Archive for February, 2010

Liberal Richard Cohen Advocates Craziness in an Israel First War Policy

Sunday, February 28, 2010 6:57 AM
From: “Stephen Sniegoski”

Friends,

While we are explicitly told by anti-war commentators such as Juan Cole that
the only type of American Jews pushing for war on Iran are right-wing ones,
it is apparent that Jewish liberals such as Richard Cohen are also in the
pro-war camp. (See: http://tinyurl.com/JuanColeonIsraelLobby)
Now Cohen, just like a number of rightist neocons, does not directly call
for an attack on Iran, but rather advocates a policy that certainly would
lead in that direction. Specifically, he says that it is time for Obama to
start acting “crazy” toward Iran because of the alleged failure of
diplomacy.
(Iran and the Crazy Factor, Washington Post, February 23,
http://tinyurl.com/cohencrazy )

Such a recommendation of craziness is predicated on Cohen’s belief that
Ahmadinejad and the Iranian leadership in general are crazy and that the
only way to fight crazy people is by likewise acting crazy: “fight crazy
with crazy.” Cohen writes: “I have no idea whether Ahmadinejad merely
acts crazy or is crazy. I do know, though, that Iran seems intent on getting
nuclear weapons and the missiles to deliver them. I also know that nothing
the United States and its allies have done has dissuaded Ahmadinejad (or the
mullahs or the Revolutionary Guard Corps) from his goal. It may be time for
Barack Obama, ever the soul of moderation, to borrow a tactic from Richard
Nixon and fight crazy with crazy. The way things are going, it would be
crazy not to.”

It is rather odd that Cohen would pick Nixon’s advocacy of madness as a
model for emulation, since Nixon, and especially his bellicosity, were
hardly admired by liberals such as Cohen during his presidency. Moreover,
Cohen acknowledges that Nixon’s crazy strategy “while cunning, didn’t work
on the North Vietnamese.” Desiring the adoption of a previously failed
strategy is hard to fathom.

Furthermore, Nixon’s rationale for acting crazy would not seem to apply in
the milieu depicted by Cohen. Nixon actually predicated his madman strategy
on the rationality of his adversaries. The rational person, presumably,
would make some concessions to the madman to avoid destruction. However,
Cohen claims that the Iranians are irrational. There is no reason to think
that acting crazy would cause them to turn rational, but rather that it
would cause them to act out their craziness, which in the particular
situation that exists in the Middle East today would mean an all-out war.
To try to put Cohen’s argument in a rational context, this must mean that he
sees a war with Iran at the current time to be preferable to one in the
future when Iran would have nuclear weapons and which would likely involve
Israel.

The reasons Cohen gives for taking a “crazy” stance toward Iran have little
to do with any threat Iran poses to the United States, but actually seem to
revolve around Israel and Jews. Cohen cites Ahmadinejad’s “Holocaust
denial” and his call for Zionism to be “wiped out.” Cohen acknowledges
that these words might have nothing to do with the launching of war-”On the
face of it, these statements could be nothing more than the ranting of a
demagogue intent on appeasing the mob.” But then he points out that Israel,
having experienced Hitler’s anti-Semitic words leading to the Holocaust,
would naturally think otherwise. “Israel, of all countries,” he asserts,
“has little faith in the rationality of mankind. It simply knows better. So
the question of whether Ahmadinejad is playing the madman or really is a
madman is not an academic exercise. It has a real and frightening immediacy
that too often, in too many precincts, gets belittled as a form of
paranoia.”

So it might be understandable for Israel to be terrified of a nuclear Iran,
at least according to Cohen, but what about a threat to the United States?
“An Iranian bomb,” Cohen contends, “is not a matter that concerns only
Israel. It would upend the balance of power throughout the Middle East and
encourage radical/terrorist organizations such as Hezbollah and Hamas to
ratchet up their war against Israel. Other Middle East nations, not content
to rely on an American nuclear umbrella, would seek their own bombs. An
unstable region would go nuclear.” It is telling that even in purportedly
dealing with threats to countries other than Israel, Cohen almost
immediately gets back to threats to Israel by writing that a nuclear Iran
would “encourage radical/terrorist organizations such as Hezbollah and
Hamas to ratchet up their war against Israel.” For Cohen, Israel’s safety
is certainly on his mind, first and foremost.

But regarding the US, the dangers presumably consist of countries in the
unstable Middle East obtaining nuclear weapons. These developments, while
undesirable, are hardly dire threats to American national security. And we
are only dealing with the chance of Iran developing actual nuclear weapons,
though it is more likely that it will develop nuclear capability. And in
the most extreme case with all major countries in the Middle East obtaining
nuclear weapons, it is not even clear whether such a development would lead
to a terrible war or whether it might actually enhance regional stability.
Certainly, the existence of nuclear weapons served to prevent a major war
between the US and the Soviet Union during the Cold War. And the
possession of nuclear weapons have not caused India and Pakistan to be more
aggressive toward each other. Of course, the loss of its nuclear monopoly
would weaken Israel’s position in the Middle East.

What Cohen does not even make an attempt to show is that in regard to
American security the danger of not attacking Iran outweighs the terrible
impact of a war in the Middle East, which would be a likely result from his
recommendation that Obama act crazy. It would seem to be a general
consensus that a war on Iran at the present time would have terrible
consequences for the already-battered world economy, which would certainly
affect the US. It should be pointed out that the chairman of the Joint
Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Michael Mullen, reflecting what has been the
consensus view of the American military leadership, has expressed strong
opposition to any military strike on Iran and desires the continuation of
peaceful diplomacy.
http://www.thenation.com/blogs/dreyfuss/513886/admiral_mullen_no_attack_on_iran

In sum, it would appear that the liberal Richard Cohen does not differ
substantially from his co-religionists on the Right in his militant position
toward Iran. And there is nothing particularly new about this. Cohen had
supported the war on Iraq and only later recanted, after the war had become
unpopular, but included Israel in his explanation for his earlier pro-war
position: “Saddam Hussein was a beast who had twice
invaded his neighbors, had killed his own people with abandon and posed
a threat – and not just a theoretical one – to Israel.” (“The Lingo Of
Vietnam,”
Washington Post, November 21, 2006, p. A-27)
It would seem therefore that
the safety of Israel always looms very large in the minds of even liberal
Jews.

Transparent Cabal Website:
http://home.comcast.net/~transparentcabal/

Amazon listing of The Transparent Cabal:
http://tiny.cc/zNV06

Best,
Stephen Sniegoski
_______________________________________________________________________

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/02/22/AR2010022203
530.html

Washington Post

Iran and the crazy factor

By Richard Cohen
Tuesday, February 23, 2010; A19

A question relating to Iran’s suspected nuclear weapons program: Is Iranian
President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad crazy like Adolf Hitler, or is he crazy like,
of all people, Richard Nixon?

Nixon had a term for his own sort of craziness: “I call it the Madman
Theory, Bob,” he said to his aide H.R. “Bob” Haldeman during the 1968
presidential campaign. Nixon was talking about how he would deal with the
Vietnam War. “I want the North Vietnamese to believe I’ve reached the point
where I might do anything to stop the war. We’ll just slip the word to them
that, ‘For God’s sake, you know Nixon is obsessed about communism. We can’t
restrain him when he’s angry — and he has his hand on the nuclear button.’
” The strategy, while cunning, didn’t work on the North Vietnamese. Maybe
they were crazier than Nixon.

Ahmadinejad is some version of crazy, too. His denial of the Holocaust is
either proof of a drooling sort of insanity or a kind of Nixonian craziness
designed to keep enemies and adversaries off balance: What will this guy do
next?

In tandem with his Holocaust denial, Ahmadinejad has repeatedly urged the
destruction of Israel. While some experts differ on the precise translations
of his words, his general goal is clear. What’s not clear, though, is
whether he is expressing a wish or making a vow: “The Zionist regime will be
wiped out.” “The Zionist regime is on its way out.” “This regime’s days are
numbered.” “Thanks to God, your wish will soon be realized, and this germ of
corruption will be wiped off the face of the world.” I could go on and on
as, in fact, Ahmadinejad has.

On the face of it, these statements could be nothing more than the ranting
of a demagogue intent on appeasing the mob. After all, Ahmadinejad has to
know that any attempt to convert his rhetoric into action would be met by
force. Israel is a nuclear power, and it will not go down without a fight.
The Iranians cannot be that crazy. They are, in a Nixonian way, merely
trying to impress. Maybe.

But the belief that the world operates rationally is itself irrational. The
example of Hitler both instructs and warns. The Nazi leader was not just an
anti-Semite who actually believed his insane theories; he also made
decisions that were in themselves crazy. For example, why did he declare war
on the United States after the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor? Why did he
invade the Soviet Union before he had defeated Britain? In both cases, he
had his reasons. And in both cases, his reasons were crazy.

Israel, of all countries, has little faith in the rationality of mankind. It
simply knows better. So the question of whether Ahmadinejad is playing the
madman or really is a madman is not an academic exercise. It has a real and
frightening immediacy that too often, in too many precincts, gets belittled
as a form of paranoia. For instance, when Israeli leaders warn that they
might take preemptive action against Iran — say, an attempt to bomb its
nuclear facilities as they did in Iraq in 1981 — it is dismissed as
irresponsible saber-rattling. Former national security adviser Zbigniew
Brzezinski even suggested that if Israel tried such a thing, the United
States might have to back it down with force. The Brzezinski Doctrine is
refreshing in its perverse boldness: We shoot our friends to defend our
enemies.

An Iranian bomb is not a matter that concerns only Israel. It would upend
the balance of power throughout the Middle East and encourage
radical/terrorist organizations such as Hezbollah and Hamas to ratchet up
their war against Israel. Other Middle East nations, not content to rely on
an American nuclear umbrella, would seek their own bombs. An unstable region
would go nuclear. (It speaks volumes about Middle Eastern reality and
hypocrisy that Egypt serenely lives with an Israeli bomb but breaks out in
diplomatic hives at the prospect of an Iranian one.) Have a good night’s
sleep.

I have no idea whether Ahmadinejad merely acts crazy or is crazy. I do know,
though, that Iran seems intent on getting nuclear weapons and the missiles
to deliver them. I also know that nothing the United States and its allies
have done has dissuaded Ahmadinejad (or the mullahs or the Revolutionary
Guard Corps) from his goal. It may be time for Barack Obama, ever the soul
of moderation, to borrow a tactic from Richard Nixon and fight crazy with
crazy. The way things are going, it would be crazy not to.

Iran, Syria mock U.S. policy; Ahmadinejad speaks of Israel’s ‘annihilation’

Iran, Syria mock U.S. policy; Ahmadinejad speaks of Israel’s ‘annihilation’

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/02/25/AR2010022505089.html

 

Ahmadinejad once again fails to call for the annihilation of Israel, despite what you heard on CNN (by Juan Cole)

http://www.juancole.com/2010/02/ahmadinejad-once-again-fails-to-call.html

——————————-

AIPAC lackey Hillary Clinton still pushing sanctions against Iran for Israel

http://america-hijacked.com/2010/02/15/aipac-lackey-hillary-clinton-still-pushing-sanctions-against-iran-for-israel/

How talking about the US (‘A Clean Break’) threat against Syria and Iran which the Iraq quagmire was based on:

A Clean Break

http://neoconzionistthreat.blogspot.com/2008/02/clean-break.html

The ‘A Clean Break’ is mentioned again in the following write-up by Dr. Stephen Sniegoski (whose ‘The Transparent Cabal’ book provides the best historical account of how/why we got into the Iraq quagmire in order to secure the realm for Israel in accordance with the ‘A Clean Break’):

Fragmentation of Iraq Was Israel’s Strategy

http://america-hijacked.com/2010/02/18/fragmentation-of-iraq-was-israels-strategy/

Juan Cole on Israel and its Lobby: Ideological Blinders or Hidden Meaning

http://america-hijacked.com/2010/02/25/juan-cole-on-israel-and-its-lobby-ideological-blinders-or-hidden-meaning-3/

http://tinyurl.com/JuanColeonIsraelLobby

Ahmadinejad DID NOT threaten to “wipe Israel off the map”

Ahmadinejad DID NOT threaten to “wipe Israel off the map.”

Apologize to the World Mr. Wallace and Return that Emmy

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=onNzrNEFs1E

Ahmadinejad once again fails to call for the annihilation of Israel, despite what you heard on CNN (by Juan Cole)

http://www.juancole.com/2010/02/ahmadinejad-once-again-fails-to-call.html

What’s In a Name? by Philip Giraldi — Antiwar.com

What’s In a Name? by Philip Giraldi — Antiwar.com

http://original.antiwar.com/giraldi/2010/02/24/whats-in-a-name/

The public has become so accustomed to extrajudicial killings and kidnappings by the United States and Israel that such activities most often receive little media coverage and are hardly noticed.  The recent massive assassination operation carried out by Israel’s Mossad in Dubai has been an exception, however.  It has attracted considerable media attention in Europe though relatively little in the United States, possibly because any American outcry would be the pot calling the kettle black.  Europeans have mostly been outraged by the Israeli cloning of genuine European passports to carry out their dirty work, less so by the killing itself. 

To be sure, all intelligence services use fake identity documents to disguise the true names of their officers.  It is most often done to conceal the identities of those involved in a specific operation, but sometimes in can involve the creation of an actual alternate persona.  I can recall an Egyptian intelligence officer who had been stationed in several capitals in Europe who would be issued new passports by the Egyptian Foreign Ministry each time he moved with a new name, date, and place of birth to obscure who he was and where he had been.  We became great friends but to this day I am not sure what his real name was. 

Fake identity documents from a country other than one’s own are called “false flag.” The CIA’s office of technical services produces its own bogus foreign passports and other documents.  As most Americans normally can only pass as citizens of a handful of foreign countries, mostly in Europe, the false documents traditionally have reflected that reality.  The Russians also produce their own documents as do the more sophisticated smaller services like the British, Israelis, and French.  For most second and third world intelligence services it has always been much easier to steal or buy whatever foreign document is needed and alter the information to suit.

At one time it was possible to produce false identity documents with little or no regard for what is referred to as backstopping as data bases at national points of entry were unsophisticated and were generally unlinked to any central sources of information.  That has all changed in the past eight years.  European and American passports in particular can all be verified from central data bases that include information that is also drawn from other public record sources.  In Europe, due to the Schengen agreement’s elimination of many border controls, it is easy to travel from country to country but a lot harder to gain entry in the first place due to the screening of documents that routinely occurs.  In the US, numerous data bases are linked at border entry points.  It is nowadays not unusual for an immigration officer to see a department of motor vehicles entry pop up and to ask “What kind of car do you drive?” to verify someone’s identify. 

This has meant that the intelligence service business-as-usual of using completely phony foreign passports has largely been shut down.  The CIA continues to use fake foreign docs in countries where the means of verifying their authenticity is considered to be weak, but it has more generally gone over to using genuine American passports issued by the State Department for intelligence purposes in false names.  When these passports are swiped through a scanner reader or compared with a data base, they come up as genuine. The twenty-five CIA officers who blundered their way through the kidnapping of Muslim cleric Abu Omar off a Milan street in February 2003 were all using real American passports in false names.  Not very conscious of the paper and data trail they were leaving behind them, as well as completely careless in mixing their true and fake personas, all of the Agency officers were subsequently identified by the Italian investigators.  A number were identified in both real and false names because they compromised their aliases by calling home to Virginia and claiming frequent flier and hotel miles in their true identities.  They also indulged themselves by staying in expensive hotels in Venice, four hours away from Milan, on the taxpayer’s dime to make their cover stories as tourists appear more legitimate.  That’s called your tax dollars at work.

The improved border control screening process linked to data bases can tell if the number and name are authentic, which explains why the Israelis cloned actual identities from genuine passports for their Dubai assassination operation.  The Israelis revealed in this operation that they are able to reproduce British passports that will pass muster at both European and Middle Eastern border control points, but they are not able to alter the data base that the passport is stored on, so they had to use real identities and passport numbers together with substituted photos.  But, like the Americans in Milan, the Israelis should have thought a lot harder about what they were doing and what the unintended consequences might be.  They should have known that in the wake of the assassination the Dubai authorities would be able to piece together their involvement from CCTV footage and also from the immigration and customs records, eventually compiling a film showing the amateurish antics of the assassination team.  The Israelis should also have realized that the true names and numbers on the passports would inevitably lead to identification of the source of most of the documents, in this case British subjects living in Israel, which would inevitably involve the UK government, legally and morally bound to protect the integrity of its passports.

The Mossad operation, which appears to have involved eighteen officers, was not exactly picture perfect and one suspects that it might have been orchestrated by the Marx brothers or Monty Python.  It follows on a number of other bungled Mossad operations, including an attempted assassination in 1997, so if it was intended to burnish the Israeli intelligence service’s reputation for efficiency it might have had the opposite effect.  It might also produce considerable blowback.  The Dubai operation resulted in a paper and data trail that could not be concealed and it will possibly end a friendly though low-keyed relationship between Dubai and Tel Aviv. 

The Mossad assassination could also result in real consequences from the European governments whose passports were cloned or stolen, though the French and Germans are unlikely to make waves and the British are already backpedalling to make sure they do not offend Israel.  A European Union resolution was so spineless as to not even name Israel in a statement condemning passport fraud and extrajudicial killing.  The UK’s reticence to engage Israel is particularly surprising as Tel Aviv has been especially wanton in stealing British and Commonwealth identifies and documents to carry out assassinations.  One might argue that British passports have long been favored because of the tepid response from London to deter the practice.  Phony British docs featured in the hunt for the Munich conspirators and were used by Mossad operatives as recently as 1987. The Dubai operation reveals that Israel is able and willing to both steal and clone British passports, which should seriously concern Whitehall.

Mossad clearly has a top operational priority to obtain genuine foreign documents to support its activities.  The German passport used in Dubai was obtained fraudulently in the name of an Israeli rabbi who actually carries an American passport.  Two Canadian passports featured in a botched assassination attempt in Amman Jordan in 1997.  An investigation carried out by the Canadian authorities revealed that Canadian Jews emigrating to Israel were routinely required to turn over their passports for Mossad use. In 2004, four suspected Mossad operatives were engaged in obtaining genuine New Zealand passports by applying in the names of local people who were either invalids or dead. 

Now, every visitor to Israel from Europe or America should assume that his or her identity is susceptible to cloning by the Mossad for the carrying out of intelligence operations that could well include assassination.  And what was the gain?  The killing of a mid-level Hamas official who may or may not have been in Dubai to arrange to buy weapons from Iran.  Hardly a big fish and hardly worth it, even from the Israeli point of view.

Recent CIA and Mossad operations reveal that much of what goes on in the shady world of spy vs. spy is self-generated with little to do with the national interest of either country.  The bungled operations in both Milan and Dubai demonstrate that the two intelligence services are prepared to commit enormous resources against targets that really don’t matter for much.  Muslim cleric Abu Omar snatched in Milan was dutifully tortured by the Egyptians after he was rendered home and later released because he wasn’t a terrorist even by the very elastic definition applied by Cairo and Washington.  He also didn’t know anything useful.  The killing of Mahmoud al-Mabhouh in Dubai was meaningless as he will presumably soon be replaced.  That ill-conceived and poorly executed operations to kill and kidnap even when the target is not worth pursuing are mounted reveals above all that the intelligence services in Israel and the US are out of control.  Unfortunately, there is nothing to suggest that either President Barack Obama or Prime Minister Bibi Netanyahu will do anything about it.

Read more by Philip Giraldi


The War on Terror Is Anti-Conservative

The War on Terror Is Anti-Conservative
By Philip Giraldi

http://www.campaignforliberty.com/article.php?view=643

Juan Cole on Israel and its Lobby: Ideological Blinders or Hidden Meaning

Juan Cole on Israel and its Lobby: Ideological Blinders or Hidden Meaning?

Thursday, February 25, 2010 6:06 PM
From: “Stephen Sniegoski”
To: “Sniegoski, Stephen”

Friends,

In this article I am going to critique some fundamental views expressed by a
staunch opponent of the US wars in the Middle East, Juan Cole, who has
performed extremely valuable and courageous service in opposing US war
policy in the Middle East. I should add, and will discuss at greater length
at the end of this piece, that I am not absolutely certain whether Cole
actually believes all of what I criticize or whether some of it merely
serves as PC cover, and the better-informed are expected to read between the
lines

Cole, who is a college professor, dares to do what few of his peers are
willing to do: present his views (most frequently on his weblog, “Informed
Comment”) on current Middle East issues which necessarily touch the taboo
topic of Israel and contradict the position of the Israel lobby. As a
Middle East specialist, Cole is capable of writing very informative pieces
on that region, which go into far greater depth than I have the expertise to
do. It is certainly not in his view of the Middle East per se where I find
flaws in his interpretation, but in his assessment of the United States
policy, especially the role of the neoconservatives and the broader Israel
Lobby, an area in which I have done considerable research (e.g. my book,
“The Transparent Cabal: The Neoconservative Agenda, War in the Middle East,
and the National Interest of Israel”), and where my Ph.D. background in US
diplomatic history would be of some relevance.

Although mentioning the role of some American Jews in regard to shaping
American Middle East policy, Cole still tends to downplay it. The flawed
elements in his thinking on this crucial area are especially encapsulated in
his recent article, “The Decline of the Israeli Right and the Increasing
Desperation of the ‘Anti-Semitism’ Charge.”

http://www.juancole.com/2010/02/decline-of-israeli-right-and-increasing.html

Now we are dealing with a very sensitive subject here where heterodox
thinking brings on the lethal, career-destroying charge of anti-Semitism,
and in some Western democracies can actually lead to legal punishment as a
“hate crime.” The now unacceptable, anti-Semitic view of Jews, which was
once widespread among Western educated gentiles until the realization of
Hitler’s genocidal actions, is that Jews are very powerful in society and
that they are very ethnocentric, acting to advance their own group’s
interests, often at the expense of gentiles. Many people in the Third World
still think this way, and it seems to be quite prevalent in the Islamic
Middle East. The counter view which prevails in the West today, in public
at least, is that Jews have been and are largely powerless victims of
others and that they are basically benefactors of humanity championing
universal principles that help everyone.

Now, I have put forth very broad, archetypal terms, and one sometimes
encounters slight variations from those pure forms. Even so, very mild
deviation in public from the current theme of Jewish beneficence and
powerlessness can lead to significant problems. One such moderate but
perilous deviation is to recognize that there actually is an Israel Lobby
promoting the interests of Israel, which go against the interests of the US.
(Jewish individuals have a little more leeway in deviating from this
archetypal paradigm, and can actually produce books such as J.J. Goldberg’s
“Jewish Power” or Yuri Slezkine’s “The Jewish Century.”)

I am not going to make any broad assessment of American Jews as a group;
instead, I will argue that the current archetype and the demonization of any
straying from it prevents an accurate assessment of American policy in the
Middle East, given the involvement of Jews, Jewish groups, and the Jewish
state in this issue. And a flawed assessment of the problem militates
against the achievement of a good solution. Professor Cole’s views on the
U.S. Middle East policy, if taken at face value, illustrate these problems.

Cole is obviously a sincere opponent of US/Israel wars in the Middle East
and of the American-supported Israeli oppression of the Palestinians, but
since he is operating from within the current paradigm-Jewish powerlessness
and universalistic Jewish beneficence-his analysis, despite his expertise
and honesty on the Middle East developments, has significant flaws.

To Cole, at least in his explicit writing, the culprits of the pro-war
policy are on the Right-the acceptable demons of American liberals. This
includes the Likudniks (and other parties of the Israeli Right), the
neocons, and the American right, along with assorted oil people, the
military-industrial complex, etc. But this rightist attitude, he maintains,
is quite contrary to the liberal views of most Jews and is actually harmful
to the real interests of Israel. Cole writes that the “divide between
liberal Jewish Americans and the Israeli Right has lurked as an issue since
the Likud Party first challenged Labor dominance in the late 1970s. It is
now coming to a boiling point, even as Israel’s reputation in the world is
sinking. As rightwing policies more visibly fail, the Likudniks are flailing
around making fools of themselves by smearing critics of those policies as
racists.” Cole continues along this vein: “The reactionary parties of
Likud, Shas, and Yisrael Beitenu have nothing in common with the vast
majority of Jewish Americans, who voted for Barack Obama and are generally
more progressive than non-Jewish Americans. The establishment of a liberal
Jewish lobby, J Street, which supports a two-state solution (Israel and
Palestine side by side), is a manifestation of the increasing unease of
progressive Jewish Americans with the policies and aggressive wars of
rightwing Israeli governments. Jewish Americans have been key to the
securing of many of our civil liberties in this country and a major voice
for peace and for culture and the arts, and a thug like Avigdor Lieberman as
foreign minister surely makes many of them uneasy.”

While his writing here contains elements of the truth, it would seem that
most national security policies pushed by the Israeli Right have substantial
support from mainstream American Jewish organizations, which consist of
numerous individuals who are considered liberals or progressives. And it
should be added that the use of the anti-Semitic smear is nothing new, but a
long-time staple of mainstream Jewish groups, such as the Anti-Defamation
League. In May 2003, for example, the ADL’s national chairman, Abraham
Foxman, wrote an essay, “Anti-Semitism, Pure and Simple,” hurling that
lethal charge against those who saw the Jewish neoconservatives as being a
significant factor in bringing about the US invasion of Iraq. Obviously, if
a substantial proportion of politically-active, moneyed Jews were opposed
to Israel’s oppressive policies, Congress would not act the way it does in
supporting all of Israel’s policies-including the Gaza invasion– with
near-unanimous votes.

Jews who support “progressive” measures in the US do not necessarily apply
a comparable “progressive” universalist standard to Israel’s actions. Cole
criticizes the smearing of Jimmy Carter as anti-Semitic by “the likes of
Alan Dershowitz,” and it is quite obvious that the insignificant role that
Carter was allowed to play in the 2008 Democratic Party Convention because
of his critical views of the Israeli occupation had nothing to do with the
Israeli or American Right but rather liberal Democrats’ desire for the
votes and money from liberal American Jewry. Obviously, there were no votes
or money to be had from right-wing Jewish pro-Israel conservatives who were
going to support McCain with his gaggle of pro-Likudnik neocon advisors.
In using Alan Dershowitz as an example, Cole is explicitly referring to an
American Jew who justifies almost every oppressive move made by Israel but
is, nonetheless, known as a liberal civil libertarian. Cole does the same
when he lambastes “Leon Wieseltier’s unsubstantiated and shameful attack on
Andrew Sullivan” for anti-Semitism; Wieseltier, the literary editor of The
New Republic, is an American liberal in good standing. In short, the very
examples that Cole chooses to provide serve to disprove his contention that
Israel’s hard-line policies are opposed by progressive Jews. This is an
oddity since Cole could have easily chosen right-wing American Jews to back
up his point.

“J Street” represents those Jews supposedly most critical of Israel’s
policies and does not encompass all liberal Jews, many of whom remain
committed to AIPAC. But how different is J Street from AIPAC? J Street’s
executive director, Jeremy Ben-Ami, castigates as anti-Semitic Mearsheimer
and Walt’s portrayal of a powerful Israel Lobby. Ben-Ami also rejects the
UN-sponsored Goldstone report’s critical depiction of Israeli war crimes in
the December 2008-January 2009 incursion into Gaza-a report that was
endorsed by the overwhelming majority of countries of the world.

My Problem with J Street

http://original.antiwar.com/giraldi/2009/10/28/my-problem-with-j-street/

The False Hope of J-Street and the Gentile Problem

http://america-hijacked.com/2009/11/11/the-false-hope-of-j-street-and-the-gentile-problem/

Ben-Ami, however, was less severe here than Dershowitz, who referred to
Richard J. Goldstone, the UN report’s author, as a “moser”-a Jewish
traitor-who deserves to be killed by loyal Jews. (The late Yitzhak Rabin was
branded a “moser” by leading Israeli rabbis before his assassination by a
Jewish extremist.)

Regarding the “two state solution,” J Street specifically talks about
incorporating the major West Bank Jewish settlements into Israel, instead of
having Israel return to its 1967 borders. In short, there is no evidence
that J Street is willing to support any type of Palestinian state that
differs in any significant way from what Israeli governments have proposed
in the past, which essentially is a non-viable state that is,
understandably, completely unacceptable to the Palestinian people. It
should also be observed that J Street differs but slightly from AIPAC on
Iran. If diplomacy and UN sanctions fail to bring concessions, J Street
advocates the strong sanctions advocated by Congress, which could likely
serve as a step toward war.

Now Cole essentially rejects all the aforementioned positions that the
liberal J Streeters explicitly support. Yet he wants to believe, or
pretends to believe, that they are on his side. (There are organizations of
Jews who seriously oppose Israel and America’s war policies in the Middle
East, such as the American Council on Judaism, but individuals in this
category are not politically powerful and are ignored by the mainstream
media.)

It is not my intention to be negative toward Professor Cole who in the
context of other major critics of US Middle East war policy is actually
quite hard-hitting. He provides significant elements of truth that others
ignore. For example, Cole is quite willing to point out that it was the
neocons together with the Israel Likudniks who played a role in leading the
US to war on Iraq, a crucial fact which some anti-war luminaries on the
harder Left, such as Noam Chomsky and Norman Finkelstein, are loath to
acknowledge. Cole even points out the critical significance of the neocons’
presenting their war agenda, intended to enhance Israeli interests, to the
Israeli government and later working to implement it when ensconced in the
Bush administration. About this, Cole writes: “This Iraq strategy, which
intended to stop the Rabin peace process and prevent the return of Gaza and
the West Bank to the Palestinians for their state, was laid out by Richard
Perle, Douglas Feith, and other Neoconservatives in a white paper for Bibi
Netanyahu in 1996. Many of the authors were subsequently put in high office
by Bush-Cheney and pushed for an American war on Iraq with dirty tricks and
false propaganda in 2002-2003. They included Canadian gadfly journalist
David Frum, who authored Bush’s 2002 ‘Axis of Evil’ speech in consultation
with Perle.” Now to point out that some of the neocons successfully
persuaded the US to go to war to aid the interests of a foreign country is a
very strong charge, and the specifics cited by Cole make this activity more
extreme and more obvious than anything alleged about Alger Hiss, Harry
Dexter White, Owen Lattimore, or any other presumed agent of Stalin, who as
far as I know were never accused of making actual open contact with the
unlamented Soviet dictator.

However, after making this very extreme, but true, anti-PC statement, Cole,
so as to avoid violating the taboo about Jewish influence and power,
explicitly denies the primary role for the neocons in bringing about the war
on Iraq. He writes: “The mostly Jewish Neoconservatives were only one
faction in the Bush-Cheney coalition that wanted regime change in Baghdad,
which included the Christian Right, Big Oil, and the military-industrial
complex. However influential, they were not ‘in control’ and most Jewish
Americans opposed their ideas and policies.” In reality, however, while the
neocons did not represent a majority of American Jews, they were certainly
the driving force for war. It was their war agenda and they promoted and
implemented it through their bogus war propaganda. The other groups cited
by Cole were, at most, simply supporters of the war. The Christian Right,
for example, definitely provided support for the war once it became an
issue, boosting poll numbers in the pro-war direction, but it would be hard
to name one Christian Rightist who played a role in developing and
disseminating the Middle East war agenda before it reached the national
spotlight, and then promoted and implemented it from within the Bush
administration, whereas the number of neocons involved at these key levels
was legion.

Even more can be said against any Big Oil role, the rationale for which has
never been even spelled out in a consistent fashion. Some proponents of
this view claim that Big Oil wanted to gain control of Iraqi oil, while
others maintain just the opposite, that Big Oil wanted to eliminate this
supply in order to raise oil prices. As philosopher of science Karl Popper
commonsensically pointed out, any theory that cannot be falsified by
empirical evidence is ipso facto invalid. Furthermore, the proponents of
the Big Oil argument are loath to point out any alleged Big Oil person not
intimately connected with the neocons-such as Cheney-who was significant in
pushing for war. However, the cronies of the elder Bush, such as Brent
Scowcroft and James Baker, who have been traditionally tied to Big Oil, were
cool towards or opposed to the attack on Iraq. And, of course, prior to
9/11 when the neocons were promoting a war on Iraq, Big Oil was trying to
eliminate the sanctions on Iraq.

Regarding the military-industrial complex, this argument could presumably be
trotted out for any war since large sums of money are always spent as a
result of war. But why was Iraq targeted? Why not just have a war scare
with Russia or China since war scares always bolster military expenditures?
Moreover, not every major war industry actually benefited from the Iraq War
since expenditures on some sophisticated weapons systems were reduced as
defense money was shifted to more mundane military needs for the occupation.
Actual evidence showing that a consensus of major defense industries was
pushing for the war on Iraq before the build-up for war occurred is not
available, as far as I know. Further, the military brass were rather
hesitant to launch a war (and significant retired military leaders took even
a dimmer view); they consequently came in for strong criticism from neocons
such as Richard Perle.

None of what I have said is intended to imply that the neocons
singlehandedly brought the United States to war. They initiated and
promoted the war agenda but they needed supporters for the war’s
implementation. And they could not have attracted the popular support they
did had not the 9/11 terrorism created a climate of hate and fear of Middle
Easterners which allowed their war propaganda to flourish and take root.

While Cole accepts the fact that the neocons and Likudniks planned for and
promoted the war on Iraq, he maintains that this policy has been an utter
failure, writing: “Meanwhile, the main strategy of the Israeli and
Jewish-American Right to preserve Israeli capacity to continue the
colonization and to act belligerently in the region had been the overthrow
of Saddam Hussein in Iraq. That stratagem has failed, as I argued in Salon.
The Shiite fundamentalists who have taken over Baghdad are pro-Hizbullah and
pro-Palestinian. . . . Moreover, Baghdad has ceased helping contain Iran for
the Sunni Arab world and the West, and is now a close ally of Tehran. The
prospect of a well-armed, 250,000-man Iraqi army now being reconstituted,
and riddled with agents of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps, must be a
matter of consternation for Israelis. Only Jordan separates them from Iraq,
now an outpost of the Shiite religious parties allied with Khamenei. The
Neoconservatives, such as Richard Perle, David Frum, Paul Wolfowitz, Irv
Lewis Libby, Michael Rubin, Douglas Feith, John Bolton, Larry Franklin and
others thus not only shot themselves in the foot, but they shot Israel in
the chest.”

The failure of this strategy is hardly evident. The neocon agenda assumed
that Iran would be the next target after Iraq. Due to opposition in the US,
largely from the traditional American foreign policy establishment and
various economic interests (and those who held this viewpoint within the
Bush and Obama administrations), the attack on Iran has not yet
materialized, despite the pro-war efforts of the broader Israel lobby (which
transcends the neocons) and Israel itself. However, the US is certainly
edging closer to war on Iran-and Professor Cole seems to see such a war as
a definite possibility in his writings on his “Informed Consent” weblog.

Regarding the current situation in Iraq, although the Shiites are in charge,
the country is not a unified pro-Iranian state, with resistance from the
Sunnis resurfacing-giving definite indications of a possible civil war.

Fragmentation of Iraq Was Israel’s Strategy

http://america-hijacked.com/2010/02/18/fragmentation-of-iraq-was-israels-strategy/

Moreover, Israel has gained strong influence in quasi-independent Kurdistan.
In short, what has emerged in the once anti-Israel, unified country of
Iraq is an ethnically fragmented state, just as the Likudnik planners of the
strategy had foreseen, with one element being strongly influenced by Israel.
Iraq’s army will likely be preoccupied with maintaining domestic order, or
engaged in internecine struggles, and will not have the time nor capability
to threaten the IDF. In short, I would judge the Iraq part of the
neocon/Likudnik war agenda to have been close to a total success as it
achieved the expected ends.

Now Cole might regard the entire neocon/Likudnik plan to destabilize Iraq
and to do the same to Iran (and ultimately to all of Israel’s Middle East
enemies) to be mistaken. But there is a definite rationale for this
neocon/Likudnik approach-not only to eliminate Israel’s external enemies
but, by so doing, also eliminate the existential Palestinian demographic
threat, since the Palestinian resistance depends upon the material and moral
support provided by Israel’s external enemies. Although, like all plans,
the neocon/Likudnik plan is not guaranteed success, it is not apparent that
Cole, or any outsider, would have a better understanding of the situation
than the neocons and the government of Israel, who devote far more time and
effort trying to determine what policy is best for the Jewish state.

As I was getting to the end of Cole’s article, I began to wonder if I was
missing something. Was Cole providing a hidden message between the lines,
as writers have been wont to do in situations where censorship exists? A
few things just didn’t add up. Why would Cole say the problem is
restricted to Likudniks, whom good progressive Jews supposedly repudiate,
and then cite as examples progressive Jews such as Dershowitz and
Wieseltier? And then he moved on to a real zinger. When criticizing
pro-Zionist neocon David Frum, who happens to have been born and raised in
Canada, Cole writes: “But I will complain about David Frum’s dual loyalties.
I am very suspicious of a rightwing Stephen Harper-style Canadian becoming
so influential in the United States. I like my Canadians in their normal,
sane estate. I fear he may be influencing my country in directions that
benefit rightwing Canadian politicians and war industries in Ottawa.” Yes,
of course, “Canadian” David Frum, author of Bush’s “Axis of Evil” speech,
is obviously trying to influence American foreign policy for the benefit of
“rightwing Canadian politicians” to help well-known “war industries” in
Ottawa. Such dual loyalty is obviously disturbing. This would be a good gag
for Jon Stewart’s Daily Show, if Stewart were willing to go out this far
from PC.

And digging beyond the obvious, Frum is actually not much of a conservative;
in fact, he maintains that conservatives need to modernize and not be so
fixated on such outdated things as the Constitution.

http://www.frumforum.com/mt-vernons-conservative-dead-letter

Right or wrong, this position, needless to say, is about the polar opposite
of American conservatism, though it fits in with the thrust of
neoconservatism, as well as much of modern liberalism. Frum also illustrates
his divergence from American conservatism in his Time Magazine article (Feb.
15, 2010) entitled “Republicans Must Embrace the Vital Center,” which
trashes the hard-line conservatism of CPAC (the Conservative Political
Action Conference) whose attendees had the audacity to give the most votes
in their presidential poll to Ron Paul, who happens to oppose the wars in
the Middle East. Frum writes: “The time has come to restore the center to
the center-right coalition. Maybe it’s even time to start a new convention
so the centrists can meet face to face at least once a year, just as their
conservative colleagues do.

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1960311,00.html#ixzz0gAi9UzL7

Before becoming an American citizen, newcomer Frum, in his 2003 article
“Unpatriotic Conservatives: A war against America,” condemned as
anti-American those individuals who had labored in the conservative
vineyard for decades, such as Pat Buchanan, because they now dared to
oppose the war in Iraq. It is apparent that Frum’s conservatism is not
attuned to what has passed in the US as conservatism; rather, his
“conservatism” is neoconservatism which has as its litmus test an Israel
First foreign policy (in contrast to the traditional conservative penchant
for “America First.”) As an aside, I must add that, in a sense, I agree
with those who hotly dispute the charge of “dual loyalty” when applied to
individuals such as Frum: it would seem apparent that his national loyalty
is entirely singular.

So I don’t really know what to say. Is Professor Cole prevented by
ideological blinders from seeing full reality on this subject? Or does he
realize that he can’t present the entire truth directly because of the taboo
nature of not-so-free modern-day America? Does he believe that in order to
get an anti-war message across he must cover up the full truth by spouting
obvious falsehoods and contradictions, which will be spotted as such by
those in the know, but which serve to protect him from the lethal charge of
anti-Semitism, and enable him to be followed by a vast number of PC
liberals who would eschew the entire truth about this taboo subject? Certainly, his approach enables him to effectively disseminate his anti-war message to a much larger audience than would be the case if he provided the unadulterated truth in a direct fashion. Maybe we need some neocon
Straussians to ferret out Professor Cole’s hidden meaning, if there is any;
it’s certainly beyond my ken.

Transparent Cabal Website:
http://home.comcast.net/~transparentcabal/

Amazon listing of The Transparent Cabal:

http://tiny.cc/zNV06

Best,
Stephen Sniegoski

________________________________________________-

http://www.juancole.com/2010/02/decline-of-israeli-right-and-increasing.html

Informed Comment
Thoughts on the Middle East, History, and Religion

Thursday, February 18, 2010
The Decline of the Israeli Right and the Increasing Desperation of the
‘Anti-Semitism’ Charge

Juan Cole

The great divide between liberal Jewish Americans and the Israeli Right has
lurked as an issue since the Likud Party first challenged Labor dominance in
the late 1970s. It is now coming to a boiling point, even as Israel’s
reputation in the world is sinking. As rightwing policies more visibly fail,
the Likudniks are flailing around making fools of themselves by smearing
critics of those policies as racists. (Anyone who knows how Likud supporters
talk among themselves about Arabs and other outsiders can only be amused at
their impudent hypocrisy in playing the race card.)

The mess that Mossad’s mercenaries (some of them possibly from the Fateh
Palestinian faction also opposed to Hamas) made of a routine political
assassination in Dubai of a Hamas agent funneling arms from Iran is a blow
against Ithe image of daring, stone-cold competence cultivated by the
Israeli security establishment. The killing went smoothly, but it transpires
that the assassins had not only stolen the passport identities of British
and Irish citizens, but those of several Israeli dual citizens originally
from the UK, as well. Mossad thus made potential problems for those passport
holders for the rest of their lives, since Interpol will be interested every
time the numbers pop up at an airport check-in.

The incident has roiled diplomatic relations with Ireland and the UK. But it
is also controversial in Israel (not the assassination but the bumbling
clumsy identity theft against Israeli citizens). After all, branding an
innocent Israeli an assassin is a sort of blood libel. Indeed, casual
political assassination as a routine Israeli method of statecraft makes many
Jews uncomfortable, as is visible in Steven Spielberg’s film, Munich.

But the harbingers of isolation are numerous. The Netanyahu government has
largely defied President Obama’s requests for a halt to the colonization of
the West Bank (a freeze on building new settlements in part of the West
Bank, while existing settlements are expanded and Palestinians are thrown in
the street in Jerusalem does not count).

The Israeli siege of the children of Gaza, some of whom are looking
skinnier, is impossible to justify and provoked even a US congressman to
urge a forceful breaking of the blockade. The Goldstone Report on Israeli
war crimes (and which also acknowledges Hamas war crimes) for the United
Nations is likely to attain an official status of a sort denied to previous
such clear-eyed examinations of Israeli military action. (Israel’s
leadership suffered not the least from dropping nearly a million cluster
bombs on the civilian farms of southern Lebanon in the last 3 days of the
2006 Lebanon War, though this targeting of civilians was illegal and the US
Congress had stipulated that the weapons could not be used that way).

The reactionary parties of Likud, Shas, and Yisrael Beitenu have nothing in
common with the vast majority of Jewish Americans, who voted for Barack
Obama and are generally more progressive than non-Jewish Americans. The
establishment of a liberal Jewish lobby, J Street, which supports a
two-state solution (Israel and Palestine side by side), is a manifestation
of the increasing unease of progessive Jewish Americans with the policies
and aggressive wars of rightwing Israeli governments. Jewish Americans have
been key to the securing of many of our civil liberties in this country and
a major voice for peace and for culture and the arts, and a thug like
Avigdor Lieberman as foreign minister surely makes many of them uneasy. It
is no accident that the Likud government has snubbed a delegation of US
Congress members to Israel who support J Street. The Netanyahu government is
all about colonizing more of the West Bank and preventing the rise of a
Palestinian state.

Then you have Holocaust survivor Hedy Epstein supporting the movement to
break the Israeli blockade of Gaza civilians, including children.

The Israeli occupation and colonization of the West Bank provoked former
president Jimmy Carter to warn of an Apartheid situation. Although he was
viciously attacked by the likes of Alan Dershowitz and subjected to the
typical dirty tricks deployed by fanatical nationalists of all stripes, he
has been vindicated by remarks of Israeli politician Ehud Barak, who just
said the same thing Carter had.

The occupation is also provoking an increasing move to boycott Israel,
especially firms and concerns based in the West Bank settlements or
connected to the Lebanon and Gaza Wars. The second largest union of Canadian
federal employees has joined such a boycott. During the Gaza War,
Scandinavian grocery chains cancelled their orders for Israeli fruit, and
the South African longshoremen declined to unload Israeli ships.

It is anxiety over the prospect that the current far-right Netanyahu
government is becoming increasingly isolated from the world community,
including the Obama administration in the US, and from a new generation of
progressive Jewish Americans that explains the rash of scurrilous charges of
‘anti-Semitism’ being thrown around by the ‘Israel-can-do-no-wrong’ crowd in
recent days.

You had Leon Wieseltier’s unsubstantiated and shameful attack on Andrew
Sullivan, which Sullivan effectively refuted — as did Glenn Greenwald,
Matthew Ygglesias, and a number of others. As Greenwald points out, the use
of the ‘anti-Semitism’ charge against ordinary every day non-bigotted people
who just don’t agree with some policy of Israel or of the American
Enterprise Institute risks making the term meaningless and cheapening it,
which can hardly be good for the Jews.

Meanwhile, the main strategy of the Israeli and Jewish-American Right to
preserve Israeli capacity to continue the colonization and to act
belligerently in the region had been the overthrow of Saddam Hussein in
Iraq. That strategem has failed, as I argued in Salon. The Shiite
fundamentalists who have taken over Baghdad are pro-Hizbullah and
pro-Palestinian. (Hizbullah was in part set up by the Islamic Mission Party,
Da’wa, of Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, and Da’wa supported Hamas in
the recent Gaza War). Moreover, Baghdad has ceased helping contain Iran for
the Sunni Arab world and the West, and is now a close ally of Tehran. The
prospect of a well-armed, 250,000-man Iraqi army now being reconstituted,
and riddled with agents of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps, must be a
matter of consternation for Israelis. Only Jordan separates them from Iraq,
now an outpost of the Shiite religious parties allied with Khamenei. The
Neoconservatives, such as Richard Perle, David Frum, Paul Wolfowitz, Irv
Lewis Libby, Michael Rubin, Douglas Feith, John Bolton, Larry Franklin and
others thus not only shot themselves in the foot, but they shot Israel in
the chest.

This Iraq strategy, which intended to stop the Rabin peace process and
prevent the return of Gaza and the West Bank to the Palestinians for their
state, was laid out by Richard Perle, Douglas Feith, and other
Neoconservatives in a white paper for Bibi Netanyahu in 1996. Many of the
authors were subsequently put in high office by Bush-Cheney and pushed for
an American war on Iraq with dirty tricks and false propaganda in 2002-2003.
They included Canadian gadfly journalist David Frum, who authored Bush’s
2002 ‘Axis of Evil’ speech in consultation with Perle. The mostly Jewish
Neoconservatives were only one faction in the Bush-Cheney coalition that
wanted regime change in Baghdad, which included the Christian Right, Big
Oil, and the military-industrial complex. However influential, they were not
‘in control’ and most Jewish Americans opposed their ideas and policies.

Frum, a Canadian who only became naturalized as a US citizen in 2007, was
important in the early years of the Bush presidency and crafted many of the
falsehoods and propaganda points that got up the Iraq War. He bears a heavy
responsibility for the unnecessary deaths of over 4000 US military
personnel, for the deaths of some 600,000 Iraqis, and for the displacement
of nearly 4 million Iraqis. In a just world, David Frum would be on trial
for his role in severe violations of international law, as would Bush,
Cheney, Perle, and the rest of those bald-faced liars and warmongers.

To cover his prevarications and failed policies, Frum joined Wieseltier in
playing the anti-Semitism card at CNN this week, piling on Sullivan but also
smearing yours truly. His exhibit A was a passage in which I complained
about supporters of the Israeli Likud party attempting to enlist the US
military to fight wars on behalf of that party’s platform. The column was
mainly about Larry Franklin, a Catholic, who went to jail on espionage
charges for passing classified Pentagon documents to AIPAC and the Israeli
embassy.

Since supporters of the Likud government, Christian and Jewish, are even now
attempting to foment a US war on Iran on behalf of rightwing objectives in
Israel (Iran is no more a threat to the United States than Iraq had been), I
rather stand by my condemnation of them.

As someone who travels to Israel, collaborates on research with Israeli
colleagues, supports Israelis’ right to live normal and fulfilling lives in
security, and recently stayed in a kubbutz, I am puzzled by Frum’s innuendo.
I am critical of Israeli policy in Gaza and the West Bank, but then so are
former prime ministers Ehud Olmert and Ehud Barak; I think I probably
haven’t said anything on the issue that clear-eyed Israelis haven’t already
said themselves.

But I will complain about David Frum’s dual loyalties. I am very suspicious
of a rightwing Stephen Harper-style Canadian becoming so influential in the
United States. I like my Canadians in their normal, sane estate. I fear he
may be influencing my country in directions that benefit rightwing Canadian
politicians and war industries in Ottawa. Although Canada has also leant us
treasures like William Shatner, Dan Akroyd and Paul Schaeffer, for which I’m
grateful, the latter never became ensconced in the halls of power or
encouraged anyone to fire a shot in anger off the set.

End/ (Not Continued)

posted by Juan Cole @ 2/18/2010 02:08:00 AM

Ron Paul victory causes panic on neocon Right, Obama-ite Left

Ron Paul victory causes panic on neocon Right, Obama-ite Left

http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2010/02/23/ron-pauls-victory/

Ron Paul Routs the Neoconned at CPAC

http://america-hijacked.com/2010/02/22/ron-paul-routs-the-neoconned-at-cpac/

Harvard Professor’s Modest Proposal: Starve the Gazans into Having Fewer Babies

Informed Comment: Harvard Professor’s Modest Proposal: Starve the Gazans into Having Fewer Babies

http://www.juancole.com/2010/02/harvard-professors-modest-proposal.html

Israel Attacks Gaza, Silence from Mainstream Media about Israeli Violations of International Law

http://neoconzionistthreat.blogspot.com/2009/01/israel-attacks-gaza-silence-from.html

Rachel Corrie’s family bring civil suit over human shield’s death in Gaza

Parents want case to highlight events that led to American activist’s death under Israeli army bulldozer

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/feb/23/corrie-death-law-case

New Grist for Hype on Iran

New Grist for Hype on Iran

http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/node/50276

Pat Buchanan: Now we prepare for a new war — on Iran

Liquidating the Empire (by Pat Buchanan)

http://www.creators.com/opinion/pat-buchanan.html

——————————

Former CIA Bin Laden unit head Michael Scheuer on coming war with Iran

http://tinyurl.com/MichaelScheueroncomingIranwar

Ron Paul Routs the Neoconned at CPAC

http://america-hijacked.com/2010/02/22/ron-paul-routs-the-neoconned-at-cpac/

http://tinyurl.com/RonPaulRoutsNeoconsatCPAC