothing - SpecialsMiddleEastConflict - www.smh.com.au: "By Marian Wilkinson in Washington | March 27, 2004
Just hours after Hamas's spiritual leader, Sheik Ahmed Yassin, was killed, the Israeli Foreign Minister was sitting in the office of the US Secretary of State, Colin Powell, discussing the assassination and outlining Israel's plans for withdrawing from the Gaza Strip.
Yet all that day and the next, US officials insisted they had no prior knowledge of Israel's plot to assassinate Yassin, even though the Israeli cabinet had approved it at least a week earlier.
'They did not tell us. They did not seek our approval. We did not approve it,' Mr Powell's spokesman told reporters. But the US did not stop it either. Israel's Defence Minister publicly announced the intention to kill Yassin in January, saying the Hamas leader was, 'marked for death' after a suicide bombing at a Gaza checkpoint in January.
While the State Department said it was deeply troubled by the Yassin assassination, President George Bush and his National Security Adviser, Condoleezza Rice, supported Israel's "right to defend herself from terror". Bush did add that he hoped Israel would keep the "consequences" in mind and, "make sure we stay on the path to peace".
But Bush did not criticise the assassination, in part because the destruction of Hamas is a key aim of the White House as well as of Israel's Prime Minister, Ariel Sharon. Destroying Hamas is now becoming a critical issue in the delicate negotiations between the US and Israel over how to revive the moribund Middle East peace process called the road map, once a centrepiece of Bush's foreign policy.
Hamas: Bush 'enemy of Islam,' war on Israel, U.S. ongoing: "Bush is the enemy of God, the enemy of Islam and Muslims"
Haaretz - Israel News: "28/03/2004 17:41 | Rantisi: Bush 'enemy of Islam,' war on Israel, U.S. ongoing | By Yoav Stern, Haaretz Correspondent and The Associated Press
The newly-elected Hamas leader in the Gaza Strip, Abdel Aziz Rantisi, on Sunday declared U.S. President George W. Bush the enemy of God and Islam, and said that God's war against the United States and Israel was ongoing.
Rantisi also accused Arab leaders of weakness, after the Arab League decided to postpone a two-day summit that was set to begin this week.
In a speech at Gaza's Islamic University, Rantisi said he was not surprised that the U.S. had vetoed a United Nations Security Council resolution condemning Israel's assassination last Monday of Hamas spiritual leader Sheikh Ahmed Yassin.
"We knew that Bush is the enemy of God, the enemy of Islam and Muslims. America declared war against God. Sharon declared war against God and God declared war against America, Bush and Sharon," Rantisi said.
"The war of God continues against them and I can see the victory coming up from the land of Palestine by the hand of Hamas."
Senior Hamas leader Mussa Abu Marzuk, commented last week in Damascus on the possibility of a Hamas strike on American targets, saying that "currently the U.S. is not a target, but in the future, only God knows. Thus far we have not targeted the U.S. despite its hostility toward Palestinians."
Haaretz - Israel News: "28/03/2004 17:41 | Rantisi: Bush 'enemy of Islam,' war on Israel, U.S. ongoing | By Yoav Stern, Haaretz Correspondent and The Associated Press
The newly-elected Hamas leader in the Gaza Strip, Abdel Aziz Rantisi, on Sunday declared U.S. President George W. Bush the enemy of God and Islam, and said that God's war against the United States and Israel was ongoing.
Rantisi also accused Arab leaders of weakness, after the Arab League decided to postpone a two-day summit that was set to begin this week.
In a speech at Gaza's Islamic University, Rantisi said he was not surprised that the U.S. had vetoed a United Nations Security Council resolution condemning Israel's assassination last Monday of Hamas spiritual leader Sheikh Ahmed Yassin.
"We knew that Bush is the enemy of God, the enemy of Islam and Muslims. America declared war against God. Sharon declared war against God and God declared war against America, Bush and Sharon," Rantisi said.
"The war of God continues against them and I can see the victory coming up from the land of Palestine by the hand of Hamas."
Senior Hamas leader Mussa Abu Marzuk, commented last week in Damascus on the possibility of a Hamas strike on American targets, saying that "currently the U.S. is not a target, but in the future, only God knows. Thus far we have not targeted the U.S. despite its hostility toward Palestinians."
Friday, March 19, 2004
hundreds of Israelis have united with Palestinians in protest to save an Arab village from being cut off by the West Bank security barrier
News: "How Sharon's giant fence broke down the barriers of suspicion
For the first time, hundreds of Israelis have united with Palestinians in protest to save an Arab village from being cut off by the West Bank security barrier. Donald Macintyre reports from Beit Surik
19 March 2004"
Shay Shohami is an unlikely dissident...
To understand why, you first have to look out from the picture window in his ample living room across the tranquil valley towards this Palestinian village, straggling along a ridge in the Judaean hills north-west of Jerusalem. As Mr Shohami looks out across the terraced olive groves, vineyards and fruit orchards, he has every reason to enjoy the view. Or would do if it were not for his anger at the threat that villagers will be be cut off from the land they have lovingly cultivated for generations by the famous separation barrier the Israeli government is building here in the West Bank.
As at other points in its winding 450-mile route, the barrier turns sharply in from the 1967 "green line" into Arab territory, so that a 2,000-acre slice of Palestinian agricultural land ends up on the Israeli side of what amounts to a new physical border.
The Palestinians in Beit Surik are complaining bitterly that their way of life, along with the subsistence and modest saleable surplus the land provides, will be destroyed by a barrier that is scheduled to run within a few dozen metres of their houses, potentially enclosing Beit Surik and seven neighbouring villages, denying the inhabitants access not only to the land itself, but to eight freshwater springs, the municipal rubbish dump and the urban West Bank hub of nearby Ramallah.
The dispute about the route of the wall is one of many. What makes this one different is that several hundred of the villagers' nearest Jewish neighbours, residents like Mr Shohami of the upmarket and largely secular Israeli neighbourhood of Mevassaret Zion, are backing the Palestinian campaign against the army's plans for the barrier. In a climate in which relations between Arabs and Jews have steadily deteriorated on most fronts during three and half years of the intifada, this is a first.
...
Mr Shohami does not set much store by suggestions that a gate in the barrier would allow access for Palestinians to their land and perhaps even to Mevassaret. Experience from elsewhere on the barrier, he says, suggests that such a gate might be opened by the army for an hour each morning and afternoon if at all. He makes no claim to represent a majority of Mevassaret's 25,000 residents. Although most of the 400 signatures were gathered in a mere two or three hours on a single afternoon in the neighbourhood's main shopping mall, he accepts that many residents disagree with him. Sipping coffee in the mall this week, Steven Katz, a 35-year-old dentist, said: "I agree with the route of the fence and no, I don't think it will cause more resentment among the Palestinians than there is already." Of Mr Shohami and his fellow campaigners he says: "I think they are compassionate people but they are unrealistic. Elsewhere the fence has stopped a lot of things that were coming in." Yet a casual straw poll also showed some surprising support. Two young women who work at the mall, Ortel Halag and her friend Rikky Salim, both 26, signed the petition. Ms Halag supports Ariel Sharon but adds: "I don't think the Arabs are bad people. They should be allowed to keep some property, olives and stuff."
Enclosing them, she suggests, will not lead to peace and for her, that is all-important. Several of her friends have emigrated to the US or Australia because "this is not a normal life. It's crazy". For example, she adds: "I used to believe in settlements but now I don't think they're doing good for Palestinians or for us." ...
News: "How Sharon's giant fence broke down the barriers of suspicion
For the first time, hundreds of Israelis have united with Palestinians in protest to save an Arab village from being cut off by the West Bank security barrier. Donald Macintyre reports from Beit Surik
19 March 2004"
Shay Shohami is an unlikely dissident...
To understand why, you first have to look out from the picture window in his ample living room across the tranquil valley towards this Palestinian village, straggling along a ridge in the Judaean hills north-west of Jerusalem. As Mr Shohami looks out across the terraced olive groves, vineyards and fruit orchards, he has every reason to enjoy the view. Or would do if it were not for his anger at the threat that villagers will be be cut off from the land they have lovingly cultivated for generations by the famous separation barrier the Israeli government is building here in the West Bank.
As at other points in its winding 450-mile route, the barrier turns sharply in from the 1967 "green line" into Arab territory, so that a 2,000-acre slice of Palestinian agricultural land ends up on the Israeli side of what amounts to a new physical border.
The Palestinians in Beit Surik are complaining bitterly that their way of life, along with the subsistence and modest saleable surplus the land provides, will be destroyed by a barrier that is scheduled to run within a few dozen metres of their houses, potentially enclosing Beit Surik and seven neighbouring villages, denying the inhabitants access not only to the land itself, but to eight freshwater springs, the municipal rubbish dump and the urban West Bank hub of nearby Ramallah.
The dispute about the route of the wall is one of many. What makes this one different is that several hundred of the villagers' nearest Jewish neighbours, residents like Mr Shohami of the upmarket and largely secular Israeli neighbourhood of Mevassaret Zion, are backing the Palestinian campaign against the army's plans for the barrier. In a climate in which relations between Arabs and Jews have steadily deteriorated on most fronts during three and half years of the intifada, this is a first.
...
Mr Shohami does not set much store by suggestions that a gate in the barrier would allow access for Palestinians to their land and perhaps even to Mevassaret. Experience from elsewhere on the barrier, he says, suggests that such a gate might be opened by the army for an hour each morning and afternoon if at all. He makes no claim to represent a majority of Mevassaret's 25,000 residents. Although most of the 400 signatures were gathered in a mere two or three hours on a single afternoon in the neighbourhood's main shopping mall, he accepts that many residents disagree with him. Sipping coffee in the mall this week, Steven Katz, a 35-year-old dentist, said: "I agree with the route of the fence and no, I don't think it will cause more resentment among the Palestinians than there is already." Of Mr Shohami and his fellow campaigners he says: "I think they are compassionate people but they are unrealistic. Elsewhere the fence has stopped a lot of things that were coming in." Yet a casual straw poll also showed some surprising support. Two young women who work at the mall, Ortel Halag and her friend Rikky Salim, both 26, signed the petition. Ms Halag supports Ariel Sharon but adds: "I don't think the Arabs are bad people. They should be allowed to keep some property, olives and stuff."
Enclosing them, she suggests, will not lead to peace and for her, that is all-important. Several of her friends have emigrated to the US or Australia because "this is not a normal life. It's crazy". For example, she adds: "I used to believe in settlements but now I don't think they're doing good for Palestinians or for us." ...
Off the Mark on Cost of War, Reception by Iraqis: Things have not worked out that way, for the most part
Off the Mark on Cost of War, Reception by Iraqis (washingtonpost.com): "By Dana Milbank and Robin Wright
Washington Post Staff Writers | Friday, March 19, 2004; Page A01
A year ago tonight, President Bush took the nation to war in Iraq with a grand vision for change in the Middle East and beyond.
The invasion and occupation of Iraq, his administration predicted, would come at little financial cost and would materially improve the lives of Iraqis. Americans would be greeted as liberators, Bush officials predicted, and the toppling of Saddam Hussein would spread peace and democracy throughout the Middle East.
Things have not worked out that way, for the most part. There is evidence that the economic lives of Iraqis are improving, thanks to an infusion of U.S. and foreign capital. But the administration badly underestimated the financial cost of the occupation and seriously overstated the ease of pacifying Iraq and the warmth of the reception Iraqis would give the U.S. invaders. And while peace and democracy may yet spread through the region, some early signs are that the U.S. action has had the opposite effect.
Much of the focus on prewar expectations vs. postwar reality has been on the failure to find weapons of mass destruction. But while that was the central justification for the war in Iraq, the administration also made a wide range of claims about the ease of the invasion and the benefits that would result. Though comparisons between expectations and results are complex, it appears that the administration, based on limited human intelligence and conversations with a small corps of Iraqi exiles, was overly optimistic. ...
Off the Mark on Cost of War, Reception by Iraqis (washingtonpost.com): "By Dana Milbank and Robin Wright
Washington Post Staff Writers | Friday, March 19, 2004; Page A01
A year ago tonight, President Bush took the nation to war in Iraq with a grand vision for change in the Middle East and beyond.
The invasion and occupation of Iraq, his administration predicted, would come at little financial cost and would materially improve the lives of Iraqis. Americans would be greeted as liberators, Bush officials predicted, and the toppling of Saddam Hussein would spread peace and democracy throughout the Middle East.
Things have not worked out that way, for the most part. There is evidence that the economic lives of Iraqis are improving, thanks to an infusion of U.S. and foreign capital. But the administration badly underestimated the financial cost of the occupation and seriously overstated the ease of pacifying Iraq and the warmth of the reception Iraqis would give the U.S. invaders. And while peace and democracy may yet spread through the region, some early signs are that the U.S. action has had the opposite effect.
Much of the focus on prewar expectations vs. postwar reality has been on the failure to find weapons of mass destruction. But while that was the central justification for the war in Iraq, the administration also made a wide range of claims about the ease of the invasion and the benefits that would result. Though comparisons between expectations and results are complex, it appears that the administration, based on limited human intelligence and conversations with a small corps of Iraqi exiles, was overly optimistic. ...
[Bush would have had] harder time selling this war of choice [if American's knew Saddam was] reduced to a toothless tiger
One Year After: "Published: March 19, 2004
One year ago, President Bush began the war in Iraq. Most Americans expected military victory to come quickly, as it did. Despite the administration's optimism about what would follow, it was also easy to predict that the period after the fall of Baghdad would be very messy and very dangerous. In that sense, right now we're exactly where we expected to be.
It's nonetheless important to remember that none of this might have happened if we had known then what we know now. No matter what the president believed about the long-term threat posed by Saddam Hussein, he would have had a much harder time selling this war of choice to the American people if they had known that the Iraqi dictator had been reduced to a toothless tiger by the first Persian Gulf war and by United Nations weapons inspectors. Iraq's weapons programs had been shut down, Mr. Hussein had no threatening weapons stockpiled, the administration was exaggerating evidence about them, and there was, and is, no evidence that Mr. Hussein was involved in the 9/11 attacks.
Right now, our highest priority is making the best of a very disturbing situation. Even our European allies who opposed the war want to see Iraq stabilized and turned over to its citizens — even if they don't necessarily see Washington as the force to do that. The other possibility, an Iraq flung into chaos and civil war, open to manipulation by every unscrupulous political figure and terrorist group in the Middle East, is too awful to contemplate. ...
One Year After: "Published: March 19, 2004
One year ago, President Bush began the war in Iraq. Most Americans expected military victory to come quickly, as it did. Despite the administration's optimism about what would follow, it was also easy to predict that the period after the fall of Baghdad would be very messy and very dangerous. In that sense, right now we're exactly where we expected to be.
It's nonetheless important to remember that none of this might have happened if we had known then what we know now. No matter what the president believed about the long-term threat posed by Saddam Hussein, he would have had a much harder time selling this war of choice to the American people if they had known that the Iraqi dictator had been reduced to a toothless tiger by the first Persian Gulf war and by United Nations weapons inspectors. Iraq's weapons programs had been shut down, Mr. Hussein had no threatening weapons stockpiled, the administration was exaggerating evidence about them, and there was, and is, no evidence that Mr. Hussein was involved in the 9/11 attacks.
Right now, our highest priority is making the best of a very disturbing situation. Even our European allies who opposed the war want to see Iraq stabilized and turned over to its citizens — even if they don't necessarily see Washington as the force to do that. The other possibility, an Iraq flung into chaos and civil war, open to manipulation by every unscrupulous political figure and terrorist group in the Middle East, is too awful to contemplate. ...
Administration's exploitation of the world's good will damaged our credibility: Spanish elections "in a sense, appease terrorists"!
Op-Ed Columnist: Taken for a Ride: "Taken for a Ride
By PAUL KRUGMAN | Published: March 19, 2004"
"Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists." So George Bush declared on Sept. 20, 2001. But what was he saying? Surely he didn't mean that everyone was obliged to support all of his policies, that if you opposed him on anything you were aiding terrorists.
Now we know that he meant just that.
A year ago, President Bush, who had a global mandate to pursue the terrorists responsible for 9/11, went after someone else instead. Most Americans, I suspect, still don't realize how badly this apparent exploitation of the world's good will — and the subsequent failure to find weapons of mass destruction — damaged our credibility. They imagine that only the dastardly French, and now maybe the cowardly Spaniards, doubt our word. But yesterday, according to Agence France-Presse, the president of Poland — which has roughly 2,500 soldiers in Iraq — had this to say: "That they deceived us about the weapons of mass destruction, that's true. We were taken for a ride."
...
By voting for a new government, in other words, the Spaniards were enforcing the accountability that is the essence of democracy. But in the world according to Mr. Bush's supporters, anyone who demands accountability is on the side of the evildoers. According to Dennis Hastert, the speaker of the House, the Spanish people "had a huge terrorist attack within their country and they chose to change their government and to, in a sense, appease terrorists."
So there you have it. A country's ruling party leads the nation into a war fought on false pretenses, fails to protect the nation from terrorists and engages in a cover-up when a terrorist attack does occur. But its electoral defeat isn't democracy at work; it's a victory for the terrorists.
Op-Ed Columnist: Taken for a Ride: "Taken for a Ride
By PAUL KRUGMAN | Published: March 19, 2004"
"Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists." So George Bush declared on Sept. 20, 2001. But what was he saying? Surely he didn't mean that everyone was obliged to support all of his policies, that if you opposed him on anything you were aiding terrorists.
Now we know that he meant just that.
A year ago, President Bush, who had a global mandate to pursue the terrorists responsible for 9/11, went after someone else instead. Most Americans, I suspect, still don't realize how badly this apparent exploitation of the world's good will — and the subsequent failure to find weapons of mass destruction — damaged our credibility. They imagine that only the dastardly French, and now maybe the cowardly Spaniards, doubt our word. But yesterday, according to Agence France-Presse, the president of Poland — which has roughly 2,500 soldiers in Iraq — had this to say: "That they deceived us about the weapons of mass destruction, that's true. We were taken for a ride."
...
By voting for a new government, in other words, the Spaniards were enforcing the accountability that is the essence of democracy. But in the world according to Mr. Bush's supporters, anyone who demands accountability is on the side of the evildoers. According to Dennis Hastert, the speaker of the House, the Spanish people "had a huge terrorist attack within their country and they chose to change their government and to, in a sense, appease terrorists."
So there you have it. A country's ruling party leads the nation into a war fought on false pretenses, fails to protect the nation from terrorists and engages in a cover-up when a terrorist attack does occur. But its electoral defeat isn't democracy at work; it's a victory for the terrorists.
Wednesday, March 17, 2004
Sharon: No wonder his unilateral disengagement initiative ... has been received with skepticism
Haaretz - Israel News - Take him seriously: "By Yoel Marcus | Tue., March 16, 2004
... Ariel Sharon ... was a soldier in an era when it was customary not to reveal the whole truth to the government, and it became habit-forming; but because he's such a pro at convincing you to believe one thing and then the opposite.
Sharon, who turned the whole country upside down a few weeks ago with his talk about evacuating 17 settlements in the Gaza Strip, because they won't remain there in a permanent accord anyway, is the same Sharon who explained a year or two ago that every settlement in the Gaza Strip is imperative for Israel's defense and impossible to give up. This man was elected on a peace and security ticket, but has brought neither. Instead, the Israeli death toll has risen to 1,000. He promised painful concessions, but not a single illegal outpost has been dismantled.
No wonder his unilateral disengagement initiative, the first step of which is pulling out of the Gaza Strip, has been received with skepticism. Is he serious or playing games again? If he's serious, why aren't there any blueprints? Why hasn't the plan been brought before the government for a vote? If he is really prepared to give up so many settlements in one blow, why isn't it being done in conjunction with the Palestinians? Why hasn't he done anything to get the ball rolling? Why is Bush so hesitant to give his blessing? ...
Haaretz - Israel News - Take him seriously: "By Yoel Marcus | Tue., March 16, 2004
... Ariel Sharon ... was a soldier in an era when it was customary not to reveal the whole truth to the government, and it became habit-forming; but because he's such a pro at convincing you to believe one thing and then the opposite.
Sharon, who turned the whole country upside down a few weeks ago with his talk about evacuating 17 settlements in the Gaza Strip, because they won't remain there in a permanent accord anyway, is the same Sharon who explained a year or two ago that every settlement in the Gaza Strip is imperative for Israel's defense and impossible to give up. This man was elected on a peace and security ticket, but has brought neither. Instead, the Israeli death toll has risen to 1,000. He promised painful concessions, but not a single illegal outpost has been dismantled.
No wonder his unilateral disengagement initiative, the first step of which is pulling out of the Gaza Strip, has been received with skepticism. Is he serious or playing games again? If he's serious, why aren't there any blueprints? Why hasn't the plan been brought before the government for a vote? If he is really prepared to give up so many settlements in one blow, why isn't it being done in conjunction with the Palestinians? Why hasn't he done anything to get the ball rolling? Why is Bush so hesitant to give his blessing? ...
Saturday, March 13, 2004
Bush's Uncle directs company that sold $63M of WMD protection equipment to the army at the outbreak of war
Chris Floyd: How the WMD Scam Put Money in Bush Family Pockets: "March 5, 2004 | Uncle Sugar | How the WMD Scam Put Money in the Bush Family's Pockets
By CHRIS FLOYD
Why did George W. Bush insist--with such fanatical certainty, despite the well-established, clearly-stated doubts of his own intelligence services--that Saddam Hussein was hoarding a vast arsenal of weapons of mass destruction? ...
That's easy--because his family was making money from it.
...
No, today we're dealing with Pop's brother, William, uncle of the current president.
William Bush is a director of Engineered Support Systems Inc. (ESSI), a supplier of high-tech military goods to--well, to the highest bidder. Just last year they sold $13 million worth of advanced radar gear to upgrade Communist China's fleet of fighter jets--you know, the kind that force down U.S. spy planes with such aplomb. ...
...
... ESSI markets a "Chemical Biological Protected Shelter System" unit--a mobile shed that can provide a non-contaminated area for command centers or field hospitals during a WMD attack. In the very first week of George's war, with the TV generals warning every hour of impending bioterror doom hurtling toward the troops, Uncle Bill's boys raked in $19 million for a shipment of CBP units, an ESSI press release reports. This was on top of $44 million worth of the anti-WMD units ordered during Pretzel's panic-mongering before the war.
...
... Bush's bellicose policies--obviously based on the Scriptures: "There shall be war, and rumors of war"--foment a never-ending cycle of blowback and revenge, of fear, instability and global militarization. (Indeed, cosmic militarization: a whole armada of new "space weapons" programs are now in preparation, Wired reports.) But this is the kind of moral chaos the Bush-Walker clan has always profited from, as Kevin Phillips shows in his devastating new history, American Dynasty.
...
So did George Walker Bush attack Iraq just so his uncle could shift a little product? No. But for generations, he and his family and their silky ilk--the higher hustlers, in search of easy money--have used bloodshed, hatred and deceit to turn public policy, and public treasuries, into engines of private gain. War profiteering is inevitable, inescapable--even laudable--in the waking nightmare of corruption and death they've helped foist upon the world.
Chris Floyd: How the WMD Scam Put Money in Bush Family Pockets: "March 5, 2004 | Uncle Sugar | How the WMD Scam Put Money in the Bush Family's Pockets
By CHRIS FLOYD
Why did George W. Bush insist--with such fanatical certainty, despite the well-established, clearly-stated doubts of his own intelligence services--that Saddam Hussein was hoarding a vast arsenal of weapons of mass destruction? ...
That's easy--because his family was making money from it.
...
No, today we're dealing with Pop's brother, William, uncle of the current president.
William Bush is a director of Engineered Support Systems Inc. (ESSI), a supplier of high-tech military goods to--well, to the highest bidder. Just last year they sold $13 million worth of advanced radar gear to upgrade Communist China's fleet of fighter jets--you know, the kind that force down U.S. spy planes with such aplomb. ...
...
... ESSI markets a "Chemical Biological Protected Shelter System" unit--a mobile shed that can provide a non-contaminated area for command centers or field hospitals during a WMD attack. In the very first week of George's war, with the TV generals warning every hour of impending bioterror doom hurtling toward the troops, Uncle Bill's boys raked in $19 million for a shipment of CBP units, an ESSI press release reports. This was on top of $44 million worth of the anti-WMD units ordered during Pretzel's panic-mongering before the war.
...
... Bush's bellicose policies--obviously based on the Scriptures: "There shall be war, and rumors of war"--foment a never-ending cycle of blowback and revenge, of fear, instability and global militarization. (Indeed, cosmic militarization: a whole armada of new "space weapons" programs are now in preparation, Wired reports.) But this is the kind of moral chaos the Bush-Walker clan has always profited from, as Kevin Phillips shows in his devastating new history, American Dynasty.
...
So did George Walker Bush attack Iraq just so his uncle could shift a little product? No. But for generations, he and his family and their silky ilk--the higher hustlers, in search of easy money--have used bloodshed, hatred and deceit to turn public policy, and public treasuries, into engines of private gain. War profiteering is inevitable, inescapable--even laudable--in the waking nightmare of corruption and death they've helped foist upon the world.
William D. Hartung: Iraq and the Costs of War
William D. Hartung: Iraq and the Costs of War: "March 6 / 7, 2004 | The High Cost of Privatized Warfare
Halliburton's role in Iraq has been deeply scrutinized in the past few months but its implications go far beyond one company or one conflict. The real issue at hand is determining how to best provide effective support for our men and women in uniform, at a reasonable cost, with transparency and accountability. That's true in Iraq, or Afghanistan, or the Philippines, or Colombia, or Kosovo, or Liberia, or anywhere else American military personnel are sent on short notice to face down tyrants or keep the peace.
Problems with the Estimation Game: The Hidden Costs of War
Wars are costly undertakings. They almost always cost more than government officials claim they will. Yale economist William D. Nordhaus has suggested that governments have an incentive to understate the costs of conflict because 'If wars are thought to be short, cheap, and bloodless, then it is easier to persuade the populace and the Congress to defer to the President.' 1
Robert Hormats, the Vice-Chairman of Goldman Sachs International, observed during the run-up to the current war in Iraq: History is littered with gross underestimates of the cost of war. Lincoln originally thought the civil war could last 90 days. His Treasury told him it would cost $250 million. It lasted four years and cost $3.3 billion. The First World War was originally forecast to be short and inexpensive. The Vietnam war cost 90% more than forecast. 2
Likewise, when former White House economic adviser Lawrence Lindsey suggested to the Wall Street Journal in September of 2002 that a U.S. intervention in Iraq could cost about 2% of our Gross Domestic Product--roughly $200 billion--the White House quickly dismissed his estimate. A few months later, they also dismissed Lindsey from his post as White House economic adviser. Roughly a year and a half after Lindsey made his prediction, and less than a year into the war in Iraq, his rough guess is beginning to look like a gross underestimate of the cost of intervening in Iraq. To date, U.S. taxpayers have committed roughly $180 billion to the buildup to war, the overthrow of Saddam Hussein's regime, and the ongoing occupation and rebuilding effort in Iraq . That doesn't count the costs of "buying allies" through special aid and trade deals, or any projections forward of how long we may have "boots on the ground" in Iraq. And it is unlikely in an election year that this administration will be forthcoming about future costs. It will pretend they don't exist--as with the failure to budget for war costs in the FY 2005 budget documents--or let them out in dribs and drabs as with the recently floated $50 billion supplemental request.
The biggest source of the underestimate in the case of this war was the notion among some in this administration that the war would be a "cakewalk," and that once Saddam Hussein's regime had crumbled, building a functioning democracy in Iraq would be a relatively straightforward, inexpensive affair. In fact, Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz and AID administrator Andrew Natsios cited figures as low as $1.5 billion for Iraqi rebuilding, on the theory that most of the funds could come from the sale of Iraqi oil. This is particularly ironic when we consider that some of the charges of fraud and abuse relating to Halliburton have to do with overcharges in the importation of fuel into Iraq. ...
William D. Hartung: Iraq and the Costs of War: "March 6 / 7, 2004 | The High Cost of Privatized Warfare
Halliburton's role in Iraq has been deeply scrutinized in the past few months but its implications go far beyond one company or one conflict. The real issue at hand is determining how to best provide effective support for our men and women in uniform, at a reasonable cost, with transparency and accountability. That's true in Iraq, or Afghanistan, or the Philippines, or Colombia, or Kosovo, or Liberia, or anywhere else American military personnel are sent on short notice to face down tyrants or keep the peace.
Problems with the Estimation Game: The Hidden Costs of War
Wars are costly undertakings. They almost always cost more than government officials claim they will. Yale economist William D. Nordhaus has suggested that governments have an incentive to understate the costs of conflict because 'If wars are thought to be short, cheap, and bloodless, then it is easier to persuade the populace and the Congress to defer to the President.' 1
Robert Hormats, the Vice-Chairman of Goldman Sachs International, observed during the run-up to the current war in Iraq: History is littered with gross underestimates of the cost of war. Lincoln originally thought the civil war could last 90 days. His Treasury told him it would cost $250 million. It lasted four years and cost $3.3 billion. The First World War was originally forecast to be short and inexpensive. The Vietnam war cost 90% more than forecast. 2
Likewise, when former White House economic adviser Lawrence Lindsey suggested to the Wall Street Journal in September of 2002 that a U.S. intervention in Iraq could cost about 2% of our Gross Domestic Product--roughly $200 billion--the White House quickly dismissed his estimate. A few months later, they also dismissed Lindsey from his post as White House economic adviser. Roughly a year and a half after Lindsey made his prediction, and less than a year into the war in Iraq, his rough guess is beginning to look like a gross underestimate of the cost of intervening in Iraq. To date, U.S. taxpayers have committed roughly $180 billion to the buildup to war, the overthrow of Saddam Hussein's regime, and the ongoing occupation and rebuilding effort in Iraq . That doesn't count the costs of "buying allies" through special aid and trade deals, or any projections forward of how long we may have "boots on the ground" in Iraq. And it is unlikely in an election year that this administration will be forthcoming about future costs. It will pretend they don't exist--as with the failure to budget for war costs in the FY 2005 budget documents--or let them out in dribs and drabs as with the recently floated $50 billion supplemental request.
The biggest source of the underestimate in the case of this war was the notion among some in this administration that the war would be a "cakewalk," and that once Saddam Hussein's regime had crumbled, building a functioning democracy in Iraq would be a relatively straightforward, inexpensive affair. In fact, Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz and AID administrator Andrew Natsios cited figures as low as $1.5 billion for Iraqi rebuilding, on the theory that most of the funds could come from the sale of Iraqi oil. This is particularly ironic when we consider that some of the charges of fraud and abuse relating to Halliburton have to do with overcharges in the importation of fuel into Iraq. ...
Military and settlers have successfully restricted Jinba's residents to a miniscule piece of land: small plane sprays chemicals to destroy crops
Neve Gordon: Demographic Wars: "March 12 / 14, 2004
'You Will Not Live on This Land for Long' | Demographic Wars | By NEVE GORDON
On the southern tip of the West Bank, situated on the slope of a mountain, there is a small village of Palestinian cave-dwellers. Its name is Jinba, and it is home to roughly three hundred inhabitants. A visitor might see the sheep grazing on a nearby hill and a tractor plowing the fields. An idyllic scene, especially following the rainy season, when the desert has turned green.
...
A few hundred meters south of Jinba the Israeli military set up a training camp and confiscated acres and acres of agricultural land which had previously belonged to the inhabitants. Armored vehicles and jeeps travel unrestricted even on fields adjacent to the village which the military has not expropriated, and thus destroy crops and frighten young children.
A few hundred meters to the north, along the mountain ridge, a series of Jewish settlements and outposts have been constructed. The settlers threaten any Palestinian who climbs the mountain slope, thus preventing the residents of Jinba from plowing their northern fields and grazing their sheep. In addition, these settlers have also blocked the path between Jinba and Yatta, the major town in the region where the cave-dwellers buy basic foods and obtain medical services.
Hence, the military and settlers have successfully restricted Jinba's residents to a miniscule piece of land which barely suffices to sustain the population. The inhabitants have been confined to a desert island of sorts, and in many ways their lives are now similar to the lives of thousands of Palestinians who are trapped between the separation barrier -- a complex series of trenches, roads, and fences -- and the Green Line, the pre-1967 border; it is extremely difficult for them to travel into the West Bank and impossible to enter Israel. Their movement has been severely restricted, and they have, in a sense, been imprisoned.
Two months ago, the cave-dwellers suffered yet another blow. On January 15, a small plane sprayed some of the fields the villagers still had access to, destroying the crops that had been planted just a few weeks earlier with chemicals. What could not be carried out from the ground was accomplished from the air. ...
Neve Gordon: Demographic Wars: "March 12 / 14, 2004
'You Will Not Live on This Land for Long' | Demographic Wars | By NEVE GORDON
On the southern tip of the West Bank, situated on the slope of a mountain, there is a small village of Palestinian cave-dwellers. Its name is Jinba, and it is home to roughly three hundred inhabitants. A visitor might see the sheep grazing on a nearby hill and a tractor plowing the fields. An idyllic scene, especially following the rainy season, when the desert has turned green.
...
A few hundred meters south of Jinba the Israeli military set up a training camp and confiscated acres and acres of agricultural land which had previously belonged to the inhabitants. Armored vehicles and jeeps travel unrestricted even on fields adjacent to the village which the military has not expropriated, and thus destroy crops and frighten young children.
A few hundred meters to the north, along the mountain ridge, a series of Jewish settlements and outposts have been constructed. The settlers threaten any Palestinian who climbs the mountain slope, thus preventing the residents of Jinba from plowing their northern fields and grazing their sheep. In addition, these settlers have also blocked the path between Jinba and Yatta, the major town in the region where the cave-dwellers buy basic foods and obtain medical services.
Hence, the military and settlers have successfully restricted Jinba's residents to a miniscule piece of land which barely suffices to sustain the population. The inhabitants have been confined to a desert island of sorts, and in many ways their lives are now similar to the lives of thousands of Palestinians who are trapped between the separation barrier -- a complex series of trenches, roads, and fences -- and the Green Line, the pre-1967 border; it is extremely difficult for them to travel into the West Bank and impossible to enter Israel. Their movement has been severely restricted, and they have, in a sense, been imprisoned.
Two months ago, the cave-dwellers suffered yet another blow. On January 15, a small plane sprayed some of the fields the villagers still had access to, destroying the crops that had been planted just a few weeks earlier with chemicals. What could not be carried out from the ground was accomplished from the air. ...
Confusing symptoms with causes: If apartheid was considered the problem in South Africa, why is it being touted as a solution in Israel/Palestine?
Mazin Qumsiyeh: Why is Apartheid Touted as a Solution?: "March 8, 2004 | Enough is Enough | Why is Apartheid Touted as a Solution? | By MAZIN QUMSIYEH
As I write this, Israeli occupation forces have just finished killing 14 and injuring 80 Palestinians in a five hour 'sweep' in Gaza. Four of those killed and 26 of those injured were children (ages 10-16). In one week, Israeli occupation forces thus murdered 59 Palestinians (most were civilians). Little of this is reported in US mainstream media which is focusing on Martha Stewart and the explosions in Baghdad.
While everyone hears about Israeli victims, little is reported of the far larger number of Palestinian victims. The number of Palestinians killed by Israeli forces since the beginning of the Intifada (Palestinian uprising against the illegal Israeli occupation) is now 2463 including 477 children. Reports by human rights organizations and UN investigators confirm that Israeli forces willfully target civilians . Further, in the past three years alone, over 3000 Palestinian homes were demolished rendering over 11,000 people homeless (Amnesty International).
Over 1100 Palestinians were killed in the large open-air prison called the Gaza strip. Here, over one million Palestinians live in a desert area with the highest population density anywhere in the world. Thus, 1 in 1000 Gazans was killed by Israeli occupation forces in just three years. Proportionally, this would be like having nearly 300,000 Americans killed in three years. But numbers do not tell the whole story as each victim (Palestinian as well as Israeli) is an equally precious human being. This is something forgotten as we defend Israeli apartheid.
Further, of the occupied Palestinians, 70% are refugees denied their inalienable right of return to their homes and lands from which they were ethnically cleansed. The majority are unemployed and live below the poverty line.
The building of the apartheid wall, the removal of Palestinians from their lands, and the continued violence are all supported: a) using our tax money to the tune of $5 billion this year and b) using our US governmental support (e.g. recent veto of UN security council resolutions).
I urge those interested in facts to read Israeli authors such as Avi Shlaim, Ilan Pappe, Jeff Halper, Tanya Reinhardt and Tom Segev. Alternatively, skip watching Fox and CNN and run a WWW search on Palestine to get some varied perspectives. I urge all to think of why there are Israeli refuseniks in Israeli jails, why Israel is building an apartheid wall, why there is a growing divestment and boycott movement, and why do we continue to suffer as tax-payers for our government's support of racist apartheid.
Shouldn't we say enough is enough? If we insist on coexistence and separation of religion and state here in the US, why do we support a system that says any Jew (including converts) can get automatic citizenship and land in Israel while Palestinian refugees are denied the right to return to their homes and lands simply because they are Christian or Muslim.
If apartheid was considered the problem in South Africa, why is it being touted as a solution in Israel/Palestine? And finally, why do some confuse symptoms (violence which kills far more Palestinian civilians than Israeli) with underlying diseases (colonial violent occupation and ethnic cleansing over the past 56 years)?
Mazin Qumsiyeh: Why is Apartheid Touted as a Solution?: "March 8, 2004 | Enough is Enough | Why is Apartheid Touted as a Solution? | By MAZIN QUMSIYEH
As I write this, Israeli occupation forces have just finished killing 14 and injuring 80 Palestinians in a five hour 'sweep' in Gaza. Four of those killed and 26 of those injured were children (ages 10-16). In one week, Israeli occupation forces thus murdered 59 Palestinians (most were civilians). Little of this is reported in US mainstream media which is focusing on Martha Stewart and the explosions in Baghdad.
While everyone hears about Israeli victims, little is reported of the far larger number of Palestinian victims. The number of Palestinians killed by Israeli forces since the beginning of the Intifada (Palestinian uprising against the illegal Israeli occupation) is now 2463 including 477 children. Reports by human rights organizations and UN investigators confirm that Israeli forces willfully target civilians . Further, in the past three years alone, over 3000 Palestinian homes were demolished rendering over 11,000 people homeless (Amnesty International).
Over 1100 Palestinians were killed in the large open-air prison called the Gaza strip. Here, over one million Palestinians live in a desert area with the highest population density anywhere in the world. Thus, 1 in 1000 Gazans was killed by Israeli occupation forces in just three years. Proportionally, this would be like having nearly 300,000 Americans killed in three years. But numbers do not tell the whole story as each victim (Palestinian as well as Israeli) is an equally precious human being. This is something forgotten as we defend Israeli apartheid.
Further, of the occupied Palestinians, 70% are refugees denied their inalienable right of return to their homes and lands from which they were ethnically cleansed. The majority are unemployed and live below the poverty line.
The building of the apartheid wall, the removal of Palestinians from their lands, and the continued violence are all supported: a) using our tax money to the tune of $5 billion this year and b) using our US governmental support (e.g. recent veto of UN security council resolutions).
I urge those interested in facts to read Israeli authors such as Avi Shlaim, Ilan Pappe, Jeff Halper, Tanya Reinhardt and Tom Segev. Alternatively, skip watching Fox and CNN and run a WWW search on Palestine to get some varied perspectives. I urge all to think of why there are Israeli refuseniks in Israeli jails, why Israel is building an apartheid wall, why there is a growing divestment and boycott movement, and why do we continue to suffer as tax-payers for our government's support of racist apartheid.
Shouldn't we say enough is enough? If we insist on coexistence and separation of religion and state here in the US, why do we support a system that says any Jew (including converts) can get automatic citizenship and land in Israel while Palestinian refugees are denied the right to return to their homes and lands simply because they are Christian or Muslim.
If apartheid was considered the problem in South Africa, why is it being touted as a solution in Israel/Palestine? And finally, why do some confuse symptoms (violence which kills far more Palestinian civilians than Israeli) with underlying diseases (colonial violent occupation and ethnic cleansing over the past 56 years)?
Thursday, March 11, 2004
'Take Them At Their Words.': Quotes from Bush and other prominent allies
t r u t h o u t - William Rivers Pitt | Fish. Barrel. Boom.: "Thursday 11 March 2004
'I'm a firm believer in feeding people their own words back to them, when it's appropriate.' - Trent Lott
As we hurtle headlong into the silly season, a high colonic for the mind is in order. There is going to be a lot of back-and-forth between the candidates regarding who said what and when. Feast, in that context, upon this small collection:
'Victory means exit strategy, and it's important for the President to explain to us what the exit strategy is.'
- George W. Bush, discussing Kosovo, Houston Chronicle, 04-09-99
'I said on my program, if, if the Americans go in and overthrow Saddam Hussein and it's clean, he has nothing, I will apologize to the nation, and I will not trust the Bush administration again.'
- Bill O'Reilly, on ABC's Good Morning America, 03-18-03
'I tell people don't kill all the liberals. Leave enough so we can have two on every campus - living fossils - so we will never forget what these people stood for.'
- Rush Limbaugh, Denver Post, 12-29-95
'If the Supreme Court says that you have the right to consensual gay sex within your home, then you have the right to bigamy, you have the right to polygamy, you have the right to incest, you have the right to adultery. You have the right to anything. All of those things are antithetical to a healthy, stable, traditional family and that's sort of where we are in today's world, unfortunately. It all comes from, I would argue, the right to privacy that doesn't exist, in my opinion, in the United States Constitution.'
- Senator Rick Santorum (R-PA), Associated Press, 04-22-03
"I would warn Orlando that you're right in the way of some serious hurricanes, and I don't think I'd be waving those flags in God's face if I were you. This is not a message of hate; this is a message of redemption. But a condition like this will bring about the destruction of your nation. It'll bring about terrorist bombs; it'll bring earthquakes, tornadoes and possibly a meteor."
- Pat Robertson, speaking of organizers putting rainbow flags up around Orlando to support sexual diversity, Washington Post, 06-10-98. For the record, Orlando remains undestroyed by meteors.
"Environmentalists are a socialist group of individuals that are the tool of the Democrat Party. I'm proud to say that they are my enemy. They are not Americans, never have been Americans, never will be Americans."
- Rep. Don Young (R-AK), Alaska Public Radio, 08-19-96
"When you strip it all away, Jerry Garcia destroyed his life on drugs. And yet he's being honored, like some godlike figure. Our priorities are out of whack, folks."
- Rush (currently under investigation for drug use) Limbaugh, on the death of Jerry Garcia, 08-20-95.
"I don't understand how poor people think."
- George W. Bush, confiding in the Rev. Jim Wallis, New York Times, 08-26-03
"Get rid of the guy. Impeach him, censure him, assassinate him."
- Rep. James Hansen (R-UT), talking about President Clinton, as reported by journalist Steve Miner of KSUB radio who overheard his conversation, 11-01-98
"We're going to keep building the party until we're hunting Democrats with dogs."
- Senator Phil Gramm (R-TX), Mother Jones, 08-95
"My only regret with Timothy McVeigh is he did not go to the New York Times building."
- Ann Coulter, New York Observer, 08-26-02
"Homosexuals want to come into churches and disrupt church services and throw blood all around and try to give people AIDS and spit in the face of ministers."
- Pat Robertson again, The 700 Club, 01-18-95
"And there is, I am certain, among the Iraqi people a respect for the care and the precision that went into the bombing campaign."
- Donald Rumsfeld, defenselink.mil, 04-09-03
"Emotional appeals about working families trying to get by on $4.25 an hour are hard to resist. Fortunately, such families do not exist."
- Rep. Tom DeLay (R-TX), House Majority Whip, during a debate on increasing the minimum wage, Congressional Record, H3706, 04-23-96
"Chelsea is a Clinton. She bears the taint; and though not prosecutable in law, in custom and nature the taint cannot be ignored. All the great despotisms of the past - I'm not arguing for despotism as a principle, but they sure knew how to deal with potential trouble - recognized that the families of objectionable citizens were a continuing threat. In Stalin's penal code it was a crime to be the wife or child of an 'enemy of the people.' The Nazis used the same principle, which they called Sippenhaft, 'clan liability.' In Imperial China, enemies of the state were punished 'to the ninth degree': that is, everyone in the offender's own generation would be killed and everyone related via four generations up, to the great-great-grandparents, and four generations down, to the great-great-grandchildren, would also be killed."
- John Derbyshire, National Review, 02-15-01
"I know this is painful for the ladies to hear, but if you get married, you have accepted the headship of a man, your husband. Christ is the head of the household and the husband is the head of the wife, and that's the way it is, period."
- Pat Robertson again, The 700 Club, 01-08-92
"Probably nothing."
- Jeb Bush, during his losing 1994 bid for Florida Governor, when asked what he would do for black people, quoted by Salon on 10-05-02
"The homosexual blitzkrieg has been better planned and executed than Hitler's."
- Rep. William Dannemeyer (R-CA), The New Republic, 08-01-94
"When lawlessness is abroad in the land, the same thing will happen here that happened in Nazi Germany. Many of those people involved in Adolph Hitler were Satanists. Many of them were homosexuals. The two things seem to go together."
- Pat Robertson again, The 700 Club, 01-21-93
"Why is this man in the White House? The majority of Americans did not vote for him. Why is he there? And I tell you this morning that he's in the White House because God put him there for a time such as this."
- Lt. General William G. Boykin, Deputy Undersecretary of Defense, New York Times, 10-17-03
"We need to execute people like John Walker in order to physically intimidate liberals, by making them realize that they can be killed, too. Otherwise, they will turn out to be outright traitors."
- Ann Coulter, at the Conservative Political Action Conference, 02-26-02
"I don't want to abolish government. I simply want to reduce it to the size where I can drag it into the bathroom and drown it in the bathtub."
- Grover Norquist, President of Americans for Tax Reform, NPR Morning Edition, 05-25-01
"I don't agree that you need an enormous number of American troops. Saddam's army is down to one-third than it was before, and I think it would be a cakewalk."
- Kenneth Adelman, Defense Policy Board, to Wolf Blitzer on CNN, 12-06-01
"The fact of the matter is that this (increased American casualties) is a sign of the success of our operation, not its failure."
- Ralph Reed, GOP strategist, on MSNBC's program 'Hardball,' 10-28-03
"There are some who feel that, you know, the conditions are such that they can attack us there. My answer is, bring 'em on. We have the force necessary to deal with the situation."
- George W. Bush, Chicago Tribune, 07-03-03
"The truth is that for reasons that have a lot to do with the U.S. government bureaucracy, we settled on the one issue that everyone could agree on, which was weapons of mass destruction as the core reason."
- Paul Wolfowitz, quoted by Tim Russert on 'Meet The Press, NBC, 06-01-03
"Quit looking at the symbols. Get out and get a job. Quit shooting each other. Quit having illegitimate babies."
- State Rep. John Graham Altman (R-SC), addressing African-American concerns about the 'symbol' of the Confederate Flag, New York Times, 01-24-97
"Two things made this country great: White men & Christianity. The degree these two have diminished is in direct proportion to the corruption and fall of the nation. Every problem that has arisen (sic) can be directly traced back to our departure from God's Law and the disenfranchisement of White men."
- State Rep. Don Davis (R-NC), emailed to every member of the North Carolina House and Senate, reported by the Fayetteville Observer, 08-22-01
"NOW is saying that in order to be a woman, you've got to be a lesbian."
- Pat Robertson again, The 700 Club, 12-03-97
"My biggest fear is going to be going to the funeral of some young Iowa man or woman who dies in this conflict and having their mother or father come up to me and ask whether or not their son or daughter died for America, or died to save Bill Clinton's presidency. I don't know what I would say to those grieving parents. For that reason I believe the President must resign immediately."
- Rep. Jim Nussle (R-IA), Congressional Record, H11963, 12-18-98
"Why should we hear about body bags and deaths and how many, what day it's gonna happen? It's not relevant. So why should I waste my beautiful mind on something like that?"
- Barbara Bush, said on 'Good Morning America' the day before the Iraq war started, New York Times, 01-13-03
"I'm the commander - see, I don't need to explain - I don't need to explain why I say things. That's the interesting thing about being the President. Maybe somebody needs to explain to me why they say something, but I don't feel like I owe anybody an explanation."
- George W. Bush, Washington Post, 11-19-02
These quotes, and about a thousand others equally as preposterous, can be found in a new book by Bruce Miller and Diana Maio titled 'Take Them At Their Words.' The next time our valiant conservative leadership bemoans the "corruption and fall of the nation," remember that, by and large, these bemoaners are the clowns who have been running the circus for the last several years.
t r u t h o u t - William Rivers Pitt | Fish. Barrel. Boom.: "Thursday 11 March 2004
'I'm a firm believer in feeding people their own words back to them, when it's appropriate.' - Trent Lott
As we hurtle headlong into the silly season, a high colonic for the mind is in order. There is going to be a lot of back-and-forth between the candidates regarding who said what and when. Feast, in that context, upon this small collection:
'Victory means exit strategy, and it's important for the President to explain to us what the exit strategy is.'
- George W. Bush, discussing Kosovo, Houston Chronicle, 04-09-99
'I said on my program, if, if the Americans go in and overthrow Saddam Hussein and it's clean, he has nothing, I will apologize to the nation, and I will not trust the Bush administration again.'
- Bill O'Reilly, on ABC's Good Morning America, 03-18-03
'I tell people don't kill all the liberals. Leave enough so we can have two on every campus - living fossils - so we will never forget what these people stood for.'
- Rush Limbaugh, Denver Post, 12-29-95
'If the Supreme Court says that you have the right to consensual gay sex within your home, then you have the right to bigamy, you have the right to polygamy, you have the right to incest, you have the right to adultery. You have the right to anything. All of those things are antithetical to a healthy, stable, traditional family and that's sort of where we are in today's world, unfortunately. It all comes from, I would argue, the right to privacy that doesn't exist, in my opinion, in the United States Constitution.'
- Senator Rick Santorum (R-PA), Associated Press, 04-22-03
"I would warn Orlando that you're right in the way of some serious hurricanes, and I don't think I'd be waving those flags in God's face if I were you. This is not a message of hate; this is a message of redemption. But a condition like this will bring about the destruction of your nation. It'll bring about terrorist bombs; it'll bring earthquakes, tornadoes and possibly a meteor."
- Pat Robertson, speaking of organizers putting rainbow flags up around Orlando to support sexual diversity, Washington Post, 06-10-98. For the record, Orlando remains undestroyed by meteors.
"Environmentalists are a socialist group of individuals that are the tool of the Democrat Party. I'm proud to say that they are my enemy. They are not Americans, never have been Americans, never will be Americans."
- Rep. Don Young (R-AK), Alaska Public Radio, 08-19-96
"When you strip it all away, Jerry Garcia destroyed his life on drugs. And yet he's being honored, like some godlike figure. Our priorities are out of whack, folks."
- Rush (currently under investigation for drug use) Limbaugh, on the death of Jerry Garcia, 08-20-95.
"I don't understand how poor people think."
- George W. Bush, confiding in the Rev. Jim Wallis, New York Times, 08-26-03
"Get rid of the guy. Impeach him, censure him, assassinate him."
- Rep. James Hansen (R-UT), talking about President Clinton, as reported by journalist Steve Miner of KSUB radio who overheard his conversation, 11-01-98
"We're going to keep building the party until we're hunting Democrats with dogs."
- Senator Phil Gramm (R-TX), Mother Jones, 08-95
"My only regret with Timothy McVeigh is he did not go to the New York Times building."
- Ann Coulter, New York Observer, 08-26-02
"Homosexuals want to come into churches and disrupt church services and throw blood all around and try to give people AIDS and spit in the face of ministers."
- Pat Robertson again, The 700 Club, 01-18-95
"And there is, I am certain, among the Iraqi people a respect for the care and the precision that went into the bombing campaign."
- Donald Rumsfeld, defenselink.mil, 04-09-03
"Emotional appeals about working families trying to get by on $4.25 an hour are hard to resist. Fortunately, such families do not exist."
- Rep. Tom DeLay (R-TX), House Majority Whip, during a debate on increasing the minimum wage, Congressional Record, H3706, 04-23-96
"Chelsea is a Clinton. She bears the taint; and though not prosecutable in law, in custom and nature the taint cannot be ignored. All the great despotisms of the past - I'm not arguing for despotism as a principle, but they sure knew how to deal with potential trouble - recognized that the families of objectionable citizens were a continuing threat. In Stalin's penal code it was a crime to be the wife or child of an 'enemy of the people.' The Nazis used the same principle, which they called Sippenhaft, 'clan liability.' In Imperial China, enemies of the state were punished 'to the ninth degree': that is, everyone in the offender's own generation would be killed and everyone related via four generations up, to the great-great-grandparents, and four generations down, to the great-great-grandchildren, would also be killed."
- John Derbyshire, National Review, 02-15-01
"I know this is painful for the ladies to hear, but if you get married, you have accepted the headship of a man, your husband. Christ is the head of the household and the husband is the head of the wife, and that's the way it is, period."
- Pat Robertson again, The 700 Club, 01-08-92
"Probably nothing."
- Jeb Bush, during his losing 1994 bid for Florida Governor, when asked what he would do for black people, quoted by Salon on 10-05-02
"The homosexual blitzkrieg has been better planned and executed than Hitler's."
- Rep. William Dannemeyer (R-CA), The New Republic, 08-01-94
"When lawlessness is abroad in the land, the same thing will happen here that happened in Nazi Germany. Many of those people involved in Adolph Hitler were Satanists. Many of them were homosexuals. The two things seem to go together."
- Pat Robertson again, The 700 Club, 01-21-93
"Why is this man in the White House? The majority of Americans did not vote for him. Why is he there? And I tell you this morning that he's in the White House because God put him there for a time such as this."
- Lt. General William G. Boykin, Deputy Undersecretary of Defense, New York Times, 10-17-03
"We need to execute people like John Walker in order to physically intimidate liberals, by making them realize that they can be killed, too. Otherwise, they will turn out to be outright traitors."
- Ann Coulter, at the Conservative Political Action Conference, 02-26-02
"I don't want to abolish government. I simply want to reduce it to the size where I can drag it into the bathroom and drown it in the bathtub."
- Grover Norquist, President of Americans for Tax Reform, NPR Morning Edition, 05-25-01
"I don't agree that you need an enormous number of American troops. Saddam's army is down to one-third than it was before, and I think it would be a cakewalk."
- Kenneth Adelman, Defense Policy Board, to Wolf Blitzer on CNN, 12-06-01
"The fact of the matter is that this (increased American casualties) is a sign of the success of our operation, not its failure."
- Ralph Reed, GOP strategist, on MSNBC's program 'Hardball,' 10-28-03
"There are some who feel that, you know, the conditions are such that they can attack us there. My answer is, bring 'em on. We have the force necessary to deal with the situation."
- George W. Bush, Chicago Tribune, 07-03-03
"The truth is that for reasons that have a lot to do with the U.S. government bureaucracy, we settled on the one issue that everyone could agree on, which was weapons of mass destruction as the core reason."
- Paul Wolfowitz, quoted by Tim Russert on 'Meet The Press, NBC, 06-01-03
"Quit looking at the symbols. Get out and get a job. Quit shooting each other. Quit having illegitimate babies."
- State Rep. John Graham Altman (R-SC), addressing African-American concerns about the 'symbol' of the Confederate Flag, New York Times, 01-24-97
"Two things made this country great: White men & Christianity. The degree these two have diminished is in direct proportion to the corruption and fall of the nation. Every problem that has arisen (sic) can be directly traced back to our departure from God's Law and the disenfranchisement of White men."
- State Rep. Don Davis (R-NC), emailed to every member of the North Carolina House and Senate, reported by the Fayetteville Observer, 08-22-01
"NOW is saying that in order to be a woman, you've got to be a lesbian."
- Pat Robertson again, The 700 Club, 12-03-97
"My biggest fear is going to be going to the funeral of some young Iowa man or woman who dies in this conflict and having their mother or father come up to me and ask whether or not their son or daughter died for America, or died to save Bill Clinton's presidency. I don't know what I would say to those grieving parents. For that reason I believe the President must resign immediately."
- Rep. Jim Nussle (R-IA), Congressional Record, H11963, 12-18-98
"Why should we hear about body bags and deaths and how many, what day it's gonna happen? It's not relevant. So why should I waste my beautiful mind on something like that?"
- Barbara Bush, said on 'Good Morning America' the day before the Iraq war started, New York Times, 01-13-03
"I'm the commander - see, I don't need to explain - I don't need to explain why I say things. That's the interesting thing about being the President. Maybe somebody needs to explain to me why they say something, but I don't feel like I owe anybody an explanation."
- George W. Bush, Washington Post, 11-19-02
These quotes, and about a thousand others equally as preposterous, can be found in a new book by Bruce Miller and Diana Maio titled 'Take Them At Their Words.' The next time our valiant conservative leadership bemoans the "corruption and fall of the nation," remember that, by and large, these bemoaners are the clowns who have been running the circus for the last several years.
Wednesday, March 10, 2004
C.I.A. Chief Says He�s Corrected Cheney Privately
C.I.A. Chief Says He�s Corrected Cheney Privately: "C.I.A. Chief Says He's Corrected Cheney Privately | By DOUGLAS JEHL | Published: March 10, 2004
WASHINGTON, March 9 � George J. Tenet, the director of central intelligence, told a Senate committee on Tuesday that he had privately intervened on several occasions to correct what he regarded as public misstatements on intelligence by Vice President Dick Cheney and others, and that he would do so again.
'When I believed that someone was misconstruing intelligence, I said something about it,' he said.
Mr. Tenet identified three instances in which he had already corrected public statements by President Bush or Mr. Cheney or would do so, but he left the impression that there had been more.
His comments, in testimony before the Armed Services Committee, came under sharp questioning from some Democrats on the panel, who have criticized him and the White House over prewar intelligence on Iraq. He insisted that he had honored his obligation to play a neutral role as the top intelligence adviser.
In response to a question, he said he did not think the administration had misrepresented facts to justify going to war.
Mr. Tenet said he planned to call Mr. Cheney's attention to a recent misstatement, in a Jan. 9 interview, when the vice president recommended as 'your best source of information' on links between Iraq and Al Qaeda the contents of a disputed memorandum by a senior Pentagon official, Douglas J. Feith.
That memorandum, sent last October to the Senate Intelligence Committee, portrayed what was presented as conclusive evidence of collaboration between Saddam Hussein's government and Al Qaeda, but it was never endorsed by intelligence agencies, who objected to Mr. Feith's findings.
Mr. Tenet said he was not aware of Mr. Cheney's comments in that interview, published in The Rocky Mountain News, until Monday night.
C.I.A. Chief Says He�s Corrected Cheney Privately: "C.I.A. Chief Says He's Corrected Cheney Privately | By DOUGLAS JEHL | Published: March 10, 2004
WASHINGTON, March 9 � George J. Tenet, the director of central intelligence, told a Senate committee on Tuesday that he had privately intervened on several occasions to correct what he regarded as public misstatements on intelligence by Vice President Dick Cheney and others, and that he would do so again.
'When I believed that someone was misconstruing intelligence, I said something about it,' he said.
Mr. Tenet identified three instances in which he had already corrected public statements by President Bush or Mr. Cheney or would do so, but he left the impression that there had been more.
His comments, in testimony before the Armed Services Committee, came under sharp questioning from some Democrats on the panel, who have criticized him and the White House over prewar intelligence on Iraq. He insisted that he had honored his obligation to play a neutral role as the top intelligence adviser.
In response to a question, he said he did not think the administration had misrepresented facts to justify going to war.
Mr. Tenet said he planned to call Mr. Cheney's attention to a recent misstatement, in a Jan. 9 interview, when the vice president recommended as 'your best source of information' on links between Iraq and Al Qaeda the contents of a disputed memorandum by a senior Pentagon official, Douglas J. Feith.
That memorandum, sent last October to the Senate Intelligence Committee, portrayed what was presented as conclusive evidence of collaboration between Saddam Hussein's government and Al Qaeda, but it was never endorsed by intelligence agencies, who objected to Mr. Feith's findings.
Mr. Tenet said he was not aware of Mr. Cheney's comments in that interview, published in The Rocky Mountain News, until Monday night.
Palestinian Group: U.S. Assassinated Abbas
Excite News: "Palestinian Group: U.S. Assassinated Abbas | Mar 10, 6:33 PM (ET) | By HUSSEIN DAKROUB
BEIRUT, Lebanon (AP) - A Palestinian guerrilla group accused the United States on Wednesday of assassinating its leader Abul Abbas, and a U.S. Pentagon official said the United States believes he died of a heart attack.
Abbas, 56, died Monday in U.S. detention in Baghdad. He was known for leading the 1985 hijacking of the Achille Lauro passenger ship in which a wheelchair-bound Jewish American tourist, Leon Klinghoffer, was killed and thrown overboard.
The U.S. deputy chief of operations in Iraq, Maj. Gen. Mark Kimmitt, said Abbas almost certain died of natural causes and an autopsy would confirm that. The U.S. Pentagon official said the autopsy had not been performed by that officials believe the cause was a heart attack.
Abbas' deputy in the Palestinian Liberation Front, Omar Shibli, said Abbas had never complained of ill health in letters he had sent in recent months.
'Abul Abbas' detention was illegal and his condition in the jail was very bad,' Shibli said. 'The Americans treated him in a way that led to his death in his prison cell.'
The Palestine Liberation Front issued a statement in Beirut saying the United States had wrongly arrested Abbas and assassinated him."...
Excite News: "Palestinian Group: U.S. Assassinated Abbas | Mar 10, 6:33 PM (ET) | By HUSSEIN DAKROUB
BEIRUT, Lebanon (AP) - A Palestinian guerrilla group accused the United States on Wednesday of assassinating its leader Abul Abbas, and a U.S. Pentagon official said the United States believes he died of a heart attack.
Abbas, 56, died Monday in U.S. detention in Baghdad. He was known for leading the 1985 hijacking of the Achille Lauro passenger ship in which a wheelchair-bound Jewish American tourist, Leon Klinghoffer, was killed and thrown overboard.
The U.S. deputy chief of operations in Iraq, Maj. Gen. Mark Kimmitt, said Abbas almost certain died of natural causes and an autopsy would confirm that. The U.S. Pentagon official said the autopsy had not been performed by that officials believe the cause was a heart attack.
Abbas' deputy in the Palestinian Liberation Front, Omar Shibli, said Abbas had never complained of ill health in letters he had sent in recent months.
'Abul Abbas' detention was illegal and his condition in the jail was very bad,' Shibli said. 'The Americans treated him in a way that led to his death in his prison cell.'
The Palestine Liberation Front issued a statement in Beirut saying the United States had wrongly arrested Abbas and assassinated him."...
Tuesday, March 09, 2004
Israel Marked Helmets of Arab Workers: Arab legislator, complained of racism. 'The Jews know who was marked,' [Nazis]
Excite News: "Israel Marked Helmets of Arab Workers | Mar 9, 8:37 AM (ET) | By RAMIT PLUSHNICK-MASTI
JERUSALEM (AP) - Israeli Arab workers building a new wing at the Israeli parliament had their helmets marked with red paint to help security guards distinguish them from foreign laborers, parliamentary officials confirmed on Tuesday.
Parliament Speaker Reuven Rivlin ordered the markings removed after learning of the practice from a report in the Maariv daily. The newspaper ran a photo Tuesday showing five workers with white helmets, three of them marked. Two of the workers had simple red lines on their helmets, and the third bore a large 'X.'
About 180 workers, including Israeli Arabs and foreigners, are building a new wing for the Knesset, Israel's parliament. Foreign workers, many from the Far East or Eastern Europe, are not considered a security threat by Israel.
Ahmed Tibi, an Arab legislator, complained of racism. 'The Jews know who was marked,' he said, an apparent reference to the yellow Star of David emblems Jews had to pin to their clothes during Nazi rule."
Knesset spokesman Giora Pordes said Arab workers who had not yet completed a lengthy security check had their helmets marked, while Arabs who had been cleared wore plain helmets. The markings were meant to allow Arab laborers to begin work immediately, rather than wait three or four months to complete the security check, Pordes said.
Israeli Arabs make up about 19 percent of Israel's population of 6.7 million people. In more than three years of Israeli-Palestinian fighting, tensions between Israeli Jews and Arabs have increased steadily. Arab citizens of Israel have long complained of systematic discrimination by Israeli authorities....
Excite News: "Israel Marked Helmets of Arab Workers | Mar 9, 8:37 AM (ET) | By RAMIT PLUSHNICK-MASTI
JERUSALEM (AP) - Israeli Arab workers building a new wing at the Israeli parliament had their helmets marked with red paint to help security guards distinguish them from foreign laborers, parliamentary officials confirmed on Tuesday.
Parliament Speaker Reuven Rivlin ordered the markings removed after learning of the practice from a report in the Maariv daily. The newspaper ran a photo Tuesday showing five workers with white helmets, three of them marked. Two of the workers had simple red lines on their helmets, and the third bore a large 'X.'
About 180 workers, including Israeli Arabs and foreigners, are building a new wing for the Knesset, Israel's parliament. Foreign workers, many from the Far East or Eastern Europe, are not considered a security threat by Israel.
Ahmed Tibi, an Arab legislator, complained of racism. 'The Jews know who was marked,' he said, an apparent reference to the yellow Star of David emblems Jews had to pin to their clothes during Nazi rule."
Knesset spokesman Giora Pordes said Arab workers who had not yet completed a lengthy security check had their helmets marked, while Arabs who had been cleared wore plain helmets. The markings were meant to allow Arab laborers to begin work immediately, rather than wait three or four months to complete the security check, Pordes said.
Israeli Arabs make up about 19 percent of Israel's population of 6.7 million people. In more than three years of Israeli-Palestinian fighting, tensions between Israeli Jews and Arabs have increased steadily. Arab citizens of Israel have long complained of systematic discrimination by Israeli authorities....
Monday, March 08, 2004
The routine of death
Haaretz - Israel News - The routine of death: "Tue., March 09, 2004
Four children and youths, aged 11 to 16, were killed on Sunday during the Israel Defense Forces operation in Gaza refugee camps, in addition to 11 armed Palestinians. Another 80 people were wounded, including five who were said to be seriously wounded. One of them is a child. The IDF Spokesman said the operation was aimed against the terrorist infrastructures and the wanted men who fire mortars and anti-tank rockets as well as bombers. But military sources quoted in Haaretz yesterday admitted that the operation, like a similar one last month in Sejeya, in which 15 Palestinians were also killed, was meant to 'provoke' the armed activists into reacting, 'to expose themselves to strikes' by the IDF force.
Experience shows that operations in the heart of the densely populated areas of the Gaza Strip end routinely with the deaths of innocent civilians. Often, the operations are indicative of faulty judgment, if not utter indifference, in the uppermost political and military echelons. They don't take into account the long-term damage when a civilian population is terrorized for the sake of the temporary achievement of "provoking armed men into exposing themselves." The version put out by Chief of Staff Moshe Ya'alon, who said the civilians were killed by Palestinian fire, only reinforces the risks taken in raiding a refugee camp.
The argument that the Palestinians have no compunctions about using children as "human shields" does not absolve the IDF of responsibility for their safety. On the contrary, the commanders must issue orders to the soldiers to take utmost and special care and not to adopt the moral norms of local thugs. A hint of the prevailing approach in the top echelons of the army was evident in Amos Harel's interview with Brig. Gen. Gadi Shamni, the outgoing commander of IDF forces in Gaza, which appeared in yesterday's Haaretz. Shamni referred to the conflict underway in the territories for more than three years as a war between two armies trying to win. ...
Haaretz - Israel News - The routine of death: "Tue., March 09, 2004
Four children and youths, aged 11 to 16, were killed on Sunday during the Israel Defense Forces operation in Gaza refugee camps, in addition to 11 armed Palestinians. Another 80 people were wounded, including five who were said to be seriously wounded. One of them is a child. The IDF Spokesman said the operation was aimed against the terrorist infrastructures and the wanted men who fire mortars and anti-tank rockets as well as bombers. But military sources quoted in Haaretz yesterday admitted that the operation, like a similar one last month in Sejeya, in which 15 Palestinians were also killed, was meant to 'provoke' the armed activists into reacting, 'to expose themselves to strikes' by the IDF force.
Experience shows that operations in the heart of the densely populated areas of the Gaza Strip end routinely with the deaths of innocent civilians. Often, the operations are indicative of faulty judgment, if not utter indifference, in the uppermost political and military echelons. They don't take into account the long-term damage when a civilian population is terrorized for the sake of the temporary achievement of "provoking armed men into exposing themselves." The version put out by Chief of Staff Moshe Ya'alon, who said the civilians were killed by Palestinian fire, only reinforces the risks taken in raiding a refugee camp.
The argument that the Palestinians have no compunctions about using children as "human shields" does not absolve the IDF of responsibility for their safety. On the contrary, the commanders must issue orders to the soldiers to take utmost and special care and not to adopt the moral norms of local thugs. A hint of the prevailing approach in the top echelons of the army was evident in Amos Harel's interview with Brig. Gen. Gadi Shamni, the outgoing commander of IDF forces in Gaza, which appeared in yesterday's Haaretz. Shamni referred to the conflict underway in the territories for more than three years as a war between two armies trying to win. ...
Kerry Says : Bush 'stonewalling' for political reasons separate investigations into the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks and prewar intelligence in Iraq
Bush Hindering Probes, Kerry Says (washingtonpost.com): "President's Campaign Says Charges of 'Stonewalling' on 9/11, Iraq Are Inaccurate | By Jim VandeHei | Washington Post Staff Writer | Monday, March 8, 2004; Page A02
TOUGALOO, Miss., March 7 -- Sen. John F. Kerry, intensifying the election fight over terrorism and national security, accused President Bush on Sunday of 'stonewalling' for political reasons separate investigations into the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks and prewar intelligence on Iraq.
The Massachusetts Democrat echoed Bush's promise to make Sept. 11 a top election issue and, for the second time in the young general election campaign, portrayed the president as playing politics with the deadliest attack on U.S. soil since Pearl Harbor.
"I think one of the most critical questions in front of the country is with respect to 9/11, why is this administration stonewalling and resisting the investigation into why we had the greatest security failure in the history of our country and why is he also resisting having an immediate investigation into the security failure with respect to the intelligence in Iraq," Kerry told reporters at Tougaloo College in Jackson, Miss ...
Bush Hindering Probes, Kerry Says (washingtonpost.com): "President's Campaign Says Charges of 'Stonewalling' on 9/11, Iraq Are Inaccurate | By Jim VandeHei | Washington Post Staff Writer | Monday, March 8, 2004; Page A02
TOUGALOO, Miss., March 7 -- Sen. John F. Kerry, intensifying the election fight over terrorism and national security, accused President Bush on Sunday of 'stonewalling' for political reasons separate investigations into the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks and prewar intelligence on Iraq.
The Massachusetts Democrat echoed Bush's promise to make Sept. 11 a top election issue and, for the second time in the young general election campaign, portrayed the president as playing politics with the deadliest attack on U.S. soil since Pearl Harbor.
"I think one of the most critical questions in front of the country is with respect to 9/11, why is this administration stonewalling and resisting the investigation into why we had the greatest security failure in the history of our country and why is he also resisting having an immediate investigation into the security failure with respect to the intelligence in Iraq," Kerry told reporters at Tougaloo College in Jackson, Miss ...
Sunday, March 07, 2004
Gaza: Gun Battles: 14 Palestinians Dead, incl 7-yr old and 14-yr old [Israeli also fired at hundreds of Palestinian stone throwers]
14 Palestinians Killed in Gun Battles (washingtonpost.com): "By Molly Moore | Washington Post Foreign Service | Sunday, March 7, 2004; 11:07 AM
JERUSALEM, March 7 -- Palestinian fighters armed with Kalashnikov rifles, molotov cocktails and crude anti-tank missiles prevented 60-ton Israeli tanks and armored bulldozers from completing a major operation in two Gaza Strip refugee camps Sunday morning in a chaotic firefight in which 14 Palestinians, including three children, were killed and at least 80 other Palestinians were injured, according to Israeli military officials and eyewitness accounts. No Israeli soldiers were killed or wounded.
The eight-hour battle between Palestinians using guerrilla-style hit-and-run tactics against Israeli armored forces was one of the fiercest encounters in months in the Gaza Strip where combat between the two sides has intensified in recent weeks as Israeli political leaders debate a proposal by Prime Minister Ariel Sharon suggesting he would be willing eventually to evacuate Jewish settlements in Gaza.
"We witnessed intensive fighting from the beginning," said a spokesman for the Israeli Defense Forces. "Anti-tank missiles, rocket-propelled grenades, Kalashnikovs, molotov cocktails...We did not manage to confiscate anything or arrest anyone. We didn't get close enough and decided to go and pull out." ...
...
Witnesses said the Israeli forces also fired at crowds of hundreds of Palestinian and stones at the dozens of departing tanks and other armored vehicles.
The dead included seven-year-old Mohammed Younis and two 14-year-old boys -- Mohammed Badawi and Mohammed Abu Zrain -- according to Palestinian security officials. A fourth civilian identified as Thaer Maghari was also killed. Nine fighters from the Islamic Resistance Movement known as Hamas, and one from the Popular Resistance Committee, an organization comprised of several small militant groups, died in the fighting, according to statements issued by the two organizations. ...
14 Palestinians Killed in Gun Battles (washingtonpost.com): "By Molly Moore | Washington Post Foreign Service | Sunday, March 7, 2004; 11:07 AM
JERUSALEM, March 7 -- Palestinian fighters armed with Kalashnikov rifles, molotov cocktails and crude anti-tank missiles prevented 60-ton Israeli tanks and armored bulldozers from completing a major operation in two Gaza Strip refugee camps Sunday morning in a chaotic firefight in which 14 Palestinians, including three children, were killed and at least 80 other Palestinians were injured, according to Israeli military officials and eyewitness accounts. No Israeli soldiers were killed or wounded.
The eight-hour battle between Palestinians using guerrilla-style hit-and-run tactics against Israeli armored forces was one of the fiercest encounters in months in the Gaza Strip where combat between the two sides has intensified in recent weeks as Israeli political leaders debate a proposal by Prime Minister Ariel Sharon suggesting he would be willing eventually to evacuate Jewish settlements in Gaza.
"We witnessed intensive fighting from the beginning," said a spokesman for the Israeli Defense Forces. "Anti-tank missiles, rocket-propelled grenades, Kalashnikovs, molotov cocktails...We did not manage to confiscate anything or arrest anyone. We didn't get close enough and decided to go and pull out." ...
...
Witnesses said the Israeli forces also fired at crowds of hundreds of Palestinian and stones at the dozens of departing tanks and other armored vehicles.
The dead included seven-year-old Mohammed Younis and two 14-year-old boys -- Mohammed Badawi and Mohammed Abu Zrain -- according to Palestinian security officials. A fourth civilian identified as Thaer Maghari was also killed. Nine fighters from the Islamic Resistance Movement known as Hamas, and one from the Popular Resistance Committee, an organization comprised of several small militant groups, died in the fighting, according to statements issued by the two organizations. ...
Friday, March 05, 2004
Theodor Herzl, father of Zionism, Jerusalem would be transformed into a thoroughly modern me-tropolis: The real Jerusalem is rather different.
The New York Review of Books: Seeds of Revolution: " March 11, 2004 | By Avishai Margalit, Ian Buruma
Theodor Herzl, founding father of the Zionist movement, was not a gifted novelist. Nevertheless, his novel, Altneuland (Old-New Land), is one of the most remarkable books of the twentieth century. Although Herzl finished it in 1902, the visionary ideas expressed in this 'fairy tale,' as he called it, belonged firmly in the century before. Altneuland is a blueprint of the perfect Jewish state, a technocratic utopia, a socialist dream with all the advantages of capitalism, an idealistic colonial enterprise, a model of pure reason, a 'light unto the nations.' It also helps to explain the extremism of some of those who rebel against the dominance of what is widely regarded as the arrogant West.
By the 1920s, in Herzl's tale, Jerusalem would be transformed into a thoroughly modern me-tropolis, 'intersected by elec-tric street railways; wide, tree-bordered streets; homes, gar- dens, boulevards, parks; schools, hospitals, government buildings, pleasure resorts.' Arab and Jew would live happily together in the New Society, working in vast 'co-operative syndicates.' And all the nations of the world would meet in Jerusalem at the Palace of Peace.
The real Jerusalem is rather different. In times of high tension, the streets of the old walled city are silent; shops are boarded up; dignified old tourist guides, bereft of clients, softly beg for a little cash. Only ultra-Orthodox Jews still venture into the medieval streets. In the modern western areas of the city, men armed with machine guns stand guard in front of cafés and restaurants. Hotels are empty, abandoned by tourists. You never know where the next bomb attack will strike: on a bus, in a cinema or a discothèque. Arabs do their necessary jobs, cleaning Israeli floors, building Israeli houses, mending Israeli roads, and then scurry back to their homes, each one, in the eyes of a fearful population, a potential suicide bomber. An edgy silence often haunts the streets, broken, periodically, by the sirens of police cars or ambulances.
Israel has to bear much of the responsibility for this menacing atmosphere. You cannot humiliate and bully others without eventually provoking a violent response. Palestinians have been treated badly by Arabs as well as by Jews. The daily sight of Palestinian men crouching in the heat at Israeli checkpoints, suffering the casual abuse of Jewish soldiers, being screamed at, being made to wait endlessly, being insulted in front of family and friends, helps to explain much of the venom of the intifadas. Destruction of property and physical violence turn insults into injury, and even death.
But Israel has also become the prime target of a more general Arab rage against the West, the symbol of idolatrous, hubristic, amoral, colonialist evil, a cancer in the eyes of its enemies that must be expunged by killing.
Herzl could not possibly have foreseen this, and yet the seeds of tragedy are already buried in his text, which was well meant, deeply idealistic, and in many ways typical of everything that people who feel so victimized by the West that they wish for its destruction find most hateful. We call such people Occidentalists. They are not just critics of Western ways. They see the West as less than human, as a kind of ruthlessly efficient, soulless, machine civilization which must be violently resisted. ...
The New York Review of Books: Seeds of Revolution: " March 11, 2004 | By Avishai Margalit, Ian Buruma
Theodor Herzl, founding father of the Zionist movement, was not a gifted novelist. Nevertheless, his novel, Altneuland (Old-New Land), is one of the most remarkable books of the twentieth century. Although Herzl finished it in 1902, the visionary ideas expressed in this 'fairy tale,' as he called it, belonged firmly in the century before. Altneuland is a blueprint of the perfect Jewish state, a technocratic utopia, a socialist dream with all the advantages of capitalism, an idealistic colonial enterprise, a model of pure reason, a 'light unto the nations.' It also helps to explain the extremism of some of those who rebel against the dominance of what is widely regarded as the arrogant West.
By the 1920s, in Herzl's tale, Jerusalem would be transformed into a thoroughly modern me-tropolis, 'intersected by elec-tric street railways; wide, tree-bordered streets; homes, gar- dens, boulevards, parks; schools, hospitals, government buildings, pleasure resorts.' Arab and Jew would live happily together in the New Society, working in vast 'co-operative syndicates.' And all the nations of the world would meet in Jerusalem at the Palace of Peace.
The real Jerusalem is rather different. In times of high tension, the streets of the old walled city are silent; shops are boarded up; dignified old tourist guides, bereft of clients, softly beg for a little cash. Only ultra-Orthodox Jews still venture into the medieval streets. In the modern western areas of the city, men armed with machine guns stand guard in front of cafés and restaurants. Hotels are empty, abandoned by tourists. You never know where the next bomb attack will strike: on a bus, in a cinema or a discothèque. Arabs do their necessary jobs, cleaning Israeli floors, building Israeli houses, mending Israeli roads, and then scurry back to their homes, each one, in the eyes of a fearful population, a potential suicide bomber. An edgy silence often haunts the streets, broken, periodically, by the sirens of police cars or ambulances.
Israel has to bear much of the responsibility for this menacing atmosphere. You cannot humiliate and bully others without eventually provoking a violent response. Palestinians have been treated badly by Arabs as well as by Jews. The daily sight of Palestinian men crouching in the heat at Israeli checkpoints, suffering the casual abuse of Jewish soldiers, being screamed at, being made to wait endlessly, being insulted in front of family and friends, helps to explain much of the venom of the intifadas. Destruction of property and physical violence turn insults into injury, and even death.
But Israel has also become the prime target of a more general Arab rage against the West, the symbol of idolatrous, hubristic, amoral, colonialist evil, a cancer in the eyes of its enemies that must be expunged by killing.
Herzl could not possibly have foreseen this, and yet the seeds of tragedy are already buried in his text, which was well meant, deeply idealistic, and in many ways typical of everything that people who feel so victimized by the West that they wish for its destruction find most hateful. We call such people Occidentalists. They are not just critics of Western ways. They see the West as less than human, as a kind of ruthlessly efficient, soulless, machine civilization which must be violently resisted. ...
Wednesday, March 03, 2004
The Frum-Perle prescription would ensnare America in endless conflict
No End to War: "March 1, 2004 issue | Copyright � 2004 The American Conservative | No End to War | The Frum-Perle prescription would ensnare America in endless conflict. | By Patrick J. Buchanan
...
An End to Evil: How to Win the War on Terror opens on a note of hysteria. In the War on Terror, writes Perle, “There is no middle way for Americans: It is victory or holocaust.” “What is new since 9/11 is the chilling realization that the terrorist threat we thought we had contained” now menaces “our survival as a nation.”
But how is our survival as a nation menaced when not one American has died in a terrorist attack on U.S. soil since 9/11? Are we really in imminent peril of a holocaust like that visited upon the Jews of Poland?
“[A] radical strain within Islam,” says Perle, “ ... seeks to overthrow our civilization and remake the nations of the West into Islamic societies, imposing on the whole world its religion and laws.”
Well, yes. Militant Islam has preached that since the 7th century. But what are the odds the Boys of Tora Bora are going to “overthrow our civilization” and coerce us all to start praying to Mecca five times a day?
...
Revolutionary terror has been around for as long as this Republic. It was used by Robespierre’s Committee on Public Safety and by People’s Will in Romanov Russia. Terror has been the chosen weapon of anarchists, the IRA, Irgun, the Stern Gang, Algeria’s FLN, the Mau Mau, MPLA, the PLO, Black September, the Basque ETA, Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad, Hamas, the Al Aksa Martyrs Brigade, SWAPO, ZANU, ZAPU, the Tupamaros, Shining Path, FARC, the ANC, the V.C., the Huks, Chechen rebels, Tamil Tigers, and the FALN that attempted to assassinate Harry Truman and shot up the House floor in 1954, to name only a few.
Accused terrorists have won the Nobel Peace Prize: Begin, Arafat, Mandela. Three lie in mausoleums in the capitals of nations they created: Lenin, Mao, Ho. Others are the fathers of their countries like Ben Bella and Jomo Kenyatta. ...
...
“Why have we put up with [Syria] as long as we have?” the authors demand. They call for a cut-off of Syria’s oil and an ultimatum to Assad: ...
But what has Syria done to us? And if Assad balks do we bomb Damascus? Invade? Where do we get the troops? What if the Syrians, too, resort to guerrilla war?
Bush’s father made Hafez al-Assad an ally in the Gulf War. Ehud Barak offered Assad 99.5 percent of the Golan Heights. Why, then, must Bashir Assad’s regime be destroyed—by us?
“We don’t have much time,” say Frum and Perle. But what is Assad doing that warrants immediate attack? Is he, too, buying yellowcake from Niger?
...
What do Perle and Frum see as our decisive failing in Iraq?
But of all our mistakes, probably the most serious was our unwillingness to allow the Iraqi National Congress, Iraq’s leading anti-Saddam resistance movement, to form a provisional government after the fall of Baghdad. In 1944, we took care to let French troops enter Paris before U.S. or British forces. We should have shown equal tact in 2003.
Thus, we are in trouble because Ahmad Chalabi was not allowed to play de Gaulle leading his war-weary, battle-hardened Free Iraqis into Baghdad.
Why was Perle’s protégé passed over? ...
...
Neocons believe the Palestinian Authority must be crushed, Arafat eliminated, and the Golan Heights, West Bank, and East Jerusalem held by Israel forever. They want Hezbollah eradicated, Syria denatured, the Saudi monarchy brought down. Let them so believe. But their agenda is not America’s agenda, and their fight is not America’s fight.
There is no vital U.S. interest in whose flag flies over the Golan or East Jerusalem, when Barak was willing to give up both. But if we allow the neoconservatives to morph our war on al-Qaeda into Israel’s war for Palestine, our war will never end. And that is the hidden agenda of the neoconservatives: permanent war for their permanent empowerment. As Frum and Perle concede, this is “our generation’s great cause.”
...
Who is Perle? Unlike Frum, a cipher on foreign policy, Perle has been a serious player since the Nixon era. But throughout those years he has betrayed a passionate attachment to a foreign power. In 1996, Perle co-authored “A Clean Break,” a now-famous paper urging Benjamin Netanyahu to dump the Oslo Accords, seize the West Bank, and confront Syria. The road to Damascus lies through Baghdad, Perle told the receptive Israeli Prime Minister.
Then an adviser to Republican candidate Robert Dole, Perle was thus secretly urging a foreign government to abrogate a peace accord supported by his own government. ...
...
Gen. Anthony Zinni, former head of Centcom, is a hero of Vietnam. He opposed war with Iraq, arguing that the U.S. military was overstretched and we would unleash forces we could not control. In an interview, Zinni related his astonishment at the vapidity of the Wolfowitz clique with which he had to deal at the Department of Defense:
The more I saw, the more I thought that this [war] was the product of the neocons who didn’t understand the region and were going to create havoc there. These were dilettantes from Washington think tanks who never had had an idea that worked on the ground .... I don’t know where the neocons came from—that was not the platform [Bush and Cheney] ran on .... Somehow, the neocons captured the president. They captured the vice president.
National Review’s response was to brand Zinni an anti-Semite. In a separate column, NR regular Joel Mowbray not only accused the general of having “blamed the Jews,” he insisted that the term neocon, in common usage for 25 years, is now an anti-Semitic code word for Jews:
Neither President Bush nor Vice-President Cheney ... was to blame. It was the Jews. They captured both Bush and Cheney …. Technically, the former head of the Central Command in the Middle East didn’t say ‘Jews.’ He instead used a term that has become a new favorite for anti-Semites: ‘neoconservatives.’
Mowbray and National Review thus slandered a brave and brilliant soldier who has bled for his country. Such slanders do the neocons no good but only add to their isolation and the burgeoning detestation of their tactics.
New York Times columnist David Brooks has also begun to smear critics of the neocons as anti-Semites. In the word “neocon,” he writes, the “con” stands for conservative and the “neo” stands for Jewish.
But the problem for neocons is not that so many are Jewish, but that so few are conservative. Lawrence Kaplan, a Perle colleague who co-authored a book with William Kristol, after reading An End to Evil, declared: “This is not conservatism. It is liberalism, with very sharp teeth.” ...
No End to War: "March 1, 2004 issue | Copyright � 2004 The American Conservative | No End to War | The Frum-Perle prescription would ensnare America in endless conflict. | By Patrick J. Buchanan
...
An End to Evil: How to Win the War on Terror opens on a note of hysteria. In the War on Terror, writes Perle, “There is no middle way for Americans: It is victory or holocaust.” “What is new since 9/11 is the chilling realization that the terrorist threat we thought we had contained” now menaces “our survival as a nation.”
But how is our survival as a nation menaced when not one American has died in a terrorist attack on U.S. soil since 9/11? Are we really in imminent peril of a holocaust like that visited upon the Jews of Poland?
“[A] radical strain within Islam,” says Perle, “ ... seeks to overthrow our civilization and remake the nations of the West into Islamic societies, imposing on the whole world its religion and laws.”
Well, yes. Militant Islam has preached that since the 7th century. But what are the odds the Boys of Tora Bora are going to “overthrow our civilization” and coerce us all to start praying to Mecca five times a day?
...
Revolutionary terror has been around for as long as this Republic. It was used by Robespierre’s Committee on Public Safety and by People’s Will in Romanov Russia. Terror has been the chosen weapon of anarchists, the IRA, Irgun, the Stern Gang, Algeria’s FLN, the Mau Mau, MPLA, the PLO, Black September, the Basque ETA, Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad, Hamas, the Al Aksa Martyrs Brigade, SWAPO, ZANU, ZAPU, the Tupamaros, Shining Path, FARC, the ANC, the V.C., the Huks, Chechen rebels, Tamil Tigers, and the FALN that attempted to assassinate Harry Truman and shot up the House floor in 1954, to name only a few.
Accused terrorists have won the Nobel Peace Prize: Begin, Arafat, Mandela. Three lie in mausoleums in the capitals of nations they created: Lenin, Mao, Ho. Others are the fathers of their countries like Ben Bella and Jomo Kenyatta. ...
...
“Why have we put up with [Syria] as long as we have?” the authors demand. They call for a cut-off of Syria’s oil and an ultimatum to Assad: ...
But what has Syria done to us? And if Assad balks do we bomb Damascus? Invade? Where do we get the troops? What if the Syrians, too, resort to guerrilla war?
Bush’s father made Hafez al-Assad an ally in the Gulf War. Ehud Barak offered Assad 99.5 percent of the Golan Heights. Why, then, must Bashir Assad’s regime be destroyed—by us?
“We don’t have much time,” say Frum and Perle. But what is Assad doing that warrants immediate attack? Is he, too, buying yellowcake from Niger?
...
What do Perle and Frum see as our decisive failing in Iraq?
But of all our mistakes, probably the most serious was our unwillingness to allow the Iraqi National Congress, Iraq’s leading anti-Saddam resistance movement, to form a provisional government after the fall of Baghdad. In 1944, we took care to let French troops enter Paris before U.S. or British forces. We should have shown equal tact in 2003.
Thus, we are in trouble because Ahmad Chalabi was not allowed to play de Gaulle leading his war-weary, battle-hardened Free Iraqis into Baghdad.
Why was Perle’s protégé passed over? ...
...
Neocons believe the Palestinian Authority must be crushed, Arafat eliminated, and the Golan Heights, West Bank, and East Jerusalem held by Israel forever. They want Hezbollah eradicated, Syria denatured, the Saudi monarchy brought down. Let them so believe. But their agenda is not America’s agenda, and their fight is not America’s fight.
There is no vital U.S. interest in whose flag flies over the Golan or East Jerusalem, when Barak was willing to give up both. But if we allow the neoconservatives to morph our war on al-Qaeda into Israel’s war for Palestine, our war will never end. And that is the hidden agenda of the neoconservatives: permanent war for their permanent empowerment. As Frum and Perle concede, this is “our generation’s great cause.”
...
Who is Perle? Unlike Frum, a cipher on foreign policy, Perle has been a serious player since the Nixon era. But throughout those years he has betrayed a passionate attachment to a foreign power. In 1996, Perle co-authored “A Clean Break,” a now-famous paper urging Benjamin Netanyahu to dump the Oslo Accords, seize the West Bank, and confront Syria. The road to Damascus lies through Baghdad, Perle told the receptive Israeli Prime Minister.
Then an adviser to Republican candidate Robert Dole, Perle was thus secretly urging a foreign government to abrogate a peace accord supported by his own government. ...
...
Gen. Anthony Zinni, former head of Centcom, is a hero of Vietnam. He opposed war with Iraq, arguing that the U.S. military was overstretched and we would unleash forces we could not control. In an interview, Zinni related his astonishment at the vapidity of the Wolfowitz clique with which he had to deal at the Department of Defense:
The more I saw, the more I thought that this [war] was the product of the neocons who didn’t understand the region and were going to create havoc there. These were dilettantes from Washington think tanks who never had had an idea that worked on the ground .... I don’t know where the neocons came from—that was not the platform [Bush and Cheney] ran on .... Somehow, the neocons captured the president. They captured the vice president.
National Review’s response was to brand Zinni an anti-Semite. In a separate column, NR regular Joel Mowbray not only accused the general of having “blamed the Jews,” he insisted that the term neocon, in common usage for 25 years, is now an anti-Semitic code word for Jews:
Neither President Bush nor Vice-President Cheney ... was to blame. It was the Jews. They captured both Bush and Cheney …. Technically, the former head of the Central Command in the Middle East didn’t say ‘Jews.’ He instead used a term that has become a new favorite for anti-Semites: ‘neoconservatives.’
Mowbray and National Review thus slandered a brave and brilliant soldier who has bled for his country. Such slanders do the neocons no good but only add to their isolation and the burgeoning detestation of their tactics.
New York Times columnist David Brooks has also begun to smear critics of the neocons as anti-Semites. In the word “neocon,” he writes, the “con” stands for conservative and the “neo” stands for Jewish.
But the problem for neocons is not that so many are Jewish, but that so few are conservative. Lawrence Kaplan, a Perle colleague who co-authored a book with William Kristol, after reading An End to Evil, declared: “This is not conservatism. It is liberalism, with very sharp teeth.” ...
Unreasonable polarization: 1) neocon advocates is [based on] a concern for Israel, and, 2) every criticism of neocon policy is ... anti-Semiticism
William F. Buckley Jr. on Israel & Neocons on National Review Online: "March 02, 2004, 11:34 a.m. | Israel Frenzy | Neocons in the middle.
It is being claimed, ever more widely, that neocon policies are determined by the advantages they bring, manifest or putative, to the State of Israel. Patrick Buchanan, in the current American Conservative, believes this ardently, while the most quoted advocates of neocon militancy, Richard Perle and David Frum, go further than merely to deny that neoconservatism is an Israel First world view. They insist that criticism of neocon policies is, at heart, anti-Semitic.
...
It is reasonable to say that Perle's focus on the Communist threat was central to his devising of corollary policies. It is charged now, by e.g. Buchanan, that that focus is now on Israel. That Perle and co-author David Frum rise in the morning with a map of Israel in front of them and decide what ideas, people, countries to encourage, which to discourage, based on their bearing on Israel.
...
Nobody who knows his way around questions the political leverage of the Jewish vote in critical states or denies the importance of Jewish patronage of favored candidates and office holders.
But the transposition of this into the position that U.S. policies are formulated because they bear directly on Israeli interests is invention. The proposal to go to war against Iraq was, concertedly, advocated in one form or another by Richard Perle. But that policy proceeded from the loins of Donald Rumsfeld and George Bush after the 9/11 attacks on New York and Washington, and was animated by the reiterated U.S. interest in the stability of the Near East. ...
...
The neocon movement, it is being suggested, is motivated by concern for Israel but, more, by its affinity for the Likud Party of General Sharon, which represents militant and, many believe, shortsighted policies, contrasting with policies advocated by many Israelis, including past Israeli leaders, Ehud Barak prominent among them.
It's an unreasonable polarization of opinion: 1) everything a neocon advocates is animated by a concern for Israel, and, 2) every criticism of neocon policy is animated by anti-Semitism. That is straitened thought, and should be resisted.
William F. Buckley Jr. on Israel & Neocons on National Review Online: "March 02, 2004, 11:34 a.m. | Israel Frenzy | Neocons in the middle.
It is being claimed, ever more widely, that neocon policies are determined by the advantages they bring, manifest or putative, to the State of Israel. Patrick Buchanan, in the current American Conservative, believes this ardently, while the most quoted advocates of neocon militancy, Richard Perle and David Frum, go further than merely to deny that neoconservatism is an Israel First world view. They insist that criticism of neocon policies is, at heart, anti-Semitic.
...
It is reasonable to say that Perle's focus on the Communist threat was central to his devising of corollary policies. It is charged now, by e.g. Buchanan, that that focus is now on Israel. That Perle and co-author David Frum rise in the morning with a map of Israel in front of them and decide what ideas, people, countries to encourage, which to discourage, based on their bearing on Israel.
...
Nobody who knows his way around questions the political leverage of the Jewish vote in critical states or denies the importance of Jewish patronage of favored candidates and office holders.
But the transposition of this into the position that U.S. policies are formulated because they bear directly on Israeli interests is invention. The proposal to go to war against Iraq was, concertedly, advocated in one form or another by Richard Perle. But that policy proceeded from the loins of Donald Rumsfeld and George Bush after the 9/11 attacks on New York and Washington, and was animated by the reiterated U.S. interest in the stability of the Near East. ...
...
The neocon movement, it is being suggested, is motivated by concern for Israel but, more, by its affinity for the Likud Party of General Sharon, which represents militant and, many believe, shortsighted policies, contrasting with policies advocated by many Israelis, including past Israeli leaders, Ehud Barak prominent among them.
It's an unreasonable polarization of opinion: 1) everything a neocon advocates is animated by a concern for Israel, and, 2) every criticism of neocon policy is animated by anti-Semitism. That is straitened thought, and should be resisted.
Arabs cannot support the Bush's new strategy for Middle East : 'stability cannot be achieved without a fair...treatment of Palestinians and Iraq'
Excite News: "Arab League Chief Challenges U.S. | Mar 3, 3:34 PM (ET) | By SALAH NASRAWI
CAIRO, Egypt (AP) - Arabs cannot support the Bush administration's new strategy for reforming the Middle East unless the United States addresses the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and restores stability in Iraq, the head of the Arab League said Wednesday.
Secretary-General Amr Moussa was addressing Arab foreign ministers gathered in Cairo to debate President Bush's 'Greater Middle East Initiative' and set an agenda for the March 29-30 Arab League summit in Tunisia.
'As far as the Greater Middle East Initiative is concerned, it should not be confined to developing the societies but also to achieving stability in the region,' Moussa said in his opening speech. 'This stability cannot be achieved without a fair, correct and balanced treatment of the Palestinian cause and the Iraqi issue.'
The Middle East initiative, modeled on the 1975 Helsinki pact that the West used to press for greater freedom and human rights in the Soviet Union and eastern Europe, is aimed at the arc of countries extending from Morocco to Pakistan. It urges them to undertake major political and economic reforms, especially those that would advance women, and to guarantee human rights.
The Bush administration plans to present its proposals at the G8 summit of industrial nations in June.
However, several Arab governments - including Egypt and Saudi Arabia - have already rejected the plan as a U.S. attempt to impose political reform, and some have come up with their own proposals. There is also a widely held perception that the initiative is already undermined by the U.S. ad" ....
Excite News: "Arab League Chief Challenges U.S. | Mar 3, 3:34 PM (ET) | By SALAH NASRAWI
CAIRO, Egypt (AP) - Arabs cannot support the Bush administration's new strategy for reforming the Middle East unless the United States addresses the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and restores stability in Iraq, the head of the Arab League said Wednesday.
Secretary-General Amr Moussa was addressing Arab foreign ministers gathered in Cairo to debate President Bush's 'Greater Middle East Initiative' and set an agenda for the March 29-30 Arab League summit in Tunisia.
'As far as the Greater Middle East Initiative is concerned, it should not be confined to developing the societies but also to achieving stability in the region,' Moussa said in his opening speech. 'This stability cannot be achieved without a fair, correct and balanced treatment of the Palestinian cause and the Iraqi issue.'
The Middle East initiative, modeled on the 1975 Helsinki pact that the West used to press for greater freedom and human rights in the Soviet Union and eastern Europe, is aimed at the arc of countries extending from Morocco to Pakistan. It urges them to undertake major political and economic reforms, especially those that would advance women, and to guarantee human rights.
The Bush administration plans to present its proposals at the G8 summit of industrial nations in June.
However, several Arab governments - including Egypt and Saudi Arabia - have already rejected the plan as a U.S. attempt to impose political reform, and some have come up with their own proposals. There is also a widely held perception that the initiative is already undermined by the U.S. ad" ....
Tuesday, March 02, 2004
Israeli home building in Jewish settlements rose 35 percent last year despite Roadmap:
Excite - News: "Israel Settlement Building Rises Despite 'Road Map' | Mar 2, 4:31 pm ET | By Matt Spetalnick
JERUSALEM (Reuters) - Israeli home building in Jewish settlements rose 35 percent last year despite a U.S.-led peace plan with Palestinians that calls for a freeze in construction on occupied land, government figures showed Tuesday.
Israel reported that work began on about 1,850 new settler homes in the West Bank and Gaza Strip in 2003, a trend that could complicate Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's bid for U.S. approval for his unilateral "disengagement" plan.
Hassan Abu Libdeh, spokesman for Palestinian Prime Minister Ahmed Qurie, said settlement expansion showed Israel's lack of commitment to the U.S.-backed "road map" and what he described as "U.S. bias (in favor of) this Israeli government."
The latest evidence of continued settlement expansion followed signs from Washington Monday, after a round of U.S.-Israeli talks, that the White House was moving toward agreeing to Sharon's controversial plan.
The right-wing prime minister's initiative calls for uprooting settlements in Gaza plus removing several more in the West Bank and then drawing a "security line" that would leave Palestinians with less land than they seek for a state. ...
...
"We do expect the Israeli government to keep its commitment to President Bush to dismantle all the unauthorized settlement outposts and to take further steps toward an end to settlement activity," he said.
The United States late last year signaled its displeasure with Israeli settlement building as well as the route of its West Bank barrier by deducting nearly $290 million from a $9 billion package of loan guarantees to the Jewish state.
In a move that may take the edge off U.S. ire, authorities would dismantle six illegal West Bank outposts by force if Jewish settlers failed to evacuate them by Thursday, media reports quoted the state prosecutor as telling the High Court.
Over the past year, Israel has kept up the building of settler homes and apartments in defiance of the road map, now stalled by violence, that calls for a freeze in such construction.
Israel says it has the right to build in settlements to accommodate "natural growth." [... prohibited under the Roadmap] Settler home building in 2003 far outstripped Israel's overall rate, which fell 8 percent.
Excite - News: "Israel Settlement Building Rises Despite 'Road Map' | Mar 2, 4:31 pm ET | By Matt Spetalnick
JERUSALEM (Reuters) - Israeli home building in Jewish settlements rose 35 percent last year despite a U.S.-led peace plan with Palestinians that calls for a freeze in construction on occupied land, government figures showed Tuesday.
Israel reported that work began on about 1,850 new settler homes in the West Bank and Gaza Strip in 2003, a trend that could complicate Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's bid for U.S. approval for his unilateral "disengagement" plan.
Hassan Abu Libdeh, spokesman for Palestinian Prime Minister Ahmed Qurie, said settlement expansion showed Israel's lack of commitment to the U.S.-backed "road map" and what he described as "U.S. bias (in favor of) this Israeli government."
The latest evidence of continued settlement expansion followed signs from Washington Monday, after a round of U.S.-Israeli talks, that the White House was moving toward agreeing to Sharon's controversial plan.
The right-wing prime minister's initiative calls for uprooting settlements in Gaza plus removing several more in the West Bank and then drawing a "security line" that would leave Palestinians with less land than they seek for a state. ...
...
"We do expect the Israeli government to keep its commitment to President Bush to dismantle all the unauthorized settlement outposts and to take further steps toward an end to settlement activity," he said.
The United States late last year signaled its displeasure with Israeli settlement building as well as the route of its West Bank barrier by deducting nearly $290 million from a $9 billion package of loan guarantees to the Jewish state.
In a move that may take the edge off U.S. ire, authorities would dismantle six illegal West Bank outposts by force if Jewish settlers failed to evacuate them by Thursday, media reports quoted the state prosecutor as telling the High Court.
Over the past year, Israel has kept up the building of settler homes and apartments in defiance of the road map, now stalled by violence, that calls for a freeze in such construction.
Israel says it has the right to build in settlements to accommodate "natural growth." [... prohibited under the Roadmap] Settler home building in 2003 far outstripped Israel's overall rate, which fell 8 percent.
Baghdad's Kazimiya shrine: three suicide bombers: 58 dead, 200 wounded [Shiite outrage wonds 2 US soliders]
Excite News: "Blasts Kill 143 at Iraq Shiite Shrines | Mar 2, 9:44 AM (ET) | By TAREK AL-ISSAWI and HAMZA HENDAWI
KARBALA, Iraq (AP) - Simultaneous explosions ripped through crowds of worshippers Tuesday at Shiite Muslim shrines in Baghdad and the city of Karbala, killing at least 143 people on the holiest day of the Shiite calendar, a U.S. official said. It was the bloodiest day since the end of major fighting.
The blasts came during the Shiite festival of Ashoura and coincided with a shooting attack on Shiite worshippers in Quetta, Pakistan that killed at least 29 people and wounded more than 150.
Three suicide bombers set off their explosives in and around Baghdad's Kazimiya shrine, killing 58 and wounding 200, Brig. Gen. Mark Kimmitt told reporters. At least one suicide attacker blew himself up and pre-set explosives went off in Karbala, killing 85 and wounding more than 100, he said.
A fourth suicide bomber whose explosives did not detonate was captured at Kazimiya, and four people were arrested in connection to the attack in Karbala, Kimmitt told reporters in Baghdad.
The attacks produced a wave of Shiite outrage - much of it directed at U.S. troops in the Iraqi capital. U.S. soldiers who arrived at Kazimiya were attacked by angry crowds throwing stones and garbage, injuring two Americans.
"This is the work of Jews and American occupation forces," a loudspeaker outside Kazimiya blared. Inside, cleric Hassan Toaima told an angry crowd, "We demand to know who did this so that we can avenge our martyrs."
U.S. intelligence officials have long been concerned about the possibility of militant attacks during Ashoura. Last month, U.S. officials released what they said was a letter by Jordanian militant Abu Musab al-Zarqawi outlining a strategy of spectacular attacks on Shiites, aimed at sparking a Sunni-Shiite civil war.
Excite News: "Blasts Kill 143 at Iraq Shiite Shrines | Mar 2, 9:44 AM (ET) | By TAREK AL-ISSAWI and HAMZA HENDAWI
KARBALA, Iraq (AP) - Simultaneous explosions ripped through crowds of worshippers Tuesday at Shiite Muslim shrines in Baghdad and the city of Karbala, killing at least 143 people on the holiest day of the Shiite calendar, a U.S. official said. It was the bloodiest day since the end of major fighting.
The blasts came during the Shiite festival of Ashoura and coincided with a shooting attack on Shiite worshippers in Quetta, Pakistan that killed at least 29 people and wounded more than 150.
Three suicide bombers set off their explosives in and around Baghdad's Kazimiya shrine, killing 58 and wounding 200, Brig. Gen. Mark Kimmitt told reporters. At least one suicide attacker blew himself up and pre-set explosives went off in Karbala, killing 85 and wounding more than 100, he said.
A fourth suicide bomber whose explosives did not detonate was captured at Kazimiya, and four people were arrested in connection to the attack in Karbala, Kimmitt told reporters in Baghdad.
The attacks produced a wave of Shiite outrage - much of it directed at U.S. troops in the Iraqi capital. U.S. soldiers who arrived at Kazimiya were attacked by angry crowds throwing stones and garbage, injuring two Americans.
"This is the work of Jews and American occupation forces," a loudspeaker outside Kazimiya blared. Inside, cleric Hassan Toaima told an angry crowd, "We demand to know who did this so that we can avenge our martyrs."
U.S. intelligence officials have long been concerned about the possibility of militant attacks during Ashoura. Last month, U.S. officials released what they said was a letter by Jordanian militant Abu Musab al-Zarqawi outlining a strategy of spectacular attacks on Shiites, aimed at sparking a Sunni-Shiite civil war.
Karbala: suicide explosion(s): 85 Iraqis dead, 100+ wounded [Shiite outrage at US soliders]
Excite News: "Blasts Kill 143 at Iraq Shiite Shrines | Mar 2, 9:44 AM (ET) | By TAREK AL-ISSAWI and HAMZA HENDAWI
KARBALA, Iraq (AP) - Simultaneous explosions ripped through crowds of worshippers Tuesday at Shiite Muslim shrines in Baghdad and the city of Karbala, killing at least 143 people on the holiest day of the Shiite calendar, a U.S. official said. It was the bloodiest day since the end of major fighting.
The blasts came during the Shiite festival of Ashoura and coincided with a shooting attack on Shiite worshippers in Quetta, Pakistan that killed at least 29 people and wounded more than 150.
Three suicide bombers set off their explosives in and around Baghdad's Kazimiya shrine, killing 58 and wounding 200, Brig. Gen. Mark Kimmitt told reporters. At least one suicide attacker blew himself up and pre-set explosives went off in Karbala, killing 85 and wounding more than 100, he said.
A fourth suicide bomber whose explosives did not detonate was captured at Kazimiya, and four people were arrested in connection to the attack in Karbala, Kimmitt told reporters in Baghdad.
The attacks produced a wave of Shiite outrage - much of it directed at U.S. troops in the Iraqi capital. U.S. soldiers who arrived at Kazimiya were attacked by angry crowds throwing stones and garbage, injuring two Americans.
"This is the work of Jews and American occupation forces," a loudspeaker outside Kazimiya blared. Inside, cleric Hassan Toaima told an angry crowd, "We demand to know who did this so that we can avenge our martyrs."
U.S. intelligence officials have long been concerned about the possibility of militant attacks during Ashoura. Last month, U.S. officials released what they said was a letter by Jordanian militant Abu Musab al-Zarqawi outlining a strategy of spectacular attacks on Shiites, aimed at sparking a Sunni-Shiite civil war.
Excite News: "Blasts Kill 143 at Iraq Shiite Shrines | Mar 2, 9:44 AM (ET) | By TAREK AL-ISSAWI and HAMZA HENDAWI
KARBALA, Iraq (AP) - Simultaneous explosions ripped through crowds of worshippers Tuesday at Shiite Muslim shrines in Baghdad and the city of Karbala, killing at least 143 people on the holiest day of the Shiite calendar, a U.S. official said. It was the bloodiest day since the end of major fighting.
The blasts came during the Shiite festival of Ashoura and coincided with a shooting attack on Shiite worshippers in Quetta, Pakistan that killed at least 29 people and wounded more than 150.
Three suicide bombers set off their explosives in and around Baghdad's Kazimiya shrine, killing 58 and wounding 200, Brig. Gen. Mark Kimmitt told reporters. At least one suicide attacker blew himself up and pre-set explosives went off in Karbala, killing 85 and wounding more than 100, he said.
A fourth suicide bomber whose explosives did not detonate was captured at Kazimiya, and four people were arrested in connection to the attack in Karbala, Kimmitt told reporters in Baghdad.
The attacks produced a wave of Shiite outrage - much of it directed at U.S. troops in the Iraqi capital. U.S. soldiers who arrived at Kazimiya were attacked by angry crowds throwing stones and garbage, injuring two Americans.
"This is the work of Jews and American occupation forces," a loudspeaker outside Kazimiya blared. Inside, cleric Hassan Toaima told an angry crowd, "We demand to know who did this so that we can avenge our martyrs."
U.S. intelligence officials have long been concerned about the possibility of militant attacks during Ashoura. Last month, U.S. officials released what they said was a letter by Jordanian militant Abu Musab al-Zarqawi outlining a strategy of spectacular attacks on Shiites, aimed at sparking a Sunni-Shiite civil war.
Monday, March 01, 2004
Palestinians Fleeing Battle Zone Hardship [Ethnic cleansing through economic pressure and dislocation?]
Excite News: "Palestinians Fleeing Battle Zone Hardship | Mar 1, 2:25 PM (ET) | By JASON KEYSER
QALQILIYA, West Bank (AP) - Imad Zaid, unemployed and desperate, spends his days at an Internet cafe, e-mailing friends in Europe for help in escaping his virtually walled-in town.
About 10 percent of Qalqiliya's 40,000 people have left during the past three years of Israeli-Palestinian fighting, the mayor's office says, either to go abroad or move deeper into the West Bank.
The flight from Qalqiliya mirrors migration patterns across the territory and to a lesser extent in the Gaza Strip.
Thousands have moved to other towns to avoid the hardships of living too close to army checkpoints and battle zones. There are also signs that thousands more have gone abroad, mostly to Europe, Persian Gulf states and America.
...
About 15,000 Palestinians have fled the Israeli-controlled center of the West Bank city of Hebron, the Israeli human rights group B'tselem says. Another 5,000 have moved from Gaza's battle-scarred south to Gaza City, local police say.
In Beit Sahour, a predominantly Christian suburb of Bethlehem, more than 450 people have left the community of 12,000, said town chronicler Ghassan Andoni. Many have gone abroad.
Excite News: "Palestinians Fleeing Battle Zone Hardship | Mar 1, 2:25 PM (ET) | By JASON KEYSER
QALQILIYA, West Bank (AP) - Imad Zaid, unemployed and desperate, spends his days at an Internet cafe, e-mailing friends in Europe for help in escaping his virtually walled-in town.
About 10 percent of Qalqiliya's 40,000 people have left during the past three years of Israeli-Palestinian fighting, the mayor's office says, either to go abroad or move deeper into the West Bank.
The flight from Qalqiliya mirrors migration patterns across the territory and to a lesser extent in the Gaza Strip.
Thousands have moved to other towns to avoid the hardships of living too close to army checkpoints and battle zones. There are also signs that thousands more have gone abroad, mostly to Europe, Persian Gulf states and America.
...
About 15,000 Palestinians have fled the Israeli-controlled center of the West Bank city of Hebron, the Israeli human rights group B'tselem says. Another 5,000 have moved from Gaza's battle-scarred south to Gaza City, local police say.
In Beit Sahour, a predominantly Christian suburb of Bethlehem, more than 450 people have left the community of 12,000, said town chronicler Ghassan Andoni. Many have gone abroad.
TOMPAINE.com - Perle Fired?
TOMPAINE.com - Perle Fired?: "Perle Fired? link | March 01, 2004 | 11:09AM
So it seems that Richard Perle, the ringleader of the neoconservative foreign policy team, didn't fall. He was pushed.
According to reliable sources, Secretary of Defense Don Rumsfeld ousted Perle from his perch on the influential Defense Policy Board.
His departure, which was announced last week, has widely been reported as voluntary. In a letter to Rumsfeld, dated February 18, Perle said that he was resigning from the DPB in order not to complicate President Bush's reelection effort:
Despite repeated disclaimers, my membership on the defense policy board has led many people who see my articles, books, and television appearances to associate my views with those of the administration or the Department of Defense.
...
But his resignation wasn't voluntary. Already embroiled in a tangle of commercial conflict of interest controversies, Perle last year stepped down as the DPB chairman, but held onto his membership. Now, according to reliable sources, Perle was outright fired because of two last straws.
Last Straw No. 1—maybe it should be called Next-to-Last Straw—was the report in the Times of London that an internal investigation at Hollinger International, where Perle served as a member of the board of directors, turned up the fact that Perle failed to disclose to shareholders a $3 million bonus that he received—among other things, a violation of Securities and Exchange Commission rules. Sources report that the Pentagon's inspector general brought this to Rumsfeld's attention.
Last Straw No. 2 was Perle's call for the ouster of Admiral Lowell Jacoby, the director of the Defense Intelligence Agency. Rumsfeld might have fired Perle over the Hollinger mess, but his attack on the DIA chief tipped the scales. The DIA has recently weighed in forcefully on the intelligence scandal over Iraq's AWOL WMDs. The DIA, in particular, attacked Ahmad Chalabi, Perle's friend, who is the leader of the Iraqi National Congress—and whose bogus, lying defectors were responsible for misleading the U.S. intelligence community, including the DIA.
TOMPAINE.com - Perle Fired?: "Perle Fired? link | March 01, 2004 | 11:09AM
So it seems that Richard Perle, the ringleader of the neoconservative foreign policy team, didn't fall. He was pushed.
According to reliable sources, Secretary of Defense Don Rumsfeld ousted Perle from his perch on the influential Defense Policy Board.
His departure, which was announced last week, has widely been reported as voluntary. In a letter to Rumsfeld, dated February 18, Perle said that he was resigning from the DPB in order not to complicate President Bush's reelection effort:
Despite repeated disclaimers, my membership on the defense policy board has led many people who see my articles, books, and television appearances to associate my views with those of the administration or the Department of Defense.
...
But his resignation wasn't voluntary. Already embroiled in a tangle of commercial conflict of interest controversies, Perle last year stepped down as the DPB chairman, but held onto his membership. Now, according to reliable sources, Perle was outright fired because of two last straws.
Last Straw No. 1—maybe it should be called Next-to-Last Straw—was the report in the Times of London that an internal investigation at Hollinger International, where Perle served as a member of the board of directors, turned up the fact that Perle failed to disclose to shareholders a $3 million bonus that he received—among other things, a violation of Securities and Exchange Commission rules. Sources report that the Pentagon's inspector general brought this to Rumsfeld's attention.
Last Straw No. 2 was Perle's call for the ouster of Admiral Lowell Jacoby, the director of the Defense Intelligence Agency. Rumsfeld might have fired Perle over the Hollinger mess, but his attack on the DIA chief tipped the scales. The DIA has recently weighed in forcefully on the intelligence scandal over Iraq's AWOL WMDs. The DIA, in particular, attacked Ahmad Chalabi, Perle's friend, who is the leader of the Iraqi National Congress—and whose bogus, lying defectors were responsible for misleading the U.S. intelligence community, including the DIA.
1948: planned genocide against Palestinians by Ben Gurian and Moshe Carmel; 24 Massacres, in Dawayima, Saliha, Deir Yassin, and Abu Shusha
William A. Cook: Israel: America's Albatross: "February 28 / 29, 2004 | The Israeli Crisis | America's Albatross | By WILLIAM A. COOK
...
... Arab world sees more than just Sharon and his savage legacy; they see what Benny Morris, author of Righteous Victims: a History of the Zionist-Arab Conflict 1881-2001, has revealed recently that confirms a planned genocide against Palestinians by Ben Gurian and Moshe Carmel as far back as 1948. The massacre at the Dahmash Mosque (July 11, 1948) that resulted in the deaths of 350 worshippers by the 89th Israel Commando Battalion commanded by Moshe Dayan exemplifies the nature of the genocide and the savagery of its execution as Dayan's forces stripped the dead of their valuables and tossed the bodies out of the Mosque into the boiling sun (Gains, UK). While the West bought the lies of the Israeli historians and the media covered up the reality of "transference," what we now euphemistically call "ethnic cleansing," and what properly should be called massacre and theft, the release of Ben Gurian's orders tells the truth and confirms what the Arab world has said all along. That alone gives reason for the world to see Israel as the cause of instability in the Mid-East since it gives legitimacy to the cause of the Palestinians to resist Israeli occupation and insist on return of the refugees. Morris reveals, "In the months of April-May 1948, units of Haganah (precursor of IDF) were given operational orders that stated explicitly that they were to uproot the villagers, expel them and destroy the villages themselves" (Ari Shavit, Ha'aretz, Sun. 2/15/04). When asked how many acts of massacre occurred, Morris replied, 24, in Dawayima, Saliha, Deir Yassin, and Abu Shusha, "Ben Gurian silenced the matter. He covered up for the officers who did the massacres." Should not these revelations force a reconsideration of America's one-sided support of Israel? Doesn't Dean's observation that a more "even-handed" approach seems justified and Kerry and Edwards' blind adherence to an unanalyzed policy to a purported "democratic" Israel and a "peaceful" Israel need reconsideration? ...
William A. Cook: Israel: America's Albatross: "February 28 / 29, 2004 | The Israeli Crisis | America's Albatross | By WILLIAM A. COOK
...
... Arab world sees more than just Sharon and his savage legacy; they see what Benny Morris, author of Righteous Victims: a History of the Zionist-Arab Conflict 1881-2001, has revealed recently that confirms a planned genocide against Palestinians by Ben Gurian and Moshe Carmel as far back as 1948. The massacre at the Dahmash Mosque (July 11, 1948) that resulted in the deaths of 350 worshippers by the 89th Israel Commando Battalion commanded by Moshe Dayan exemplifies the nature of the genocide and the savagery of its execution as Dayan's forces stripped the dead of their valuables and tossed the bodies out of the Mosque into the boiling sun (Gains, UK). While the West bought the lies of the Israeli historians and the media covered up the reality of "transference," what we now euphemistically call "ethnic cleansing," and what properly should be called massacre and theft, the release of Ben Gurian's orders tells the truth and confirms what the Arab world has said all along. That alone gives reason for the world to see Israel as the cause of instability in the Mid-East since it gives legitimacy to the cause of the Palestinians to resist Israeli occupation and insist on return of the refugees. Morris reveals, "In the months of April-May 1948, units of Haganah (precursor of IDF) were given operational orders that stated explicitly that they were to uproot the villagers, expel them and destroy the villages themselves" (Ari Shavit, Ha'aretz, Sun. 2/15/04). When asked how many acts of massacre occurred, Morris replied, 24, in Dawayima, Saliha, Deir Yassin, and Abu Shusha, "Ben Gurian silenced the matter. He covered up for the officers who did the massacres." Should not these revelations force a reconsideration of America's one-sided support of Israel? Doesn't Dean's observation that a more "even-handed" approach seems justified and Kerry and Edwards' blind adherence to an unanalyzed policy to a purported "democratic" Israel and a "peaceful" Israel need reconsideration? ...
"Man of peace", Ariel Sharon: 1953, deaths of 50 civilians ... Qibya massacre ... 1967. Had'd Street ... 1982, 1,962 people at Sabra and Shatilla
February 28 / 29, 2004 | The Israeli Crisis | America's Albatross | By WILLIAM A. COOK
...
Bush prides himself on deposing "madmen," "ruthless dictators," "murderers," and "criminals" who kill wantonly, women, children, the old and infirm. In August of 1953, a poverty plagued refugee camp suffered an onslaught, supervised by a military commander that resulted in the deaths of 50 civilians as "bombs were thrown through the windows of huts in which the refugees were sleeping." Another village, Qibya, endured a massacre when that same commander reduced the village to rubble killing 69 civilians, two-thirds of them women and children, then buried the victims under their homes as they were blown up over them. In Gaza strip, after the 1967 war, Had'd Street, a narrow alley in a mass of similar alleys that made up a shantytown for refugees, was eradicated and hundreds of homes destroyed by bulldozers to enable tanks and armored vehicles to move unhindered through the camp, while this same commander allowed his soldiers to beat the people leaving them homeless once again. That same commander later destroyed an additional 2,000 homes uprooting 16,000 people and assassinated 104 suspected guerrillas without benefit of trial or jury. In 1982 this same commander directed the bombing of civilian populations and oversaw the massacres of 1,962 people at Sabra and Shatilla refugee camps, all infants, children, women, pregnant women, and the elderly, many mutilated (The Crimes of Ariel Sharon, Counterpunch 2/7/04). Was this Saddam? Was he the "little madman" in North Korea? No, quite obviously, he is Bush's mentor in Israel, a "man of peace" according to "W," Ariel Sharon.
Prior to the ascendancy of Ariel Sharon to head the government of Israel, prospects for a peaceful settlement existed. Sharon cripples any and all peace efforts and he does so with the complicity of the US administration and our government. He knowingly caused the current intifada by taking a 1000 IDF entourage to the holy Al Aqsa Mosque understanding his act as a defilement, and America said nothing, but the world looked on and the world objected. He alone of all Israeli leaders has used the full force of the Israeli military machine to subdue a defenseless people who fight against all odds to retain even a sliver of the land they owned before the state of Israel was forced upon them, a military machine bought and paid for by our tax dollars, and the world looks on and the world objects. ...
February 28 / 29, 2004 | The Israeli Crisis | America's Albatross | By WILLIAM A. COOK
...
Bush prides himself on deposing "madmen," "ruthless dictators," "murderers," and "criminals" who kill wantonly, women, children, the old and infirm. In August of 1953, a poverty plagued refugee camp suffered an onslaught, supervised by a military commander that resulted in the deaths of 50 civilians as "bombs were thrown through the windows of huts in which the refugees were sleeping." Another village, Qibya, endured a massacre when that same commander reduced the village to rubble killing 69 civilians, two-thirds of them women and children, then buried the victims under their homes as they were blown up over them. In Gaza strip, after the 1967 war, Had'd Street, a narrow alley in a mass of similar alleys that made up a shantytown for refugees, was eradicated and hundreds of homes destroyed by bulldozers to enable tanks and armored vehicles to move unhindered through the camp, while this same commander allowed his soldiers to beat the people leaving them homeless once again. That same commander later destroyed an additional 2,000 homes uprooting 16,000 people and assassinated 104 suspected guerrillas without benefit of trial or jury. In 1982 this same commander directed the bombing of civilian populations and oversaw the massacres of 1,962 people at Sabra and Shatilla refugee camps, all infants, children, women, pregnant women, and the elderly, many mutilated (The Crimes of Ariel Sharon, Counterpunch 2/7/04). Was this Saddam? Was he the "little madman" in North Korea? No, quite obviously, he is Bush's mentor in Israel, a "man of peace" according to "W," Ariel Sharon.
Prior to the ascendancy of Ariel Sharon to head the government of Israel, prospects for a peaceful settlement existed. Sharon cripples any and all peace efforts and he does so with the complicity of the US administration and our government. He knowingly caused the current intifada by taking a 1000 IDF entourage to the holy Al Aqsa Mosque understanding his act as a defilement, and America said nothing, but the world looked on and the world objected. He alone of all Israeli leaders has used the full force of the Israeli military machine to subdue a defenseless people who fight against all odds to retain even a sliver of the land they owned before the state of Israel was forced upon them, a military machine bought and paid for by our tax dollars, and the world looks on and the world objects. ...
"Israel is a democracy and our closest ally in the region"
William A. Cook: Israel: America's Albatross: "February 28 / 29, 2004 | The Israeli Crisis | America's Albatross | By WILLIAM A. COOK
...
Interestingly, John Kerry's Presidential web site mocks Howard Dean for a string of "misstatements" about Israel and America's unstinting support of that state. What constitutes a "Misstatement"? Disagreement with Kerry's statement that "Every candidate who aspires to be president should know that Israel is a democracy and our closest ally in the region." What did Dean say? Israel is "a Jewish state, it's not a democracy." He's right! Israel is NOT a democracy: it has no constitution after fifty years of existence, yet we demand that Afghanistan, Iraq and Palestine have a constitution; its system of laws is determined by the Torah, a religious document not a secular one; it denies recognition of the Palestinian minority despite UN Resolution 181 calling for such recognition; it defies UN Resolutions requiring it to accept return of the indigenous Palestinians from the refugee camps to their rightful homes taken from them in 1948 or 1967 but allows Jews from Russia and other lands to immigrate and become citizens solely because of their religion, making Israel a de facto theocracy (similar, ironically, to an Islamic democracy!); and it keeps on the books more than 20 laws that discriminate against the Palestinian minority (Adalah: Legal Center for Arab Minority Rights in Israel).
William A. Cook: Israel: America's Albatross: "February 28 / 29, 2004 | The Israeli Crisis | America's Albatross | By WILLIAM A. COOK
...
Interestingly, John Kerry's Presidential web site mocks Howard Dean for a string of "misstatements" about Israel and America's unstinting support of that state. What constitutes a "Misstatement"? Disagreement with Kerry's statement that "Every candidate who aspires to be president should know that Israel is a democracy and our closest ally in the region." What did Dean say? Israel is "a Jewish state, it's not a democracy." He's right! Israel is NOT a democracy: it has no constitution after fifty years of existence, yet we demand that Afghanistan, Iraq and Palestine have a constitution; its system of laws is determined by the Torah, a religious document not a secular one; it denies recognition of the Palestinian minority despite UN Resolution 181 calling for such recognition; it defies UN Resolutions requiring it to accept return of the indigenous Palestinians from the refugee camps to their rightful homes taken from them in 1948 or 1967 but allows Jews from Russia and other lands to immigrate and become citizens solely because of their religion, making Israel a de facto theocracy (similar, ironically, to an Islamic democracy!); and it keeps on the books more than 20 laws that discriminate against the Palestinian minority (Adalah: Legal Center for Arab Minority Rights in Israel).
Huge majorities (64%, 71%, and 79% respectively) in France, Germany and Russia oppose(d) the use of military force to end the rule of Saddam Hussein
William A. Cook: Israel: America's Albatross: "February 28 / 29, 2004 | The Israeli Crisis | America's Albatross | By WILLIAM A. COOK
...
"Huge majorities (64%, 71%, and 79% respectively) in France, Germany and Russia oppose(d) the use of military force to end the rule of Saddam Hussein." The reason? The war with Iraq will increase the risk of terrorism in Europe, and while Americans seem to believe that terrorism has diminished as a result of the invasion of Iraq, the reality is that we are fast approaching a death rate of American soldiers in Iraq comparable to one third the number killed in the 9/11 attacks. Are we willing to say that it's OK for Americans to die in the Middle-East as long as they are not being killed on American soil? Similar attitudes about America exist in Indonesia, Senegal, Western Europe, Australia and Canada. In short, Israel and America are perceived by the vast majority of people around the world as true threats to world peace. What does the world know that we are unwilling to face? In this election year, America's absolute and unswerving support for Israel and its unquestioned spread of corporate-style democracy (read Globalized Capitalism) remains the unseen elephant in the Oval Office and the campaign rooms of Kerry and Edwards.
William A. Cook: Israel: America's Albatross: "February 28 / 29, 2004 | The Israeli Crisis | America's Albatross | By WILLIAM A. COOK
...
"Huge majorities (64%, 71%, and 79% respectively) in France, Germany and Russia oppose(d) the use of military force to end the rule of Saddam Hussein." The reason? The war with Iraq will increase the risk of terrorism in Europe, and while Americans seem to believe that terrorism has diminished as a result of the invasion of Iraq, the reality is that we are fast approaching a death rate of American soldiers in Iraq comparable to one third the number killed in the 9/11 attacks. Are we willing to say that it's OK for Americans to die in the Middle-East as long as they are not being killed on American soil? Similar attitudes about America exist in Indonesia, Senegal, Western Europe, Australia and Canada. In short, Israel and America are perceived by the vast majority of people around the world as true threats to world peace. What does the world know that we are unwilling to face? In this election year, America's absolute and unswerving support for Israel and its unquestioned spread of corporate-style democracy (read Globalized Capitalism) remains the unseen elephant in the Oval Office and the campaign rooms of Kerry and Edwards.
Stephen Green: Serving Two Flags: Neo-Cons, Israel and the Bush Administration
Stephen Green: Serving Two Flags: Neo-Cons, Israel and the Bush Administration: "February 28 / 29, 2004 | Serving Two Flags | Neo-Cons, Israel and the Bush Administration | By STEPHEN GREEN
Since 9-11, a small group of 'neo-conservatives' in the Administration have effectively gutted--they would say reformed--traditional American foreign and security policy. Notable features of the new Bush doctrine include the pre-emptive use of unilateral force, and the undermining of the United Nations and the principle instruments and institutions of international law....all in the cause of fighting terrorism and promoting homeland security.
Some skeptics, noting the neo-cons' past academic and professional associations, writings and public utterances, have suggested that their underlying agenda is the alignment of U.S. foreign and security policies with those of Ariel Sharon and the Israeli right wing. The administration's new hard line on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict certainly suggests that, as perhaps does the destruction, with U.S. soldiers and funds, of the military capacity of Iraq, and the current belligerent neo-con campaign against the other two countries which constitute a remaining counterforce to Israeli military hegemony in the region--Iran and Syria.
Have the neo-conservatives--many of whom are senior officials in the Defense Department, National Security Council and Office of the Vice President--had dual agendas, while professing to work for the internal security of the United States against its terrorist enemies?
A review of the internal security backgrounds of some of the best known among them strongly suggests the answer.
...
Bryen was asked to resign from his Foreign Relations Committee post shortly before the investigation was concluded in late 1979. For the following year and a half, he served as Executive Director of the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs (JINSA), and provided consulting services to AIPAC.
In April, 1981, the FBI received an application by the Defense Department for a Top Secret security clearance for Dr. Bryen . Richard Perle, who had just been nominated as Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Policy, was proposing Bryen as his Deputy Assistant Secretary! Within six months, with Perle pushing hard, Bryen received both Top Secret-SCI (sensitive compartmented information) and Top Secret-"NATO/COSMIC" clearances.
...
One might wonder how, with security histories like these, Messrs. Bryen and Ledeen have managed to get second and third chances to return to government in highly classified positions.
And the explanation is that they, along with other like-minded neo-conservatives, have in the current Bush Administration friends in very high places. In particular, Bryen and Ledeen have been repeatedly boosted into defense/security posts by former Defense Policy Council member and chairman Richard Perle (he just quietly resigned his position), Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, and Under Secretary of Defense for Policy Douglas Feith.
...
In the case of Perle hiring Bryen as his deputy in 1981, for instance, documents released in 1983 under the Freedom of Information Act indicate that the Department provided extraordinarily high clearances for Bryen without having reviewed more than a small portion of his 1978-79 FBI investigation file.
...
The leaker (and author of the report) was CIA analyst David Sullivan, and the leakee was Richard Perle. CIA Director Stansfield Turner was incensed at the unauthorized disclosure, but before he could fire Sullivan, the latter quit. Turner urged Sen. Jackson to fire Perle, but he was let off with a reprimand. ...
Perle's second brush with the law occurred a year later in 1970. An FBI wiretap authorized for the Israeli Embassy picked up Perle discussing with an Embassy official classified information which he said had been supplied to by a staff member on the National Security Council. ...
...
In 1978, he [Wolfowitz] was investigated for providing a classified document on the proposed sale of U.S. weapons to an Arab government, to an Israel Government official, through an AIPAC intermediary. An inquiry was launched and dropped, however, and Wolfowitz continued to work at ACDA until 1980.
... During that investigation, in a situation very reminiscent of the Bryen/Varian Associates/klystrons affair two years earlier, the Pentagon discovered that Wolfowitz's office was promoting the export to Israel of advanced AIM-9M air-to-air missiles.
In this instance, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, aware that Israel had already been caught selling the earlier AIM 9-L version of the missile to China in violation of a written agreement with the U.S. on arms re-sales, intervened to cancel the proposed AIM (-M deal. ...
...
... [Wolfowitz] Picked as Donald Rumsfeld's Deputy Secretary at DoD, he prevailed upon his boss to appoint Douglas Feith as Undersecretary for Policy. On the day after the destruction of the World Trade Center, September 12, Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz raised the possibility of an immediate attack on Iraq during an emergency NSC meeting. ...
...
... But Feith was fired because he'd been the object of an inquiry into whether he'd provided classified material to an official of the Israeli Embassy in Washington. The FBI had opened the inquiry. ...
Stephen Green: Serving Two Flags: Neo-Cons, Israel and the Bush Administration: "February 28 / 29, 2004 | Serving Two Flags | Neo-Cons, Israel and the Bush Administration | By STEPHEN GREEN
Since 9-11, a small group of 'neo-conservatives' in the Administration have effectively gutted--they would say reformed--traditional American foreign and security policy. Notable features of the new Bush doctrine include the pre-emptive use of unilateral force, and the undermining of the United Nations and the principle instruments and institutions of international law....all in the cause of fighting terrorism and promoting homeland security.
Some skeptics, noting the neo-cons' past academic and professional associations, writings and public utterances, have suggested that their underlying agenda is the alignment of U.S. foreign and security policies with those of Ariel Sharon and the Israeli right wing. The administration's new hard line on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict certainly suggests that, as perhaps does the destruction, with U.S. soldiers and funds, of the military capacity of Iraq, and the current belligerent neo-con campaign against the other two countries which constitute a remaining counterforce to Israeli military hegemony in the region--Iran and Syria.
Have the neo-conservatives--many of whom are senior officials in the Defense Department, National Security Council and Office of the Vice President--had dual agendas, while professing to work for the internal security of the United States against its terrorist enemies?
A review of the internal security backgrounds of some of the best known among them strongly suggests the answer.
...
Bryen was asked to resign from his Foreign Relations Committee post shortly before the investigation was concluded in late 1979. For the following year and a half, he served as Executive Director of the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs (JINSA), and provided consulting services to AIPAC.
In April, 1981, the FBI received an application by the Defense Department for a Top Secret security clearance for Dr. Bryen . Richard Perle, who had just been nominated as Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Policy, was proposing Bryen as his Deputy Assistant Secretary! Within six months, with Perle pushing hard, Bryen received both Top Secret-SCI (sensitive compartmented information) and Top Secret-"NATO/COSMIC" clearances.
...
One might wonder how, with security histories like these, Messrs. Bryen and Ledeen have managed to get second and third chances to return to government in highly classified positions.
And the explanation is that they, along with other like-minded neo-conservatives, have in the current Bush Administration friends in very high places. In particular, Bryen and Ledeen have been repeatedly boosted into defense/security posts by former Defense Policy Council member and chairman Richard Perle (he just quietly resigned his position), Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, and Under Secretary of Defense for Policy Douglas Feith.
...
In the case of Perle hiring Bryen as his deputy in 1981, for instance, documents released in 1983 under the Freedom of Information Act indicate that the Department provided extraordinarily high clearances for Bryen without having reviewed more than a small portion of his 1978-79 FBI investigation file.
...
The leaker (and author of the report) was CIA analyst David Sullivan, and the leakee was Richard Perle. CIA Director Stansfield Turner was incensed at the unauthorized disclosure, but before he could fire Sullivan, the latter quit. Turner urged Sen. Jackson to fire Perle, but he was let off with a reprimand. ...
Perle's second brush with the law occurred a year later in 1970. An FBI wiretap authorized for the Israeli Embassy picked up Perle discussing with an Embassy official classified information which he said had been supplied to by a staff member on the National Security Council. ...
...
In 1978, he [Wolfowitz] was investigated for providing a classified document on the proposed sale of U.S. weapons to an Arab government, to an Israel Government official, through an AIPAC intermediary. An inquiry was launched and dropped, however, and Wolfowitz continued to work at ACDA until 1980.
... During that investigation, in a situation very reminiscent of the Bryen/Varian Associates/klystrons affair two years earlier, the Pentagon discovered that Wolfowitz's office was promoting the export to Israel of advanced AIM-9M air-to-air missiles.
In this instance, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, aware that Israel had already been caught selling the earlier AIM 9-L version of the missile to China in violation of a written agreement with the U.S. on arms re-sales, intervened to cancel the proposed AIM (-M deal. ...
...
... [Wolfowitz] Picked as Donald Rumsfeld's Deputy Secretary at DoD, he prevailed upon his boss to appoint Douglas Feith as Undersecretary for Policy. On the day after the destruction of the World Trade Center, September 12, Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz raised the possibility of an immediate attack on Iraq during an emergency NSC meeting. ...
...
... But Feith was fired because he'd been the object of an inquiry into whether he'd provided classified material to an official of the Israeli Embassy in Washington. The FBI had opened the inquiry. ...
