| Author | Message | | Guest | | Posted: Thu Dec 19, 2002 6:12 am Post subject: Zionist Jew (and friend of Sharon) Mort Zuckerman War Rants |
| Anonymous wrote:
Zionist JINSA Jew Paul Wolfowitz who is pushing hard for an invasion of Iraq plays coy when asked about his allegiance to Israel, by foreign correspondents. But, in 1998, at an AIPAC (AIPAC is the powerful Jewish lobby in the USA which has corrupted our domestic politics) dinner at the Waldorf Astoria, honoring Mortimer Zuckerman, Wolfowitz was introduced by moderator Ted Koppel (a Likudnik Jew) and said:
"Israel is the land of lands. It is sacred land. It is land blessed by God, and we would all be remiss, if we did not devote our remaining days to see it become what it once was."
Wolfowitz is a heavy contributor to the UJA. He is in their "PLAYER'S LIST", a wall-plaque designating Jew who've given over 100 thousand dollars in a single year to help finance settlements.
Zuckerman Ranting for War with Iraq
by William Hughes
Media mogul Mortimer B. Zuckerman, in a warmongering rant, barked that If George Bush Jr. failed to act against Iraq, it would “ruin American credibility in the Muslim world” (U.S. News & World Report, 12/23/02). Well, Mortimer, before we get to good old America’s fading credibility, let’s take a look at yours.
Zuckerman is the chief honcho of the Conference of Presidents of Major Jewish Organizations, an ultra Zionist, and the owner of the New York Daily News, U.S. News & World Report, and The Atlantic Monthly (Media Watch, Richard H. Curtiss, WRMEA, 12/97). In his pro-war spiel, however, he failed to disclose to his readers any of his Zionist affiliations. A subscriber to his magazine is entitled to know of any relevant interests that Zuckerman may have that might possibly conflict with his supposedly unbiased opinion piece on the Middle East (See, Code, Society of Professional Journalists). According to Sam Husseini and Jim Naureckas, in Extra, Jan. 2, 1993, after buying the Atlantic Monthly, Zuckerman issued a ban on articles that, “challenged Israel’s right to exist.”
Zuckerman insisted Saddam’s declaration on WMD is a “material breach” of the UN Security Resolution 1441, and said that if the UN declines to proceed, then Bush should “act alone.” The question of the justice of such conduct didn’t even show up in his equation. War is good, he is saying, in order to preserve the abstract notion of “credibility.” Doesn’t this sound a lot like Henry Kissinger’s highly dubious justification for bombing Laos and Cambodia back to the Stone Age in the 60’s and ‘70s? America’s Iago then had claimed, “America’s prestige” was at stake.
Now, we’re suppose to invade a fifth rated military power, Iraq, which is no threat to us, because it will make us more credible. And, Zuckerman wants to use as a trigger to such a war, his self-serving interpretation of Resolution 1441. He says that if we follow his advice, it will also send a message to the terrorists about how “resolute” we are. His authorities for discrediting Saddam’s 12,000 page report to the UN on his WMD are the usual suspects: Donald Rumsfeld and the British. At least, Zuckerman had the good sense not to cite as experts raving Sharonists, such as Daniel Pipes, A.M. Rosenthal and William Kristol.
Meanwhile, Zuckerman’s favorite country, Israel, stands in violation of over 66 UN resolutions, including Resolution 242, which called for Israel to “withdraw from the occupied territories,” and, Resolution 338, which urged “peace negotiations and reaffirmed 242” (LINK April/May, 2002). Donald Neff said that this list, which absent U.S. vetoes would now equal 95 resolutions instead of 66, is a “stunning indictment” by the international community of “Israel’s unlawful and uncivilized action over 45 years and America’s complicity in them” (WRMEA, 03/93).
Zuckerman’s hypocrisy on the UN Resolution issue alone staggers the imagination. His use of language, too, is truly Orwellian. First, America’s credibility in the Muslim world couldn’t get any lower then it is right now. This is partly because of our unconditional support of Zionist Israel. Secondly, it borders on hysteria to write that U.S. credibility will be ruined if we don’t attack Iraq. Zuckerman even urged Bush, “if need be, too act alone.” What would help U.S. credibility, and lessen the possibility of terrorist attacks, (and soon, we won’t be able to say this in the “Land of the Free”), is to lift the economic sanctions against Iraq, cut off all U.S. aid to Sharon’s Apartheid regime, and remove our military from Saudi Arabia.
And, talk about stretching a point, Zuckerman also dared to quote John F. Kennedy and his dealing with the Cuban Missile Crisis and the Soviet Union 40 years ago, as a precedent for handling Iraq. He didn’t bother to explain how Kennedy’s handling of that extremely dangerous situation applied to the present circumstances. I suspect because there isn’t any real association. In the Cuban crisis, the U.S. faced a possible nuclear exchange with Moscow. With Iraq, no such risk exists. Zuckerman also hyped Iran as another potential threat to U.S. global interests. We’ve heard that line, too, from the Likud Party’s ideologues.
Zuckerman’s ranting for war with Iraq does a disservice to our Republic. More importantly, U.S. policy decisions should always be in our national interest and completely independent of what Tel Aviv, or any of its supporters in this country want us to do. The least we can do, as heirs of the legacy of liberty from Washington, Jefferson and Adams, is demand that Zuckerman come clean about all of his Zionist connections.© William Hughes 2002
William Hughes is the author of “Andrew Jackson vs. New World Order” (Authors Choice Press) and “Baltimore Iconoclast” (Writer’s Showcase), which are available online. He can be reached at liamhughes@mindspring.com. | |  | | Guest | | | | Guest | | | | Guest | | Posted: Thu Dec 19, 2002 6:24 am Post subject: NBC NEWS/ WSJ POLL: Only 35 % US Support for Iraq Attack |
| Zuckerman doesn't seem to get it as only 35 percent of the US public supports an invasion of Iraq (without UN approval) as of last week (and only 55 percent with UN approval as this number is most likely dropping as well):
The NBC News/WSJ (Wall Street Journal) Poll that was shown on page A4 of the Wall Street Journal from last Wednesday (December 11th, 2002) had only 35 percent of Americans supporting an invasion of Iraq without the UN and only 55 percent support with the UN.. Hardly overwhelming numbers despite your Zionist spin...
NBC NEWS/ WSJ POLL: Only 35 % US Support for Iraq Attack
http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/middle-east-and-asia/2002/12/12/nbc-news-wsj-poll-only-35-us-support-for-iraq-attack.php | | | | Guest | | | | Guest | | | | Guest | | Posted: Thu Dec 19, 2002 6:37 am Post subject: PUT UP OR SHUT UP |
| DEC. 16, 2002 (COL. 3)
PUT UP OR SHUT UP
BY CHARLEY REESE
President George Bush has to put up or shut up. If his administration has hard evidence
that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction, he has to put that evidence on the table for
everyone to see. Otherwise his credibility and the credibility of the United States will be
zilch.
It's beginning to appear that Iraqi President Saddam Hussein isn't as stupid as the Bush
administration believed him to be. He has readmitted the inspectors, he's cooperating with
them, and he's made his declaration: We have no weapons of mass destruction; if the United
States and Great Britain have evidence to the contrary, give it to the international
inspectors.
So far, the Bush administration has done nothing but indulge in name-calling, like some
bratty kid on a schoolyard. It's not enough to keep calling Saddam a liar; it's time to prove
it. And if the United States lacks proof, as I personally believe, then it's time to shut up
or else confess the real motives for wanting to go to war. So far, the Bush administration's
credibility hasn't been that great itself.
Item: It made much to-do about Iraq having drone airplanes. The existence of these planes
was made public in 1998. The president even said they could be used in an attack against the
United States, which is patently absurd on its face.
Item: Great Britain recently released a dossier on human-rights violations in Iraq. Again,
it was all old stuff, 10 or 12 years old, and Amnesty International, which had collected the
information in the first place, severely criticized the British government for misusing a
report that the United Kingdom had ignored a decade ago when it was first issued.
Demonization and name-calling do not constitute evidence that Iraq is a threat to the
United States. The Bush administration has no hard evidence that Iraq was involved with
al-Qaida or any other kind of international terrorism. It has twisted the truth about Iraq's
involvement with the Palestinians, implying that Saddam subsidized suicide bombers. The fact
is that Saddam was giving a check to the families of any Palestinian killed in the intifada.
That, of course, included the families of suicide bombers, but the program was not
specifically directed toward them. Don't forget, the Israelis have killed nearly 2,000
Palestinians, most of them civilians. Unlike most Arab governments that only pay lip service
to the Palestinian struggle for independence, Saddam has put his money where his mouth is.
If it is true, as Richard Pearle, the chief warmonger in the Bush administration, has said
publicly, that Bush will go to war against Iraq even if there are no ties to terrorism and no
weapons of mass destruction, the American people had better start raising hell with the
administration. A war without justification can produce catastrophic consequences.
For one thing, with our economy in the shape it is in, much better use for $200 billion can
be found right here at home than to waste it on killing Iraqis. For another, the days when we
can inflict death and destruction on other people in other places without paying a price for
it are over. Making war against Iraq without justification and international support will
produce an enormous increase in terrorism directed at the United States and at Americans
everywhere. For still another, it will alienate allies all over the world.
If genuine, publicly exposed proof can be found that Iraq is in violation and if the United
States goes back to the United Nations Security Council for a second resolution, then all's
well and good. If the president decides to go it alone based on propaganda, he will be making
the mistake of his life. The trouble is it will be other innocent lives, both Iraqi and
American, that will pay for his blunder.
(Write to Charley Reese at P.O. Box 2446, Orlando, FL 32802)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Zionist Richard Perle:'Inspections Or Not, We'll Attack Iraq
http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/middle-east-and-asia/2002/11/24/zionist-richard-perle-inspections-or-not-we-ll-attack-iraq.php | | | | Guest | | | | Guest | | | | Guest | | | | | ©2002-2009 WarWithoutEnd.co.uk |
