Archive for August, 2009

Mullen: We will always stand by Israel (even if the US goes down for such!)

Mullen: We will always stand by Israel (even if the US goes down for such!)


US Army Chief: We’ll Always Stand by Israel’s Side
By Yitzhak Benhorin
The US will always stand by Israel’s side, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Navy Adm. Mike Mullen said overnight Thursday during a farewell party for Israel’s military attaché in Washington Major-General Benny Gantz, who will be retuning to Israel following his appointment as IDF deputy chief of staff.

Merkel warns Iran on sanctions/Israel calls for ‘crippling’ sanctions against Iran

Merkel warns Iran on sanctions:

Israel calls for ‘crippling’ sanctions against Iran

France’s Sarkozy raises Iran sanction threat

Britain warns Iran of new sanctions (more war for Israel coming?!)

U.S. agrees on harsher sanctions on Iran for a partial Israeli settlement freeze

The above seems to fit with what is conveyed by Giraldi and Raimondo in the following articles:
Wag The Dog, Again (Another War for Israel coming right at US!):
Obama’s War Signals: Iran in the crosshairs (by Justin Raimondo)

France’s Sarkozy raises Iran sanction threat

France’s Sarkozy raises Iran sanction threat

Britain warns Iran of new sanctions (more war for Israel coming?!)

U.S. agrees on harsher sanctions on Iran for a partial Israeli settlement freeze

The above seems to fit with what is conveyed by Giraldi and Raimondo in the following articles:
Wag The Dog, Again (Another War for Israel coming right at US!):
Obama’s War Signals: Iran in the crosshairs (by Justin Raimondo)
Additional at following URL:

ElBaradei Foes Leaked Stories to Force His Hand on Iran

ElBaradei Foes Leaked Stories to Force His Hand on Iran

U.S. agrees on harsher sanctions on Iran for a partial Israeli settlement freeze

Obama Bows to Israel Over Settlements, Iran


General (Ret) James David is mentioned on the cover of former Republican Congressman Paul Findley’s ‘They Dare to Speak Out’ book about the influence of the pro-Israel lobby (AIPAC and similar) and the US political system and media:

U.S. agrees on harsher sanctions on Iran for a partial Israeli settlement freeze

Wednesday, August 26, 2009 7:19 AM
From: General (Ret) James David
It always has to be Israel’s way.  Once again, the Israeli government uses extortion tactics to get its way.  Don’t be surprised if an agreement on a partial settlement freeze is agreed only upon the U.S. attack on Iran.  Israel continues to make fools of the United States and we do nothing about it.
Instead of demanding that Israel halt all settlement activity or lose future annual aid, the U.S. gives in to Israel’s demands.
Please read the 2 highlighted paragraphs in the latest agreement below.
Last update – 16:23 26/08/2009
Netanyahu, Mitchell fail to reach deal on settlements
By Barak Ravid, Haaretz Correspondent, Haaretz Service and News Agencies
Tags: peace talks, palestinians 
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and U.S. Middle East envoy George Mitchell failed to reach an agreement on the issue of West Bank settlements during a meeting Wednesday in London, according to spokespeople for the two men.However, Netanyahu and Mitchell did make progress in their meeting, the spokespeople said in a joint message afterward, adding that the two agreed on the need to begin meaningful diplomatic negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians with the aim of reaching a regional peace agreement.The next round of talks was scheduled for the beginning of next week in Washington. Israel will be represented at those talks by the PM’s special envoy Yitzhak Molcho and Defense Ministry chief of staff Mike Herzog, who both participated in Wednesday’s meeting. 



The two will meet with Mitchell to discuss again the U.S. demand that Israel implement a settlement freeze.
Prior to the meeting, Netanyahu said his government was making progress toward reopening talks with the Palestinians and hoped to be able to do so shortly.
“We are making headway. My government has taken steps both in words and deeds to move forward,” he said.

Netanyahu has pledged not to build any new settlements but wanted to enable what he called “natural growth” of existing enclaves.

The prime minister, whose comments during a photo opportunity were relayed to reporters by his spokesman, expressed hope the two sides would “shortly be able to resume normal talks.”

“The goal is a wider peace, which is our common goal,” he said.

Meanwhile, Palestinian officials said Wednesday that President Mahmoud Abbas is open to a meeting with Netanyahu at the United Nations next month.

The meeting would be the first between the two leaders since Netanyahu took office in March.

Abbas has refused to reopen peace talks until Netanyahu halts all construction in Jewish settlements in the West Bank. The Israeli leader rejects this demand.

The Palestinian officials said Abbas is not dropping his conditions. They say the meeting would be a chance to talk, but would not amount to negotiations.

The Palestinian officials spoke on condition of anonymity because a formal meeting hasn’t been set.

Earlier, Israel’s ambassador to the United Nations Gabriela Shalev told reporters that a meeting between Netanyahu, Abbas and U.S. President Obama at the UN was being planned, but declined to elaborate.

Meanwhile, the British Guardian reported that President Barack Obama is close to breaking the stalemate between Israel and the Palestinians by getting Israel to agree to a partial settlement freeze in exchange for a tougher U.S. stand against Iran’s nuclear program.

The report, which cites U.S., European, Israeli and Palestinian officials, said that Obama will be ready to announce the resumption of long-stalled peace talks between Israel and the Palestinians by the end of September.

“The message is: Iran is an existential threat to Israel; settlements are not,” the Guardian quoted one official close to the negotiations as saying.

In exchange for Israel agreeing to a partial and temporary settlement freeze, the U.S., Britain and France would push the United Nations Security Council to expand sanctions on Iran to include its oil and gas industry, the report said.

Israel is also seeking normalization with Arab states, which would include the right for El Al to fly within Arab states’ airspace, the establishment of trade offices and embassies and an end to the ban on travelers with Israeli stamps in their passports.

A poll released Wednesday in Israel showed freezing settlements would be an unpopular move. Almost two-thirds of those questioned told pollsters they opposed a freeze, even in return for moves by Arab countries toward
normalization of ties with Israel. Thirty-nine percent said they would support a freeze in return for Arab gestures.

Conducted by the Maagar Mohot polling company, the survey questioned 506
Jewish Israelis and had a margin of error of 4.5 percentage points.

Details of the negotiations are expected to be outlined Wednesday during Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s meeting in London with George Mitchell, the U.S. special envoy to the Middle East.

“It has been pretty hard going but we are getting there,” the Guardian quoted another official as saying. “We are closer to a deal with the Israelis than many think. The Arabs are more difficult to pin down.”

The report said Obama plans to announce the breakthrough either at the meeting of the UN General Assembly in New York in the week of September 23 or at the G20 summit in Pittsburgh on September 24-25.

Obama plans to make his announcement together with Netanyahu and Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas and sources said he hopes a final peace deal can be negotiated within two years.

Israel and the United States on Tuesday said they are closing the gaps over the contentious issue of West Bank settlement construction, senior American officials told Haaretz.

The Obama administration has demanded that Israel halt all construction in settlements in the West Bank, which the Palestinians claim for a future state.

Netanyahu has resisted calls for a total freeze on construction, arguing that the Bush administration had acquiesced to continued Israeli settlement activity in large blocs that are likely to be annexed by Israel in any future agreement with the Palestinians.

He reiterated during a joint press conference with British Prime Minister Gordon Brown at 10 Downing Street in London, that Israel will not limit construction in East Jerusalem.

“What we’re seeking to achieve with the United States in the talks we’ve
conducted, and will conduct tomorrow and will conduct after tomorrow, is to find a bridging formula that will enable us to at once launch a process but enable those residents to continue living normal lives,” Netanyahu said.

After his talks with Mitchell, Netanyahu is scheduled to fly to Berlin for talks on Thursday with German Chancellor Angela Merkel.

Related articles:
U.S. says it’s closer to Israel-Palestinian talks
Obama envoy: Peace process will bring Arab-Israeli normalization
Poll: Only 12 percent of Israelis believe Obama supports Israel





Britain warns Iran of new sanctions (more war for Israel coming?!)

Britain warns Iran of new sanctions

France’s Sarkozy raises Iran sanction threat

U.S. agrees on harsher sanctions on Iran for a partial Israeli settlement freeze

Merkel warns Iran on sanctions (more war for Israel coming?!)/Israel calls for ‘crippling’ sanctions against Iran:

Obama’s road to war:

The above seems to fit with what is conveyed by Giraldi and Raimondo in the following articles:
Wag The Dog, Again (Another War for Israel coming right at US!):
Obama’s War Signals: Iran in the crosshairs (by Justin Raimondo)
Additional at following URL:

Dennis Ross: Threat to Peace as he pushes for war with Iran as well:

The next thing we are looking to is WAR (with Iran?!) by Christmas? Gerald Celente

“Operation in Afghanistan is rooted in Israel” (Lt.Colonel Karen Kwiatkowski interview about war with Iran):

Where is the Anti-War Movement in the Age of Obama?:

What happened to the antiwar movement? Cindy Sheehan hits ‘hypocrisy’ of Left, Democratic allies:

US launches probe into CIA abuses

US launches probe into CIA abuses:

Durham appointed to investigate CIA abuses
Glenn Greenwald on CIA Interrogation Probe, Obama and Why the Media Failed on Covering Torture
CIA report: Detainees threatened with family rape

Cheney ‘ordered CIA to hide plan’ 

The CIA and Dick Cheney:

Here is the direct link for the must watch youtube video:

Here is a tiny URL for the youtube:

Stephen Sniegoski’s lecture on his book, “The Transparent Cabal” which is mentioned in above youtube:

And of course Cheney and his neocon Israel first friends don’t address the primary motivation for why we (the USA) were tragically attacked on 9/11 (and earlier at the WTC in 1993 as one can simply look up ‘Israel as a terrorist’s motivation’ in James Bamford’s ‘A Pretext for War’ book as well):

What motivated the 9/11 hijackers? See testimony most didn’t

Here is a tiny URL for the above one:

“Sit Down!” The Power to Silence the Truth about 9/11 Part 2

Here is the tiny URL for the above one:

The Gorilla in the Room is US Support for Israel

Cheney wants skeleton kept in closet

In another U-turn, Obama upholds Bush’s rendition policy

In another U-turn, Obama upholds Bush’s rendition policy

Renditioning Under Obama

Evangelical Israel firster Mike Evans was on C-SPAN’s ‘Washington Journal’ this morning out of Washington, D.C.

Can watch/listen to this Mike Evans evangelical Israel firster go after Jimmy Carter this morning on ‘Washington Journal’ via clicking on the ‘Flash media’ link on the right side of following URL:

Jimmy Carter: The Liberal Left and World Chaos

The following includes more about him:

EXCERPT FROM “Mike Evans Attacks Jimmy Carter, Opposes a Two-State Solution & Wants to Bomb Iran” – by Bill Berkowitz, 02/05/09

These days, Evans has honed in on another target: former President Jimmy Carter. Evans has written a new book titled “Jimmy Carter: The Liberal Left and World Chaos,” a sharp rebuke of President Carter’s efforts at working for a peaceful solution to the Israel/Palestine conflict.
“This book helps you connect the dots and understand how we have come to this crisis,” states the promotional materials at the book’s Web site. “More importantly, the book tells you how it can be resolved. It contains information that has never been revealed by diplomatic sources worldwide. It divulges the agenda of Jimmy Carter and the Liberal Left to sell America and the Bible Land to the highest bidder.”
In a profile of Evans, Right Web, a project of Political Research Associates, pointed out that in a 2007 article for his own online publication, Jerusalem World News, Evans criticized efforts aimed at a two-state solution:
“The acceptance of this vile plan would turn Israel into a living hell. The Jewish people would be forced to live next door to a state controlled by Islamic fanatics such as Hamas. I am reminded over and over of the scripture in Psalm 83:2-5: For behold, Your enemies make a tumult; and those who hate You have lifted up their head. They have taken crafty counsel against Your people, and consulted together against Your sheltered ones. They have said, ‘Come, and let us cut them off from being a nation, that the name of Israel may be remembered no more.’ For they have consulted together with one consent; they form a confederacy against You.”…..



Where is the Anti-War Movement in the Age of Obama?

Where is the Anti-War Movement in the Age of Obama?
Sunday, August 23, 2009 7:12 AM

From: “Stephen Sniegoski”


It appears that most liberal opponents of the wars in the Middle
East/ Central Asia have ceased their opposition with the Obama presidency.
The liberal Democrats who abhorred Bush’s war policy (and most grass roots
liberal Democrats did vehemently oppose the Bush war policy although this
was not always the case with liberal politicians and media figures)
apparently were simply opposed to wars led by Republicans. As Byron York, a
conservative, writes in the first article below: “For many liberal
activists, opposing the war was really about opposing George W. Bush. When
Bush disappeared, so did their anti-war passion.” Anti-war protest leader,
Cindy Sheehan, agrees completely, stating: “The ‘anti-war’ ‘left’ was used
by the Democratic Party. I like to call it the ‘anti-Republican War’

Obama is perceived as a liberal, a man of peace, and a charismatic figure,
which enables him to get away with things that had been impossible for Bush
the Younger. Thus Obama can say such things as the war in Afghanistan is
“fundamental to the defense of our people” and not be savaged by the former
critics of the war. This is not to say that the former anti-war people have
become cheerleaders for war. Rather, they have become largely indifferent
to it. Their attention has been largely diverted to the health care issue,
the economy, the environment, or some other liberal cause. This political
indifference has given Obama a virtual freehand in military policy. The
most dangerous possible development is war with Iran, which is sought by
Israel and its Lobby. Escalating American involvement in Afghanistan along
with the continued American occupation of Iraq allows for incidents with
Iran (or incidents blamed on Iran) that could lead to war. If Obama keeps
sagging in the polls–due to the health care reform issue, a continuing
problematic economy, and other domestic difficulties– an aggressive foreign
policy might likely be seen as a necessary political ploy. Even if war is
not the deliberate goal, an aggressive policy, such as a naval blockade of
Iran to enforce an embargo of various supplies (proposed in Congress in
2008), certainly brings a high risk of all-out war.

The liberal Obama would seem to better able to expand the wars than the
conservative Bush. As Justin Raimondo has written: “it occurs to me that
only Barack Obama, who won the White House in large part due to his
opposition to the Iraq war, could take us to war with Iran, and rally
liberals and much of the left behind it.”

This represents the Nixon-goes-to-China analogy. Just as Nixon with his
anti-Communist bona fides had more political leeway to negotiate with
Communist China than a liberal Democrat, the liberal man of peace Obama is
better positioned politically to expand the wars in the Middle East/Central
Asia than Bush the Younger, who was perceived as a warmonger. (To counter
this argument, it might be pointed out that liberal Democrats did attack
Lyndon Johnson over Vietnam. However, despite Johnson’s success in pushing
through liberal domestic legislation, he was never the darling of American
liberals and certainly did not have the charismatic appeal of Obama.)

This scenario will not fully come to pass until Obama actually involves the
US in war with Iran. But while a war with Iran is certainly politically
feasible, the question is whether Obama would actually take such an option
since the national security and foreign policy elites outside the orbit of
the Israel Lobby are against such a risky venture.

For the Left, war without Bush is not war at all
By: Byron York
Chief Political Correspondent
August 18, 2009
Former President George W. Bush addresses a Fourth of July crowd at the Let
Freedom Ring 2009 festival at Crystal Beach Park Arena in Woodward, Okla.,
Saturday, July 4, 2009. (AP Photo)

Remember the anti-war movement? Not too long ago, the Democratic party’s
most loyal voters passionately opposed the war in Iraq. Democratic
presidential candidates argued over who would withdraw American troops the
quickest. Netroots activists regularly denounced President George W. Bush,
and sometimes the U.S. military (“General Betray Us”). Cindy Sheehan, the
woman whose soldier son was killed in Iraq, became a heroine when she led
protests at Bush’s Texas ranch.

That was then. Now, even though the United States still has roughly 130,000
troops in Iraq, and is quickly escalating the war in Afghanistan — 68,000
troops there by the end of this year, and possibly more in 2010 — anti-war
voices on the Left have fallen silent.

No group was more angrily opposed to the war in Iraq than the netroots
activists clustered around the left-wing Web site DailyKos. It’s an
influential site, one of the biggest on the Web, and in the Bush years many
of its devotees took an active role in raising money and campaigning for
anti-war candidates.

In 2006, DailyKos held its first annual convention, called YearlyKos, in Las
Vegas. Amid the slightly discordant surroundings of the Riviera Hotel
casino, the webby activists spent hours discussing and planning strategies
not only to defeat Republicans but also to pressure Democrats to oppose the
war more forcefully. The gathering attracted lots of mainstream press
attention; Internet activism was the hot new thing.

Fast forward to last weekend, when YearlyKos, renamed Netroots Nation, held
its convention in Pittsburgh. The meeting didn’t draw much coverage, but the
views of those who attended are still, as they were in 2006, a pretty good
snapshot of the left wing of the Democratic party.

The news that emerged is that the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have
virtually fallen off the liberal radar screen. Kossacks (as fans of DailyKos
like to call themselves) who were consumed by the Iraq war when George W.
Bush was president are now, with Barack Obama in the White House, not so
consumed, either with Iraq or with Obama’s escalation of the conflict in
Afghanistan. In fact, they barely seem to care.

As part of a straw poll done at the convention, the Democratic pollster
Stanley Greenberg presented participants with a list of policy priorities
like health care and the environment. He asked people to list the two
priorities they believed “progressive activists should be focusing their
attention and efforts on the most.” The winner, by far, was “passing
comprehensive health care reform.” In second place was enacting “green
energy policies that address environmental concerns.”

And what about “working to end our military involvement in Iraq and
Afghanistan”? It was way down the list, in eighth place.

Perhaps more tellingly, Greenberg asked activists to name the issue that
“you, personally, spend the most time advancing currently.” The winner,
again, was health care reform. Next came “working to elect progressive
candidates in the 2010 elections.” Then came a bunch of other issues. At the
very bottom — last place, named by just one percent of participants — came
working to end U.S. involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan.

It’s an extraordinary change in the mindset of the left. I attended the
first YearlyKos convention, and have kept up with later ones, and it’s safe
to say that for many self-styled “progressives,” the war in Iraq was the
animating cause of their activism. They hated the war, and they hated George
W. Bush for starting it. Or maybe they hated the war because George W. Bush
started it. Either way, it was war, war, war.

Now, not so much.

Cindy Sheehan is learning that. She’s still protesting the war, and on
Monday she announced plans to demonstrate at Martha’s Vineyard, where
President Obama will be vacationing.

“We as a movement need to continue calling for an immediate end to the
occupations [in Iraq and Afghanistan] even when there is a Democrat in the
Oval Office,” Sheehan said in a statement. “There is still no Noble Cause no
matter how we examine the policies.”

Give her credit for consistency, if nothing else. But her days are over. The
people who most fervently supported her have moved on.

Not too long ago, some observers worried that Barack Obama would come under
increasing pressure from the Left to leave both Iraq and Afghanistan. Now,
it seems those worries were unfounded. For many liberal activists, opposing
the war was really about opposing George W. Bush. When Bush disappeared, so
did their anti-war passion.

Byron York, The Examiner’s chief political correspondent, can be contacted
at His column appears on Tuesday and Friday,
and his stories and blog posts appears on


Washington Examiner

What happened to the antiwar movement? Cindy Sheehan responds.
By: Byron York
Chief Political Correspondent
08/18/09 11:19 PM EDT

After my column, “For the left, war without Bush is not war at all,”
appeared Tuesday, I got a note from Cindy Sheehan, the anti-war activist who
was the subject of so much press coverage when she led a protest against the
Iraq war outside then-President George W. Bush’s ranch in Texas. This is
what the note said:

I read your column about the “anti-war” movement and I can’t believe I am
saying this, but I mostly agree with you.

The “anti-war” “left” was used by the Democratic Party. I like to call it
the “anti-Republican War” movement.

While I agree with you about the hypocrisy of such sites as the DailyKos, I
have known for a long time that the Democrats are equally responsible with
the Republicans. That’s why I left the party in May 2007 and that’s why I
ran for Congress against Nancy Pelosi in 2008.

I have my own radio show, “Cindy Sheehan’s Soapbox,” and I was out on a
four-month book tour promoting the fact that it’s not about Democrats or
Republicans, but it’s about the system.

Even if I am surrounded by a thousand, or no one, I am still working for


Cindy Sheehan

After receiving the email, I asked Sheehan to give me a call, so I could
verify that the note in fact came from her. She did, and we discussed her
plans to protest next week in Martha’s Vineyard, where President Obama will
be vacationing. “I think people are starting to wake up to the fact that
even if they supported Obama, he doesn’t represent much change,” Sheehan
said. “There are people still out here who oppose the war and Obama’s
policies, but it seems like the big organizations with the big lists aren’t

I asked Sheehan about the fact that the press seems to have lost interest in
her and her cause. “It’s strange to me that you mention it,” she said. “I
haven’t stopped working. I’ve been protesting every time I can, and it’s
not covered. But the one time I did get a lot of coverage was when I
protested in front of George Bush’s house in Dallas in June. I don’t know
what to make of it. Is the press having a honeymoon with Obama? I know the
Left is.”

After the protests in Massachusetts — Sheehan told me she has no idea how
many people might show up — Sheehan will be in Washington October 5, for a
protest at the White House to mark the eight anniversary of the start of the
war in Afghanistan. Not only is the president escalating the war there, she
said, but he’s not withdrawing U.S. troops from Iraq as quickly as he
originally promised. “That’s why I was opposed to him,” she said.