| Author | Message | | dangerousdna | | Posted: Mon Mar 29, 2004 11:59 pm Post subject: Iraq War Launched to Protect Israel |
| "”Why would Iraq attack America or use nuclear weapons against us? I'll
tell you what I think the real threat (is) and actually has been since
1990 -- it's the threat against Israel,” [Philip] Zelikow
told a crowd at the University of Virginia on Sep. 10, 2002, speaking on
a panel of foreign policy experts assessing the impact of 9/11 and the
future of the war on the al-Qaeda terrorist organization.
”And this is the threat that dare not speak its name, because the
Europeans don't care deeply about that threat, I will tell you frankly.
And the American government doesn't want to lean
too hard on it rhetorically, because it is not a popular sell,” said
Zelikow.
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0329-11.htmPublished on Monday,
March 29, 2004 by Inter Press Service
Iraq War Launched to Protect Israel - Bush Adviser
by Emad Mekay
WASHINGTON - IPS uncovered the remarks by Philip Zelikow, who is now the
executive director of the body set up to investigate the terrorist
attacks on the United States in September 2001 -- the 9/11 commission --
in which he suggests a prime motive for the invasion just over one year
ago was to eliminate a threat to Israel, a staunch U.S. ally in the
Middle East. Zelikow's casting of the attack on Iraq as one launched to
protect Israel appears at odds with the public position of President
George W. Bush and his administration, which has never overtly drawn the
link between its war on the regime of former president Hussein and its
concern for Israel's security. The administration has instead insisted
it launched the war to liberate the Iraqi people, destroy Iraq's weapons
of mass destruction (WMD) and to protect the United States. Zelikow made
his statements about ”the unstated threat” during his tenure on a highly
knowledgeable and well-connected body known as the President's Foreign
Intelligence Advisory Board (PFIAB), which reports directly to the
president. He served on the board between 2001 and 2003. ”Why would Iraq
attack America or use nuclear weapons against us? I'll tell you what I
think the real threat (is) and actually has been since 1990 -- it's the
threat against Israel,” Zelikow told a crowd at the University of
Virginia on Sep. 10, 2002, speaking on a panel of foreign policy experts
assessing the impact of 9/11 and the future of the war on the al-Qaeda
terrorist organization. ”And this is the threat that dare not speak its
name, because the Europeans don't care deeply about that threat, I will
tell you frankly. And the American government doesn't want to lean too
hard on it rhetorically, because it is not a popular sell,” said
Zelikow. The statements are the first to surface from a source closely
linked to the Bush administration acknowledging that the war, which has
so far cost the lives of nearly 600 U.S. troops and thousands of Iraqis,
was motivated by Washington's desire to defend the Jewish state. The
administration, which is surrounded by staunch pro-Israel,
neo-conservative hawks, is currently fighting an extensive campaign to
ward off accusations that it derailed the ”war on terrorism” it launched
after 9/11 by taking a detour to Iraq, which appears to have posed no
direct threat to the United States. Israel is Washington's biggest ally
in the Middle East, receiving annual direct aid of three to four billion
dollars. Even though members of the 16-person PFIAB come from outside
government, they enjoy the confidence of the president and have access
to all information related to foreign intelligence that they need to
play their vital advisory role. Known in intelligence circles as
”Piffy-ab”, the board is supposed to evaluate the nation's intelligence
agencies and probe any mistakes they make. The unpaid appointees on the
board require a security clearance known as ”code word” that is higher
than top secret. The national security adviser to former President
George H.W. Bush (1989-93) Brent Scowcroft, currently chairs the board
in its work overseeing a number of intelligence bodies, including the
Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), the various military intelligence
groups and the Pentagon's National Reconnaissance Office. Neither
Scowcroft nor Zelikow returned numerous phone calls and email messages
from IPS for this story. Zelikow has long-established ties to the Bush
administration. Before his appointment to PFIAB in October 2001, he was
part of the current president's transition team in January 2001. In that
capacity, Zelikow drafted a memo for National Security Adviser
Condoleezza Rice on reorganizing and restructuring the National Security
Council (NSC) and prioritizing its work. Richard A. Clarke, who was
counter-terrorism coordinator for Bush's predecessor President Bill
Clinton (1993-2001) also worked for Bush senior, and has recently
accused the current administration of not heeding his terrorism
warnings, said Zelikow was among those he briefed about the urgent
threat from al-Qaeda in December 2000. Rice herself had served in the
NSC during the first Bush administration, and subsequently teamed up
with Zelikow on a 1995 book about the unification of Germany. Zelikow
had ties with another senior Bush administration official -- Robert
Zoellick, the current trade representative. The two wrote three books
together, including one in 1998 on the United States and the ”Muslim
Middle East”. Aside from his position at the 9/11 commission, Zelikow is
now also director of the Miller Center of Public Affairs and White
Burkett Miller Professor of History at the University of Virginia. His
close ties to the administration prompted accusations of a conflict of
interest in 2002 from families of victims of the 9/11 attacks, who
protested his appointment to the investigative body. In his university
speech, Zelikow, who strongly backed attacking the Iraqi dictator, also
explained the threat to Israel by arguing that Baghdad was preparing in
1990-91 to spend huge amounts of ”scarce hard currency” to harness
”communications against electromagnetic pulse”, a side-effect of a
nuclear explosion that could sever radio, electronic and electrical
communications. That was ”a perfectly absurd expenditure unless you were
going to ride out a nuclear exchange -- they (Iraqi officials) were not
preparing to ride out a nuclear exchange with us. Those were
preparations to ride out a nuclear exchange with the Israelis”,
according to Zelikow. He also suggested that the danger of biological
weapons falling into the hands of the anti-Israeli Islamic Resistance
Movement, known by its Arabic acronym Hamas, would threaten Israel
rather than the United States, and that those weapons could have been
developed to the point where they could deter Washington from attacking
Hamas. ”Play out those scenarios,” he told his audience, ”and I will
tell you, people have thought about that, but they are just not talking
very much about it”. ”Don't look at the links between Iraq and al-Qaeda,
but then ask yourself the question, 'gee, is Iraq tied to Hamas and the
Palestinian Islamic Jihad and the people who are carrying out suicide
bombings in Israel'? Easy question to answer; the evidence is
abundant.” To date, the possibility of the United States attacking Iraq
to protect Israel has been only timidly raised by some intellectuals and
writers, with few public acknowledgements from sources close to the
administration. Analysts who reviewed Zelikow's statements said they are
concrete evidence of one factor in the rationale for going to war, which
has been hushed up. ”Those of us speaking about it sort of routinely
referred to the protection of Israel as a component,” said Phyllis
Bennis of the Washington-based Institute of Policy Studies. ”But this is
a very good piece of evidence of that.” Others say the administration
should be blamed for not making known to the public its true intentions
and real motives for invading Iraq. ”They (the administration) made a
decision to invade Iraq, and then started to search for a policy to
justify it. It was a decision in search of a policy and because of the
odd way they went about it, people are trying to read something into
it,” said Nathan Brown, professor of political science at George
Washington University and an expert on the Middle East. But he
downplayed the Israel link. ”In terms of securing Israel, it doesn't
make sense to me because the Israelis are probably more concerned about
Iran than they were about Iraq in terms of the long-term strategic
threat,” he said. Still, Brown says Zelikow's words carried
weight. ”Certainly his position would allow him to speak with a little
bit more expertise about the thinking of the Bush administration, but it
doesn't strike me that he is any more authoritative than Wolfowitz, or
Rice or Powell or anybody else. All of them were sort of fishing about
for justification for a decision that has already been made,” Brown
said. {) (} The only way to create a safer world
(.~.) is to ensure that it is more just.
\o/ /\ /\
( * ^ * ) K. Armstrong | |  | | Alpha | | Posted: Tue Mar 30, 2004 12:23 am Post subject: Re: Iraq War Launched to Protect Israel |
| | dangerousdna wrote: | "”Why would Iraq attack America or use nuclear weapons against us? I'll
tell you what I think the real threat (is) and actually has been since
1990 -- it's the threat against Israel,” [Philip] Zelikow
told a crowd at the University of Virginia on Sep. 10, 2002, speaking on
a panel of foreign policy experts assessing the impact of 9/11 and the
future of the war on the al-Qaeda terrorist organization.
”And this is the threat that dare not speak its name, because the
Europeans don't care deeply about that threat, I will tell you frankly.
And the American government doesn't want to lean
too hard on it rhetorically, because it is not a popular sell,” said
Zelikow.
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0329-11.htmPublished on Monday,
March 29, 2004 by Inter Press Service
Iraq War Launched to Protect Israel - Bush Adviser
by Emad Mekay
WASHINGTON - IPS uncovered the remarks by Philip Zelikow, who is now the
executive director of the body set up to investigate the terrorist
attacks on the United States in September 2001 -- the 9/11 commission --
in which he suggests a prime motive for the invasion just over one year
ago was to eliminate a threat to Israel, a staunch U.S. ally in the
Middle East. Zelikow's casting of the attack on Iraq as one launched to
protect Israel appears at odds with the public position of President
George W. Bush and his administration, which has never overtly drawn the
link between its war on the regime of former president Hussein and its
concern for Israel's security. The administration has instead insisted
it launched the war to liberate the Iraqi people, destroy Iraq's weapons
of mass destruction (WMD) and to protect the United States. Zelikow made
his statements about ”the unstated threat” during his tenure on a highly
knowledgeable and well-connected body known as the President's Foreign
Intelligence Advisory Board (PFIAB), which reports directly to the
president. He served on the board between 2001 and 2003. ”Why would Iraq
attack America or use nuclear weapons against us? I'll tell you what I
think the real threat (is) and actually has been since 1990 -- it's the
threat against Israel,” Zelikow told a crowd at the University of
Virginia on Sep. 10, 2002, speaking on a panel of foreign policy experts
assessing the impact of 9/11 and the future of the war on the al-Qaeda
terrorist organization. ”And this is the threat that dare not speak its
name, because the Europeans don't care deeply about that threat, I will
tell you frankly. And the American government doesn't want to lean too
hard on it rhetorically, because it is not a popular sell,” said
Zelikow. The statements are the first to surface from a source closely
linked to the Bush administration acknowledging that the war, which has
so far cost the lives of nearly 600 U.S. troops and thousands of Iraqis,
was motivated by Washington's desire to defend the Jewish state. The
administration, which is surrounded by staunch pro-Israel,
neo-conservative hawks, is currently fighting an extensive campaign to
ward off accusations that it derailed the ”war on terrorism” it launched
after 9/11 by taking a detour to Iraq, which appears to have posed no
direct threat to the United States. Israel is Washington's biggest ally
in the Middle East, receiving annual direct aid of three to four billion
dollars. Even though members of the 16-person PFIAB come from outside
government, they enjoy the confidence of the president and have access
to all information related to foreign intelligence that they need to
play their vital advisory role. Known in intelligence circles as
”Piffy-ab”, the board is supposed to evaluate the nation's intelligence
agencies and probe any mistakes they make. The unpaid appointees on the
board require a security clearance known as ”code word” that is higher
than top secret. The national security adviser to former President
George H.W. Bush (1989-93) Brent Scowcroft, currently chairs the board
in its work overseeing a number of intelligence bodies, including the
Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), the various military intelligence
groups and the Pentagon's National Reconnaissance Office. Neither
Scowcroft nor Zelikow returned numerous phone calls and email messages
from IPS for this story. Zelikow has long-established ties to the Bush
administration. Before his appointment to PFIAB in October 2001, he was
part of the current president's transition team in January 2001. In that
capacity, Zelikow drafted a memo for National Security Adviser
Condoleezza Rice on reorganizing and restructuring the National Security
Council (NSC) and prioritizing its work. Richard A. Clarke, who was
counter-terrorism coordinator for Bush's predecessor President Bill
Clinton (1993-2001) also worked for Bush senior, and has recently
accused the current administration of not heeding his terrorism
warnings, said Zelikow was among those he briefed about the urgent
threat from al-Qaeda in December 2000. Rice herself had served in the
NSC during the first Bush administration, and subsequently teamed up
with Zelikow on a 1995 book about the unification of Germany. Zelikow
had ties with another senior Bush administration official -- Robert
Zoellick, the current trade representative. The two wrote three books
together, including one in 1998 on the United States and the ”Muslim
Middle East”. Aside from his position at the 9/11 commission, Zelikow is
now also director of the Miller Center of Public Affairs and White
Burkett Miller Professor of History at the University of Virginia. His
close ties to the administration prompted accusations of a conflict of
interest in 2002 from families of victims of the 9/11 attacks, who
protested his appointment to the investigative body. In his university
speech, Zelikow, who strongly backed attacking the Iraqi dictator, also
explained the threat to Israel by arguing that Baghdad was preparing in
1990-91 to spend huge amounts of ”scarce hard currency” to harness
”communications against electromagnetic pulse”, a side-effect of a
nuclear explosion that could sever radio, electronic and electrical
communications. That was ”a perfectly absurd expenditure unless you were
going to ride out a nuclear exchange -- they (Iraqi officials) were not
preparing to ride out a nuclear exchange with us. Those were
preparations to ride out a nuclear exchange with the Israelis”,
according to Zelikow. He also suggested that the danger of biological
weapons falling into the hands of the anti-Israeli Islamic Resistance
Movement, known by its Arabic acronym Hamas, would threaten Israel
rather than the United States, and that those weapons could have been
developed to the point where they could deter Washington from attacking
Hamas. ”Play out those scenarios,” he told his audience, ”and I will
tell you, people have thought about that, but they are just not talking
very much about it”. ”Don't look at the links between Iraq and al-Qaeda,
but then ask yourself the question, 'gee, is Iraq tied to Hamas and the
Palestinian Islamic Jihad and the people who are carrying out suicide
bombings in Israel'? Easy question to answer; the evidence is
abundant.” To date, the possibility of the United States attacking Iraq
to protect Israel has been only timidly raised by some intellectuals and
writers, with few public acknowledgements from sources close to the
administration. Analysts who reviewed Zelikow's statements said they are
concrete evidence of one factor in the rationale for going to war, which
has been hushed up. ”Those of us speaking about it sort of routinely
referred to the protection of Israel as a component,” said Phyllis
Bennis of the Washington-based Institute of Policy Studies. ”But this is
a very good piece of evidence of that.” Others say the administration
should be blamed for not making known to the public its true intentions
and real motives for invading Iraq. ”They (the administration) made a
decision to invade Iraq, and then started to search for a policy to
justify it. It was a decision in search of a policy and because of the
odd way they went about it, people are trying to read something into
it,” said Nathan Brown, professor of political science at George
Washington University and an expert on the Middle East. But he
downplayed the Israel link. ”In terms of securing Israel, it doesn't
make sense to me because the Israelis are probably more concerned about
Iran than they were about Iraq in terms of the long-term strategic
threat,” he said. Still, Brown says Zelikow's words carried
weight. ”Certainly his position would allow him to speak with a little
bit more expertise about the thinking of the Bush administration, but it
doesn't strike me that he is any more authoritative than Wolfowitz, or
Rice or Powell or anybody else. All of them were sort of fishing about
for justification for a decision that has already been made,” Brown
said. {) (} The only way to create a safer world
(.~.) is to ensure that it is more just.
\o/ /\ /\
( * ^ * ) K. Armstrong |
DNA,
You beat me to it as I just received this from Jeff as well (via his email list that you are on as well), and I came here to post it and found that you already had! Glad that you are back in full form as I have missed you! | | | | Alpha | | | | Alpha | | Posted: Tue Mar 30, 2004 7:46 am Post subject: Re: Iraq War to Protect Israel |
| Subj: Re: Iraq War to Protect Israel
Date: 3/29/04 8:42:57 PM Pacific Standard Time
From: Edmillersan
To the Editor: Zelikov is not telling the truth. Iraq was attacked by Zionist pressure in Washington, not to protect Israel... but TO PREVENT INTERFERENCE WITH ISRAEL'S PLANS FOR EXPANSION including takeover of the Occupied territories..... Ed Miller, MD | | | | Alpha | | | | Alpha | | Posted: Tue Mar 30, 2004 7:57 am Post subject: Israel's Isolation – and America's |
| "Now Bush has fallen into the trap his father avoided. He is letting Ariel Sharon create the perception that America's war and Israel's war
are one and the same."
Israel's Isolation – and America's
by Patrick J. Buchanan
March 29, 2004
http://www.antiwar.com/pat/?articleid=2201
"Israel has a right to defend itself," said President Bush. And against whom was Israel defending itself at dawn on Monday?
A half blind and deaf paraplegic being wheeled out of a mosque after prayers, Sheik Ahmed Yassin was struck by missiles that blew him to pieces. In carrying out the assassination of the founder and spiritual leader of Hamas, Ariel Sharon used a U.S. Apache helicopter gunship. Thus, in Islamic eyes, we are passive accomplices in the killing.
Instantly, protests erupted in Mosul and Basra. Ayatollah al-Sistani, the Shi'ite leader on whom we depend for a peaceful transfer of power in Iraq, was enraged: "(T)his morning, the occupying Zionist entity committed an ugly crime against the Palestinian people by killing one of their heroes, scholar-martyr Ahmed Yassin."
Sharon's defenders say the sheik had sanctioned terror attacks on innocent Israelis. But why did Israel not then seize him, expose his complicity in murder, and put him in prison, as Israel had before? Why convert this crippled old sheik into a martyr-saint? Why enhance the prestige of Hamas?
Has the killing made Israel more secure? If so, why were Israeli buses deserted all week? Has it made us more secure? Why then were the travel advisories issued to Americans in the Middle East? Why are U.S. embassies shutting down? How does inflaming the Islamic world against us advance the president's goal of persuading the world that Islam is not America's enemy?
President Bush must begin to realize that his blind solidarity with Sharon, who has shown himself contemptuous of America's interests in the larger region, is among the greatest crosses we have to bear in the war on terror.
A year after the fall of Baghdad, Bush's men are boasting of his triumphs – the overthrow of the Taliban, the liberation of Iraq, not one act of terror on U.S. soil in two years. But consider the war from bin Laden's vantage point.
The murderous strike of 9-11 electrified America-haters, but produced blowback and near total disaster for bin Laden. In weeks, Bush had united a great coalition, smashed the Taliban and almost finished Osama himself at Tora Bora. Then came Iraq.
Here Bush played straight into bin Laden's hand. By attacking a prostrate Arab nation that played no role in 9-11, we united Arab and Islamic peoples in hatred of America. We shattered alliances and ignited a guerrilla war.
According to a Pew poll, U.S. prestige in the Muslim world has never been lower. Bush is widely detested. In Pakistan, 65 percent of the people hold Osama in high regard, while 8 percent are positive on Bush. We are losing the hearts and minds of the Islamic young, creating a spawning pool out of which future terrorists will emerge.
Now, an attack in Madrid has left 200 dead and blown a hole in our coalition. A socialist has come to power who intends to pull Spanish troops out of Iraq. Poland, too, has begun to waver
As Bush wins battles, Osama advances toward his strategic goals: Demonization of America as the enemy of Islam, isolation of America as an imperialist aggressor against Arab nations and the enabler of Sharon, and unification of Islam's young behind bin Laden's ultimate war aim: the expulsion of America from all Muslim lands.
The legendary Col. John Boyd described strategy as appending to oneself as many centers of power as possible, while isolating one's enemy from as many centers of power as possible.
Bush I did this brilliantly in the Gulf War, isolating Saddam. Bush II did it brilliantly in the Afghan war, isolating the Taliban. Now Bush has fallen into the trap his father avoided. He is letting Ariel Sharon create the perception that America's war and Israel's war are one and the same.
In the Middle East, Sharon has no friends. He does not care whom he alienates. But we are a world power with friend, allies and interests in 22 Arab and 57 Muslim countries.
To protect our interests, to win our war on Al Qaeda, it is imperative that we not let ourselves become as isolated as Israel is today.
Between America and Israel there are thus common interests and a collision of interests. Sharon does not want us to confine our war on terror to those who attacked us on 9-11. He wants us to expand our list of enemies to include his list of enemies: Arafat, Hamas, Hezbollah, Syria, Iran, Saudi Arabia. He wants us to escalate "the firemen's war" into an American war on Israel's enemies, so, together, we can establish joint hegemony in the Middle East.
If Sharon and his acolytes in the Bush administration succeed in conflating Sharon's war with America's war, we could lose our war. Why cannot the president see what is going on?
_________________
No War For Israel
http://www.nowarforisrael.com/ | | | | Alpha | | Posted: Tue Mar 30, 2004 8:14 am Post subject: Support for Israel Cause of US Terror Problem |
| In the above article by Buchanan, he mentions that an Israeli (American provided) Apache attack helicopter was used to kill Yassin.. The following article by Robert Fisk mentions that Israeli Apache pilots are trained in Iowa in the USA (no wonder as to why the Arab/Muslim world wants to attack us for our support of the rogue state of Israel):
http://www.counterpunch.org/fisk0416.html
http://www.nowarforisrael.com | | | | Shnozzle | | | | Alpha | | Posted: Tue Mar 30, 2004 6:18 pm Post subject: Israeli report blasts intelligence for exaggerating the Iraq |
|
Subj: Israeli report blasts intelligence for exaggerating the Iraqi threat
Date: 3/29/04 10:07:51 AM Pacific Standard Time
From: jblankfort@earthlink.net
What should be remembered is that Sharon his spokesman, Raanan Gissin, Defense Minister Shaul Mofaz as well as former Labor PM Shimon Peres ,were all strong advocates for the war as were their neo-con colleagues in and around the US Defense Dept. and National Security Agency.
Israeli report blasts intelligence for exaggerating the Iraqi threat
By Dan Baron
JERUSALEM, March 28 (JTA) — Israel’s foreign intelligence services have come under public scrutiny with revelations they overestimated one major threat while underplaying another.
Hot on the heels of the testimony of former U.S. counterterrorism chief Richard Clarke accusing the Bush administration of ignoring pre-Sept. 11 U.S. intelligence reports because it was focused on Iraq, the Steinitz Report issued on Sunday blasted those in Israel who had pushed for the war on Iraq.
The 80-page report, compiled by the Knesset Subcommittee on Secret Services under lawmaker Yuval Steinitz, lambasted prewar assessments by Mossad and military intelligence officials that it was “very likely” Saddam Hussein had missiles with non-conventional payloads aimed at Israel.
That perceived threat prompted the Defense Ministry to issue millions of gas masks and order citizens to prepare sealed rooms, at a cost of millions of dollars.
“The military and political upper echelons are responsible for the mess-up,” said the Steinitz Report, which charged Israeli intelligence analysts with overconfidence and oversimplification.
The report also said Mossad and military intelligence officials are in need of a major overhaul after they failed to track Libya’s pursuit of weapons of mass destruction.
Libyan ruler Muammar Gaddafi abandoned the program in December in negotiations with the United States and Britain that were kept secret from Israel.
“The idea that a hostile nation like Libya, with an unpredictable leader like Gaddafi, was in the running to develop a militarized nuclear industry, without Israel getting the necessary advance warning from its intelligence service to act preventively or at least prepare accordingly, is — to put it mildly — intolerable,” the report said.
“The prime ministers lack the proper tools that would afford them real oversight and orientation on the intelligence apparatus and building a real force for intelligence analysis.”
Israel stayed on the sidelines of the Iraq war out of concerns its involvement would alienate the few U.S. allies in the Arab world.
But Israeli intelligence assessments were regularly fed to Washington.
“It is not inconceivable that assessments passed by an Israeli intelligence agency . . . to a friendly agency were bounced back and force, played a key role in that friendly agency’s planning, and ultimately ended up with the agency where they originated in the form of an analysis by an altogether different agency. Such assessments would immediately be perceived as another authoritative body bolstering and verifying the original Israeli view,” the report said.
Yet asked by reporters if Israeli intelligence might have misled the United States and its ally Britain as to Iraq’s real capabilities, Steinitz was more circumspect.
“American and British intelligence services had much better access to Iraq by simply sitting in Kuwait and other locations, and by being able to fly almost freely over Iraqi soil,” he said.
U.S. and British officials did not comment.
The Steinitz report did not recommend action against any specific intelligence officials. But it said military intelligence, which has swollen steadily in terms of manpower and funding since Israel’s failure to foresee the Arab assault which opened the 1973 Yom Kippur War, should be cut down in size.
Unit 8200, the military intelligence codebreakers — who, according to a recent report in the New Yorker magazine, tipped off the United States as to Iran’s nuclear buildup — should become a civilian agency, the report said.
Meanwhile, it called for the Mossad to be boosted. According to security sources, the spy agency has fallen into lethargy recently through a combination of military intelligence’s wide reach and an over-reliance on cooperation with foreign agencies.
The Prime Minister’s Office, which oversees all of Israel’s intelligence agencies, said it would consider the recommendations. | | | | Alpha | | Posted: Tue Mar 30, 2004 6:53 pm Post subject: Re: Israel's Isolation – and America's |
| | Alpha wrote: | "Now Bush has fallen into the trap his father avoided. He is letting Ariel Sharon create the perception that America's war and Israel's war
are one and the same."
Israel's Isolation – and America's
by Patrick J. Buchanan
March 29, 2004
http://www.antiwar.com/pat/?articleid=2201
"Israel has a right to defend itself," said President Bush. And against whom was Israel defending itself at dawn on Monday?
A half blind and deaf paraplegic being wheeled out of a mosque after prayers, Sheik Ahmed Yassin was struck by missiles that blew him to pieces. In carrying out the assassination of the founder and spiritual leader of Hamas, Ariel Sharon used a U.S. Apache helicopter gunship. Thus, in Islamic eyes, we are passive accomplices in the killing.
Instantly, protests erupted in Mosul and Basra. Ayatollah al-Sistani, the Shi'ite leader on whom we depend for a peaceful transfer of power in Iraq, was enraged: "(T)his morning, the occupying Zionist entity committed an ugly crime against the Palestinian people by killing one of their heroes, scholar-martyr Ahmed Yassin."
Sharon's defenders say the sheik had sanctioned terror attacks on innocent Israelis. But why did Israel not then seize him, expose his complicity in murder, and put him in prison, as Israel had before? Why convert this crippled old sheik into a martyr-saint? Why enhance the prestige of Hamas?
Has the killing made Israel more secure? If so, why were Israeli buses deserted all week? Has it made us more secure? Why then were the travel advisories issued to Americans in the Middle East? Why are U.S. embassies shutting down? How does inflaming the Islamic world against us advance the president's goal of persuading the world that Islam is not America's enemy?
President Bush must begin to realize that his blind solidarity with Sharon, who has shown himself contemptuous of America's interests in the larger region, is among the greatest crosses we have to bear in the war on terror.
A year after the fall of Baghdad, Bush's men are boasting of his triumphs – the overthrow of the Taliban, the liberation of Iraq, not one act of terror on U.S. soil in two years. But consider the war from bin Laden's vantage point.
The murderous strike of 9-11 electrified America-haters, but produced blowback and near total disaster for bin Laden. In weeks, Bush had united a great coalition, smashed the Taliban and almost finished Osama himself at Tora Bora. Then came Iraq.
Here Bush played straight into bin Laden's hand. By attacking a prostrate Arab nation that played no role in 9-11, we united Arab and Islamic peoples in hatred of America. We shattered alliances and ignited a guerrilla war.
According to a Pew poll, U.S. prestige in the Muslim world has never been lower. Bush is widely detested. In Pakistan, 65 percent of the people hold Osama in high regard, while 8 percent are positive on Bush. We are losing the hearts and minds of the Islamic young, creating a spawning pool out of which future terrorists will emerge.
Now, an attack in Madrid has left 200 dead and blown a hole in our coalition. A socialist has come to power who intends to pull Spanish troops out of Iraq. Poland, too, has begun to waver
As Bush wins battles, Osama advances toward his strategic goals: Demonization of America as the enemy of Islam, isolation of America as an imperialist aggressor against Arab nations and the enabler of Sharon, and unification of Islam's young behind bin Laden's ultimate war aim: the expulsion of America from all Muslim lands.
The legendary Col. John Boyd described strategy as appending to oneself as many centers of power as possible, while isolating one's enemy from as many centers of power as possible.
Bush I did this brilliantly in the Gulf War, isolating Saddam. Bush II did it brilliantly in the Afghan war, isolating the Taliban. Now Bush has fallen into the trap his father avoided. He is letting Ariel Sharon create the perception that America's war and Israel's war are one and the same.
In the Middle East, Sharon has no friends. He does not care whom he alienates. But we are a world power with friend, allies and interests in 22 Arab and 57 Muslim countries.
To protect our interests, to win our war on Al Qaeda, it is imperative that we not let ourselves become as isolated as Israel is today.
Between America and Israel there are thus common interests and a collision of interests. Sharon does not want us to confine our war on terror to those who attacked us on 9-11. He wants us to expand our list of enemies to include his list of enemies: Arafat, Hamas, Hezbollah, Syria, Iran, Saudi Arabia. He wants us to escalate "the firemen's war" into an American war on Israel's enemies, so, together, we can establish joint hegemony in the Middle East.
If Sharon and his acolytes in the Bush administration succeed in conflating Sharon's war with America's war, we could lose our war. Why cannot the president see what is going on?
_________________
No War For Israel
http://www.nowarforisrael.com/ |
Whose War? A neoconservative clique seeks to ensnare our country in a series of wars that are not in America’s interest. by Patrick J. Buchanan:
http://www.amconmag.com/03_24_03/cover.html
The following URL includes more on the Zionist extremist (JINSA/CSP/PNAC) cabal which pushed US to war in Iraq for Israel:
http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/middle-east-and-asia/2004/02/29/neo-cons-israel-and-the-bush-administration.php
Richard Perle: A Zionist extremist traitor to America:
http://www.fpp.co.uk/online/02/12/Counterpunch_1.html
War Conceived in Israel:
http://www.thornwalker.com/ditch/snieg_conc1.htm
Robert Fisk on JINSA (Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs):
http://www.robert-fisk.com/articles114.htm
Men from JINSA and CSP (this article by Jason Vest is mentioned in the above article by Robert Fisk):
http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20020902&s=vest
Isabel Hilton's article for the UK Guardian on Ahmed Chalabi's association with the Zionist (Israel firster) extremists at JINSA:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1163563,00.html
JINSA Zionist extremists like Richard Perle are also associated with PNAC (Project for the New American Century which is based at the Zi onist American Enterprise Institute-AEI- which is where Bush spoke on the eve of the Iraq war last year-Ruppert Murdoch provides financial support to PNAC and the AEI):
http://www.sundayherald.com/27735
Did the JINSA/CSP/PNAC Neocons plan the 9/11 (World Trade Center) attack with their Likudite cronies in Israel:
Israeli Spy Rumors Fly on Gusts of Truth with 9/11:
http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/middle-east-and-asia/2003/02/16/israeli-spy-rumors-fly-on-gusts-of-truth-with-9-11.php
The following email was sent to Tony Benn (who is the president of the anti-war movement in the UK)
Subj: Urgent: Syria and Iran Next for JINSA/CSP/PNAC Neocons...?
Date: 3/29/04 11:17:59 AM Pacific Standard Time
Dear Mr. Benn,
It was very good to hear your interview with Amy Goodman on 'Democracy Now' this morning and to talk with you in the UK moments ago as well (especially about the following which includes the excellent article by Gary Leupp for www.counterpunch.org that discusses how the JINSA/CSP/PNAC neocons like Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz want to do further regime change in Syria and Iran as well for the benefit of Israel). It is important to keep in mind that JINSA/PNAC Neocons Richard Perle and Douglas Feith (both of whom are associated with JINSA/PNAC) wrote 'A Clean Break' for incoming Israeli Likudite Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in 1996 ('A Clean Break' mentioned for Israel to dissolve the Palestinian peace process and to do regime change in Syria and Iran--Perle and Feith had the US military do regime change in Iraq when they got into power in the current Bush regime as fellow Zionist extremist David Wurmser also co-authored 'A Clean Break' as he is now working for Dick Cheney as Cheney was/is also associated with JINSA/PNAC-the Palestinian peace process seems to have been effectively dissolved by the Israelis with their assasination of Yassin last week, so 'A Clean Break' seems to be moving full speed ahead with Israeli/US cooperation on such via the Likudites in Israel and the JINSA/CSP/PNAC Neoconservative cabal in the current Bush regime):
A Clean Break:
A New Strategy for Securing the Realm:
http://www.israeleconomy.org/strat1.htm
More mention about 'A Clean Break' is included at the following URL:
http://www.antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=1032
War in Iraq Conceived in Israel:
http://www.thornwalker.com/ditch/snieg_conc1.htm
Please also access this Sunday Herald article (URL) about PNAC:
http://www.sundayherald.com/27735
This article about JINSA by Robert Fisk is very good as well:
http://www.robert-fisk.com/articles114.htm
Fisk mentions the following article (from 'The Nation' in the above referenced article):
http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20020902&s=vest
Chalabi's association with JINSA is mentioned by Isabel Hilton in this recent article that appeared in the Guardian:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1163563,00.html
Subj: G.Leupp: Yassin assasination: Prelude to attacking Syria? + Bleier
Date: 3/28/04 12:11:39 PM Pacific Standard Time
From: rbleier@igc.org
Friends:
Gary Leupp’s article is a realistic look at Sharon’s wider aims with regard to the Yassin assassination. Sharon’s goal which he evidently accomplished in spite of international condemnation, is to conflate Palestinian resistance to the Israeli occupation with the U.S. led war on terror, and, as Leupp emphasizes, to get U.S. sanction if not participation for future attacks on Hamas. Moreover, as Leupp indicates, Sharon envisions Israeli and/or U.S. attacks on Hezbollah, Syria, and eventually Iran.
Leupp believes that the U.S. was consulted beforehand and/or gave tacit or explicit approval to the Yassin assassination. There’s reason to believe that, on the contrary, the U.S. was surprised and embarrassed by the assassination in view of the upcoming visit by Sharon to the United States, and (as Jeff Blankfort has written) efforts to pacify Iraq before the November elections. A more realistic view of Israeli-U.S. communication regarding the Yassin assassination would spotlight the audacious quality of Sharon’s leadership and also the extraordinary power over U.S. Middle East policy wielded by Israel, its neocon supporters in high places in the Bush administration, and the Zionist lobby including evangelical Christians.
I would also emphasize that the main intention of the Yassin assassination was to destroy a pillar of Palestinian resistance to the threat of another wave of mass expulsions of the Palestinians which is the longer range intention of Zionism: i.e,, to rid the former Palestine of Palestinians. Despite the widespread condemnation of the Yassin assassination, the effect seems to be, as Sharon intended, an even closer identification of the United States with Israeli plans for the Palestinians and their Arab neighbors. Despite the egregious nature of the Yassin assassination, not one mainstream American political figure has had the temerity to condemn it. --
Ronald Bleier
www.counterpunch.org
http://www.counterpunch.org/leupp03272004.html
Weekend Edition
March 27 / 28, 2004
Prelude to an Attack on Syria?
The Yassin Assassination
By GARY LEUPP
Everyone is predicting a spate of horrific suicide bombings in Israel as Hamas and other Palestinian groups respond to the "targeted assassination" of Sheikh Ahmed Yassin (and killing of seven other people) by an Apache helicopter air strike a few days ago. According to MSNBC, Israel's army chief has stated that Yassir Arafat and the Lebanese Hezbollah chief Hassan Nasrallah will also be assassinated. I take it for granted that the assassins, proud of their work, convinced of its necessity and goodness, know exactly what they're doing. They have factored in ghastly reprisals, and have plans about how to follow up.
Some observations and predictions:
1. The foreign policy of the Bush administration has since 9-11 been steered by officials who have a well thought out and clearly articulated plan to affect regime change throughout the Middle East. Such change in Iraq, Syria, Iran, and a number of other Muslim countries is central to the neocons' world-transforming project. While Israel's security is not the key issue in Bush Middle East policy, it is a very important secondary one, and U.S. and Israeli policies are closely coordinated.
2. Last October 5, Israel responded to an Islamic Jihad suicide bombing in Haifa by staging an air strike on Syria, the first time it had bombed Syria in 30 years. Ariel Sharon argued that Damascus "sponsors" Islamic Jihad and "Palestinian terrorism" in general and so Israel was acting in self-defense.
3. While condemned by European leaders, including the British foreign minister, and almost everybody else, the attack was justified by President Bush as necessary to "defend the homeland." (Note: not "your homeland" but "the homeland." Bush seems not to distinguish.) It was praised by leading neocon Richard Perle (then still on the Defense Policy Board), who declared, "I am happy to see the message was delivered to Syria by the Israeli air force, and I hope it is the first of many such messages." Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz stated, "There will have to be change in Syria, plainly."
(This makes me recall the fifth chapter of the Book of Daniel---an interesting novelette written around 160 BCE, and incorporated into the Old Testament. The neocons are, in effect, saying: "The handwriting is on the wall; Bashir Assad's days are numbered; his kingdom will be divided---not between the Medes and the Persians, but--- between the Americans and the Israelis." http://www.inisrael.com/golan/ )
4. Undersecretary of State for Arms Control and International Security John Bolton, administration point man on Syria, argued last fall in Congress for the "Syria Accountability Act," which was passed, 398-5, by the House of Representatives Oct. 16. (99% approval. Isn't it great to live in a democracy where well-informed elected officials can express varied views about the Middle East?) Then it sailed through the Senate.
Officially vilifying Syria (which has actually been an ally against al-Qaeda), it accuses Damascus of sponsoring terrorism, amassing weapons of mass destruction, and occupying Lebanon, and applies economic sanctions against the Arab nation. Bolton accuses Syria of allowing "terrorists" to cross its border to abet the resistance in Iraq, receiving some of those elusive WMD from Iraq, and providing banking services for the Iraqi resistance. So there is a long list of charges against Syria, as there was against Iraq, and as there is against Iran---enough to persuade the sufficiently impressionable that Syria should be attacked and occupied.
5. The assassination of the wheelchair-bound paraplegic 75 year old Yassin was condemned by Kofi Annan, and by European leaders, including British foreign minister Jack Straw, but Condoleeza Rice, speaking for the Bush administration, refused to criticize it, merely appealing for everybody in the region to keep calm. While the Bush administration denies any foreknowledge of the attack, it will of course stand by Mr. Sharon, whom Bush with his characteristic distance from the real world has dubbed "a man of peace."
6. The neocons have suffered a series of setbacks, including the highly embarrassing revelations of Bush's former top anti-terrorism advisor Richard Clarke, who charges that Bush demanded intelligence forces concoct links between 9-11 and Iraq to justify an invasion. Anyone paying attention now knows that the Iraq stage of the Terror War was based on lies. The bleeding sore of the occupation saps Bush's political support, and he and his world-transforming ideologues may be out of jobs come November. That prospect doesn't make the neocons more humble, but rather more desperate to achieve such pieces of their ambitious program as they might in the next seven months.
7. This month has seen a "human rights" demonstration in Damascus and a couple days of Arab-Kurdish ethnic rioting following a soccer game. These are unusual events in tightly-controlled Syria. There may be an outside hand in them, endeavoring to destabilize the Syrian regime preparatory to some major, externally organized action.
8. A major Hamas suicide bombing would provide a fine pretext for an attack on Syria, perfectly legitimate to anyone predisposed to think Hamas=international terrorism=Syria.
9. At least one Hamas leaflet has suggested that the U.S. bears partial responsibility for Yassin's assassination: "The Zionists didn't carry out their operation without getting the consent of the terrorist American administration and it must take responsibility for this crime."
Let's think about this statement. If the U.S. government can say "you're for us or against us," and make no distinction between "terrorist organizations" and those who "sponsor" them, surely your good, decent, normal Palestinian on the street can draw a connection between an assassination conducted on the explicit orders of Ariel Sharon (whose government is, as the number one recipient of U.S. foreign aid, subsidized by the U.S. to a mind-boggling $ 3 billion---some say $ 6 billion---per year and enjoys about the most intimate relationship with Washington that any foreign government has ever had) and the American administration. Condoleeza Rice has said the U.S. had no prior knowledge of the assassination, but then she also says honest Richard Clarke's recent charges about Bush's handling of the al-Qaeda issue are "ridiculous." The sad fact is that Condi is ridiculous, and her job absolutely requires that she deny U.S. links to assassinations if such occur.
Is the Hamas statement implausible? It seems in fact unlikely that Sharon would undertake his extremely newsworthy action without consulting with the government which subsidizes his own. So Hamas could say: "We make no distinction between those defying international law and assassinating our leaders, and those who sponsor them." Still, it is unlikely that they would undertake an attack on Americans on U.S. soil, however much either al-Qaeda or the neocons might want that (and even be inclined to stage it) in order to exacerbate the confrontation between Islam and the west that they both relish, for their different reasons.
In any case, the statement about "responsibility for this crime" cited above was immediately trumpeted in the U.S. media as a Hamas threat to attack the U.S., something it has never done, would be stupid to do, and probably has no intention of doing. Hamas is not al-Qaeda, however much the Bushites want to conflate all opponents of the U.S. and Israel into a single, simple terroristic Evil. Homeland Security Director Tom Ridge immediately indicated that Washington takes "quite seriously" a threat never explicitly made. But Hamas, as it mourns the loss of its founder, and speculates about what forces produced his murder, becomes demonized, al-Qaeda-ized, another object of American fear.
Start worrying now, everybody, that terrorist Hamas, angry about the death of their terrorist founder at the hands of our Israeli friends---a death we support---is going to attack us, because they blame us for it! That's the message.
Hamas having been hit by a strike condemned by the entire world (except the U.S. and Israel) and having, in perfectly rational response, expressed outrage, now in its injured state becomes more targeted by the U.S. than ever. Henceforth whatever Sharon does against Hamas, he will be able to depict as an effort to defend not merely his country but the American Homeland threatened by these angry anti-American Palestinians. And whatever measures the Bushites take against "Palestinian terrorism" will be undertaken as "Homeland Defense" measures as well, the Israeli and American homeland boundaries having been thoroughly blurred long since.
10. Let us say Perle's dream comes true and the Israeli air force does attack pro-Hamas Syria. Let's say it does so big-time, Sharon-style, and does major damage. Enough to cause enough disorder for the U.S. to argue that a deteriorating situation requires international intervention. The Iraq attack required months of preparation, but intervention in Syria will happen very quickly, coming like a thief in the night as it did in Haiti. Perle has suggested that there are troops to spare in Iraq that can occupy "weak" Syria in short order. Even if Israeli action provides the context, Israeli forces won't be needed, and U.S. action will be lent some thin international legitimacy if a few hundred "coalition" troops participate. Thus a second Arab nation will become Americanizedly "free," while Palestinians infuriated by these events will commit acts that will justify the "ethnic cleansing" of the West Bank.
I truly hope my imagination has gotten the better of me, that I am a false prophet, and that what I describe will not come to pass.
Hands off Syria!
Gary Leupp is Professor of History at Tufts University, and Adjunct Professor of Comparative Religion. He is the author of Servants, Shophands and Laborers in in the Cities of Tokugawa, Japan; Male Colors: The Construction of Homosexuality in Tokugawa, Japan; and Interracial Intimacy in Japan: Western Men and Japanese Women, 1543-1900.
He can be reached at: gleupp@granite.tufts.edu
http://www.axisoflogic.com/artman/publish/article_5945.shtml
U.S. News/Comment
The 10,000-Pound Elephant in the Room
By Michael Saba
Mar 27, 2004, 20:09
Email this article
Printer friendly page
March 27, 2004-Richard Clarke is all over the news these days. The author of "Against All Enemies: Inside America’s War on Terror" had his book released this week, the same week that he appeared as a key witness at the blue ribbon Sept. 11 Commission meeting which focused on what went wrong with America’s intelligence leading up to that fateful day.
Clarke, who retired from government service about a year ago, served 30 years under 7 US presidents, 5 of them Republican, as a national security expert.
Clarke has made all the major TV talk shows and appeared on all of the TV networks chastizing Bush and his administration for mistakes prior to Sept. 11 and criticizing President Bush and his key officials for their obsession to go to war with Iraq rather than focusing on Al-Qaeda and Osama Bin Laden.
Yet with all of this talk and criticism, something was missing. There was a 10,000-pound elephant in the room and, although everybody could see it, nobody wanted to mention it. That 10,000-pound elephant is Israel.
Clarke laid the blame and the Bush administration fought back. The Sept. 11 Commission also got into the act when Clarke testified. Everyone was blaming everyone else but no one mentioned Israel as a possible participant in the equation. And Clarke, although he was taking on the neoconservatives, normally ardent supporters of Israel, seemed to be avoiding the mention of the Jewish state like the plague. Some courageous political pundits such as Pat Buchanan, have consistently pointed out the role of Israel and the pro-Israeli lobby in driving the United States toward war with Iraq. Then recollections of Clarke’s earlier career came to mind.
Clarke served in both the Bush 1 and Clinton administrations. From 1989 to 1992 during Bush 1, Clarke served as the assistant secretary of state for political-military affairs overseeing sensitive US technology transfers. In a March 1992 report, State Department Inspector General Sherman Funk stated "alleged Israeli violations of US laws cited and supported by reliable intelligence information show a systematic and growing pattern of unauthorized transfers...dating back to about 1982." According to other US officials at that time, those Israeli violations date back to the early 1970s. Many of those alleged violations during the Reagan era include Israel’s illegal transfers of American technology to China.
The Funk Report heavily criticized State’s Bureau of Political-Military Affairs for ignoring scores of intelligence reports on apparent violations of retransfer restrictions and other restrictions and for not reporting them to senior officials and Congress, as required by law.
The report also recommended that the then Assistant Secretary of State for Political-Military Affairs Richard Clarke be disciplined for his lack of oversight on Israel. Clarke was reprimanded and eventually lost his job. However Clarke, a consummate bureaucratic survivor, reappeared shortly after that on the National Security Council staff in the Clinton administration.
When the Funk Report was issued and Clarke was removed from his State Department position, Funk allegedly received threatening phone calls at his home. Funk was summoned to closed-door hearings in the US House of Representatives and was allegedly accused by Representative Tom Lantos of California of harming Israel while others reportedly joined in a verbal assault of Funk’s positions on Israel.
At that same time the Jerusalem Post reported, "It appears the bureaucratic target (of the Funk Report) was Assistant Secretary of State for Political-Military Affairs Richard Clarke. US officials reportedly say Clarke is being removed from his position for negligence." The Jerusalem Post goes on to quote a pro-Israeli activist as saying, "Clarke was a friend of Israel in an administration where they do not necessarily grow on trees. Somebody was out there to get him."
Also defending Clarke at that time in the Jerusalem Post were neoconservative, pro-Israeli advocates Michael Ledeen and Stephen Bryen claiming that there was "lack of proof that Israel had violated any agreements." Interestingly, both Ledeen and Bryen served in the Reagan administration at the same time as Clarke. Bryen was also reprimanded during that period for alleged improprieties regarding technology transfer to Israel. Bryen and Ledeen now serve on the US China Commission which oversees American technology transfers to China.
Clarke himself was quoted in a 1990 article in the Syracuse(NY) Post-Standard as saying, "The US benefits in a lot of ways from its strategic relationship with Israel" and went on to say that Israel could serve as a "war reserve stockpile" in expanding American military capabilities.
In Clarke’s book, he makes positive references to his friend, Richard Perle. The pro-Israeli Perle, known as the "Prince of Darkness" is widely credited as one of the architects of Bush’s attack Iraq policy.
And Clarke is quoted in the official biography of Steven Emerson as saying, "I think of Steve as the Paul Revere of terrorism...(Clarke) credits Emerson with repeatedly warning of Al-Qaeda sleeper cells in the United States. He adds that he would attend Emerson’s speeches whenever possible because ‘we’d always learn things we weren’t hearing from the FBI or CIA, things which almost always proved to be true." Emerson is one of the strongest pro-Likud, pro-Israeli advocates in the United States and is often cited for blaming the Arabs and Muslims for most of the acts of terrorism around the world.
Responding to Clarke’s interview on "60 Minutes" last Sunday night, White House spokesman Dan Bartlett referred to Clarke’s charges as a "red herring", something designed to draw attention from the real issue.
That "red herring", however, is quite different from the 10,000-pound elephant in the room. During an election year with friends of Israel, and especially close friends like Richard Clarke, permeating both political parties, nobody wants to mention that the elephant is in the room.
Dr. Michael Saba is the author of "The Armageddon Network" and is an international relations consultant
http://www.arabnews.com/?page=7§ion=0&article=42001&d=27&m=3&y=2004
Subj: More than 40 senators said they supported Israel’s assassination
Date: 3/26/04 9:39:45 PM Pacific Standard Time
From: jblankfort@earthlink.net
Sent from the Internet (Details)
These senators had a choice on Thursday of attending the 9-11 hearings or meeting with their bosses, or rather one of their bosses, the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations which generally lobbies the White House while leaving Congress to AIPAC. Hoenlein, it should be known, drafted the first counter-terrorism bill under the Clinton administration, as reported in the Forward at the time.. There are some folks who would have us believe that foreign policy originates in the White House.
40 senators out of 100! And check out the last line.
Jewish Telegraphic Agency 3.27.4
Jews meet Senate leaders
More than 40 senators said they supported Israel’s assassination of Hamas’ leader, a Jewish official said. The senators met Thursday with officials from the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations. While some senators voiced concern about the consequences of killing Sheik Ahmed Yassin, the lawmakers — including Senate majority leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.), minority leader Tom Daschle (D-S.D.) and Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.) — “supported Israel’s right to take whatever measures are necessary to defend itself,” according to Malcolm Hoenlein, executive vice chairman of the Presidents Conference. The group also discussed the U.S. war on terrorism, Iran’s nuclear aspirations, U.S. sanctions against Syria and homeland security funding for U.S. Jewish institutions.
What Congressman Paul Findley Said on AIPAC (Zionist) Lobby:
http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/middle-east-and-asia/2003/09/25/what-congressman-paul-findley-said-on-aipac-zionist-lobby.php | | | | | ©2002-2009 WarWithoutEnd.co.uk |
