War Without End

Alpha

Subj: J.Raimondo: Hollings is right: It's all about Israel
Date: 5/21/04 4:21:54 PM Pacific Daylight Time
From: rbleier@igc.org
To: rbleier@igc.org
Sent from the Internet (Details)

http://www.antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=2621

(Note: Visit the website for links in the text to related articles.)

May 21, 2004

Senator Hollings Is Right
It's all about Israel

by Justin Raimondo

Isn't it funny how politicians have to wait until just before going into retirement to say what they really think about Israel and its influence over Washington policymakers?

Congressman Lee Hamilton (D-Illinois), formerly the senior Democrat on the House International Relations Committee, waited until after announcing his departure from Congress to attend a symposium on the Middle East where he noted that his congressional colleagues are "not even-handed" when it comes to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict "for political reasons." Rep. Hamilton went on to say:

"Israeli leaders understand our system very, very well [and] because they understand our system they can exploit it."

Rep. Sonny Callahan (R-Alabama) earned the ire of Tel Aviv's lobby by opposing "emergency aid" to Israel. In a speech on the House floor, a clearly angered Callahan lashed out at the Amen Corner:

"I am going to offer amendments as we go through the bill to strike all of the aid to Israel that was included here without any request from Israel, without any request from the administration, without any requests from anybody. But someone within this beltway decided since we were going to have a supplemental bill, they were going to get some pork in it for Israel."

Please note that Callahan did this only after announcing his retirement plans. Now Senator Ernest Hollings, whose legendary disdain for political correctness has gotten him in trouble before, has joined the ranks of the belatedly honest, and said what a few others – such as Michael Kinsley, Pat Buchanan, and myself – have said all along. In an op-ed piece first published in the Charleston Post and Courier, the senator, having just announced his retirement, took up the question of why are we in Iraq, and came up with this answer:

"Now everyone knows what was not the cause. Even President Bush acknowledges that Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with 9/11. Listing the 45 countries where al-Qaida was operating on September 11 (70 cells in the U.S.), the State Department did not list Iraq. Richard Clarke, in Against All Enemies, tells how the United States had not received any threat of terrorism for 10 years from Saddam at the time of our invasion. … Of course there were no weapons of mass destruction. Israel's intelligence, Mossad, knows what's going on in Iraq. They are the best. They have to know. Israel's survival depends on knowing. Israel long since would have taken us to the weapons of mass destruction if there were any or if they had been removed. With Iraq no threat, why invade a sovereign country? The answer: President Bush's policy to secure Israel."

Hollings goes on to identify "a domino school of thought that the way to guarantee Israel's security is to spread democracy in the area," naming deputy Defense Secretary and chickenhawk-in-chief Paul Wolfowitz, neoconservative hardliner and Francophile Richard Perle, and former psychiatrist and deranged warmonger Charles Krauthammer. He furthermore goes on to savage George W. Bush, whose sole thought since taking office, according to Hollings, has been reelection, with a radical tilt toward Israel by U.S. policymakers a key part of the game plan:

"Spreading democracy in the Mideast to secure Israel would take the Jewish vote from the Democrats. You don't come to town and announce your Israel policy is to invade Iraq. But George W. Bush, as stated by former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill and others, started laying the groundwork to invade Iraq days after inauguration. And, without any Iraq connection to 9/11, within weeks he had the Pentagon outlining a plan to invade Iraq. He was determined."

Hollings has been roundly denounced and his remarks attributed to "anti-Semitism" by Israel's amen corner in the U.S. But there is nothing secret about the open effort by the Republican party to capture the Jewish vote. The whole idea of politics, after all, is mobilizing various interest groups around a particular candidate and building a majority coalition. Pandering to ethnic blocs is a grand American political tradition: it comes with being a nation of immigrants, which is something we're all supposed to glory in. Every ethnic group of any numerical significance is pandered to, in some way, and politicians are always making ethnic-based appeals. The Republican party's outreach to the Hispanic community is pursued to the point where our President often bursts into long stretches of Spanish (perhaps because it makes him sound less inarticulate, at least to those who have no idea what he's saying). Why shouldn't he reach out to Jewish voters, too?

By calling attention to the obvious, Senator Hollings stands condemned as an "anti-Semite."

I'll tell you what else is obvious: the benefits accrued to Israel on account of the invasion and occupation of Iraq. The annexation of significant portions of the West Bank, and now the attack on Gaza, have both received what amounts to the imprimatur of an American President. While Israeli "advisors" teach their American pupils the basics of running an occupation, the next target on Ariel Sharon's wish list, Syria, is hit with sanctions, and accusations that Damascus is aiding the Iraqi insurgency.

Hollings is absolutely on the mark about the real reasons for this war, even if his speculation about a GOP effort to go after the Jewish vote misses the real point. What Bush is after isn't primarily the Jewish voter, but holding onto and expanding the much larger "born again" Christian fundamentalist bloc, a significant proportion of which is fanatically devoted to Israel – even over and above American interests – for wacky theological reasons. When Hollings called Prime Minister Sharon "the Bull Connor of Israel," it wasn't the Jewish vote Rep. Joe Wilson (R-SC) was after when he demanded that Hollings apologize. South Carolina is Pat Robertson country, where the dispensationalist Christian heresy has deep roots – and even deeper political implications when it comes to this administration's foreign policy.

"Certainly, discussing and questioning policy is the right and duty of all responsible leaders. But when the debate veers into anti-Jewish stereotyping, it is tantamount to scapegoating and an appeal to ethnic hatred," says Abraham H. Foxman, National Director of the Anti-Defamation League.

But why shouldn't America's satellites avidly seek to manipulate and even control the Imperial Hegemon? After all, we hold their fate in our hands. That's what being an Empire is all about. Without American military and economic support, Israel could not and would not exist: one false move on the part of Washington, and the Jewish state would flounder and fall on the rocks of demographic reality and rising Arab nationalism.

Special interest groups of all ethnic and religious persuasions do their best to decisively influence U.S. foreign policy: why should Jews (and their "born again" Christian allies) be any different?

"This is reminiscent," raves Foxman, "of age-old, anti-Semitic canards about a Jewish conspiracy to control and manipulate government." If one so much as looks cross-eyed at Ariel Sharon, Abe Foxman is reminded of Kristallnacht, but the point is that, if I were Foxman I wouldn't pull this "age-old canard" business too often. Instead of fighting anti-Semitism, Foxman's weird insistence on re-imagining half-forgotten anti-Jewish caricatures can only encourage it. But, then again, if anti-Semitism went out of business, so would Foxman's organization. It's funny how that works….

Jonah Goldberg, who is obviously engaged in some kind of contest with Foxman to see who can do the best Al Sharpton imitation, notes the names Wolfowitz, Perle, and Krauthammer, and whines:

"Funny how the only names are Jewish. What? Jeanne Kirkpatrick doesn't count? Jack Kemp? Bill Bennett? I wonder why."

Perhaps because Kirkpatrick is a figure from another era, and only played a supporting role in the propaganda campaign that lied us into war. Jack Kemp was never a major figure, and his views on Iraq seem decidedly ambivalent, at best. As for Blackjack Bill, his reputation would certainly not have encouraged Americans to take his advice and gamble on committing our troops to a risky occupation, and so, understandably, he didn't take center stage in the prewar debate.

Wolfowitz, on the other hand, is not only a high government official but also the intellectual author of this administration's policy of preemptive global hegemony. As Richard Clarke and Bob Woodward reveal, the Deputy Secretary of Defense was the earliest and most persistent advocate of war with Iraq: Wolfowitz wanted to take Baghdad before bothering with Kabul.

As for the legendary Richard Perle, the neocon "Prince of Darkness," his style – and the numerous scandals in which he's been embroiled, all of them very high profile and exceptionally smarmy – ensures his prominence. A spotlight seems to follow him about, like a shadow.

Is it really necessary to point out the reasons for Krauthammer's prominence? Surely his was one of the loudest and most militant voices raised in support of this war, and certainly his position on the op-ed page of the Washington Post automatically lends his words a certain weight. In concert with Bill Safire and David Brooks over at the New York Times, Krauthammer constitutes a crucially important link in the neocon Iron Triangle of the American punditocracy.

If all these names are Jewish, then so what? Just as many Jews, if not more, figure prominently in the antiwar camp. Goldberg, being a clever chap, realizes this, and so falls back on trying to switch the blame from the War Party to the Bushies:

"Fritz Hollings is defending himself saying that he can provide quotes from Jews in America and Israel to support his position. I'm sure he can to some extent. But so what? His charge isn't that Jews support democracy in the Middle East to secure Israel's security (and because they support democracy). His charge is that Bush went to war to placate those Jews. The quotes he needs to prove his point aren't from Jews in Tel Aviv, they're from White House officials in Washington."

If the idea is to prove Washington's willingness to go along with Ariel Sharon in spite of American interests, how about quotes from the President of the United States and U.S. government officials in response to Israel's outright annexation of parts of the West Bank, and the IDF's current rampage through Gaza? Having endorsed the Israeli Lebensraum (marketed to world opinion as a "withdrawal," albeit a partial one), our President couldn't bring himself to condemn an Israeli attack on a peaceful Palestinian demonstration that killed 10 children and wounded 50, aside from urging "restraint." Bush has consistently referred to Israel's "right of self-defense" to excuse each and every bloody incursion into Palestinian territory, no matter how brutal – and no matter how much it ratcheted up tensions between the American army of occupation and its sullen Iraqi charges.

As Israel rampages through the Holy Land with unholy determination to dominate and drive out any who stand in her way, and the promise of a pipeline from Iraq's oil fields in Mosul to Haifa comes closer to reality, the key question, qui bono? – who benefits? – demands an answer. Last year, former Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, now Finance Minister, told a group of British investors:

"It won't be long when you will see Iraqi oil flowing to Haifa. It is just a matter of time until the pipeline is reconstituted and Iraqi oil will flow to the Mediterranean."

Philip Giraldi, a former CIA officer, now a partner in Cannistraro Associates, writes in the current issue of The American Conservative that "There are rumors that the deservedly moribund pipeline project to send Iraqi oil to Haifa may again be on the table."

But the oil is just the gravy on the meatloaf, or perhaps the dessert that comes after the main course, which is Israel's improved geopolitical position as a result of the Iraq war. Syria is outflanked, and now under U.S. sanctions, while the rest of the Arab world is psychologically demoralized, politically destabilized, and militarily defeated. Bush and Sharon – or, from the Arab viewpoint, Sharon and Bush – are masters of all they survey. Arab democrats, secular nationalists, and moderates in the region are more isolated, and even more powerless, than ever: only Osama bin Laden's followers are overjoyed to see that their leader's warning of an invasion of "Crusaders and Zionists" has proved prescient.

What irks American patriots, not a few conservatives among them, is that Sharon and the Israelis have shown no restraint: they are utterly heedless of the effect of their policies on the ground in Iraq. We undertook a vast project of social and political engineering in Iraq largely on Israel's behalf, only to see that they don't feel the least bit obligated to spare us the consequences of their actions. Surely such ingratitude contributes to rising resentment against the catalytic role of Israel's supporters – both in and out of government – in dragging us into Iraq.

Senator Hollings is right: this war was, and still is, all about protecting Israel's security and plans for expansion – at our expense. Not surprisingly, the catcalls are coming from the same people who say any reference to "neoconservatives" – up until recently a word that had entered the American political lexicon (sometime in the 1970s) without a hint of ethnic overtones – is really a "code word" for Jews. What they hope to accomplish is to close down all debate on a question the War Party would just as soon not see raised. But that question – why are we in Iraq? – is one that urgently requires explaining. Jonah Goldberg may persist in applying rules of political correctness that he would never otherwise invoke, but I would urge critics of Israel to take some solace in the words of John Derbyshire, Goldberg's colleague at National Review, who invokes what he calls:

"Derbyshire's First Law": Anything – anything whatsoever – that a Gentile says about Jews or Israel will be taken as rabidly antisemitic by somebody, somewhere."

Alpha

Subj: Hollings Speaks for Many in Congress
Date: 5/20/04 1:06:36 PM Pacific Daylight Time

SENATOR SPOKE FOR MANY ON HILL WHEN HE BLAMED ISRAEL FOR WAR
Special to WorldTribune.com -- Thursday, May 20, 2004

http://www.worldtribune.com/worldtribune/breaking_3.html

A U.S. senator's charge that Israel is behind the Bush
administrations's decision to invade Iraq has rattled American Jewish leaders.

Sen. Ernest Hollings, a South Carolina Democrat, wrote a column that
appeared in several newspapers. The column asserted that the U.S. war
against Iraq represented a decision by President George Bush to protect
Israel and ensure American Jewish support for his reelection. The column
reflects a growing sentiment in the corridors of power in Washington
according to congressional sources. [
http://hollings.senate.gov/%7ehollings/opinion/2004506A17.html ]

The view attributes the U.S. war in Iraq to the so-called
neo-conservatives in the administration, particularly Deputy Defense
Secretary Paul Wolfowitz and former Pentagon adviser Richard Perle,
Middle East Newsline reported. Both men are Jewish.

"There is a strong fear among American Jewish leadership that the
whispering campaign that 'the Jews started it,' will become public," a
senior congressional staffer said. "We could be seeing others get on
Hollings' bandwagon."

"Bush felt tax cuts would hold his crowd together and spreading
democracy in the Mideast to secure Israel would take the Jewish vote
from the Democrats," Hollings said in a column first published on May 6
in the Charleston Post and Courier. "You don't come to town and announce
your Israel policy is to invade Iraq."

Congressional sources said Hollings was expressing a view that has
become increasingly prevalent in Congress and parts of the administration.

The column was reprinted on Hollings's website.

The administration has been debating a U.S. exit strategy from Iraq that
appears to pit elements of the Defense Department against the State
Department. The debate includes the affect of a short-term U.S. military
withdrawal from Iraq on Washington's allies in the Middle East,
particularly in the Gulf Cooperation Council. Such a U.S. withdrawal,
Pentagon officials warned, could threaten these Gulf Arab states.

"They [Arab leaders] are more worried that we will lose our patience
with the difficult tasks of stabilizing those places and will walk away
and come home and bring up the drawbridges and defend Fortress America,"
U.S. Central Command chief Gen. John Abizaid told the Senate Armed
Services Committee on Wednesday." "I reassured our friends that we are
tough, that we cannot be defeated militarily, and that we will stay the course."

For his part, Hollings said Israel has never claimed that Iraq
maintained a weapons of mass destruction arsenal. The senator, who later
refused to retract his statements,
said Wolfowitz's advocacy of a plan to promote democracy among Arab
states comprised an Israeli initiative.

"With Iraq no threat, why invade a sovereign country?" Hollings asked.
"The answer: President Bush's policy to secure Israel. Led by Wolfowitz,
Richard Perle and Charles Krauthammer, for years there has been a domino
school of thought that the way to guarantee Israel's security is to
spread democracy in the area."

Hollings said Bush realized that he would be unable to bring about an
Arab-Israeli peace to help his reelection efforts. Instead, Bush started
laying the groundwork to invade Iraq days after his inauguration in 2001.

The senator said Wolfowitz persuaded Bush that the war against Iraq
would take a week. Hollings said Vice President Richard Cheney was
convinced U.S. troops would be greeted as liberators.

"In the Mideast, terrorism is a separate problem to be defeated by
diplomacy and negotiation, not militarily," Hollings said. "Here, might
does not make right – right makes might. Acting militarily, we have
created more terrorism than we have eliminated."

===============================================

A Neoconservative cabal (most of whom are Jewish Zionist racist extremists) have pushed the USA into an invasion/occupation (in Iraq and beyond if the cabal continues to get its way) which is not in America's interest:

http://www.amconmag.com/03_24_03/cover.html

http://www.robert-fisk.com/articles114.htm

Losing Feith (of a 'A Clean Break' fame):

http://antiwar.com/lobe/?articleid=2614

War for Israel?:

http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/middle-east-and-asia/2004/04/22/a-war-for-israel.php

More on PNAC:

http://www.sundayherald.com/27735

War Conceived in Israel:

http://www.thornwalker.com/ditch/snieg_conc1.htm

Israel is the Problem (see the 'A Clean Break' document which is embedded as a
link at the following URL):

http://www.antiwar.com/justin/j100603.html

http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20020902&s=vest

http://www.counterpunch.org/avnery04102003.html

http://www.nogw.com/warforisrael.html

http://www.nowarforisrael.com

http://www.fpp.co.uk/online/02/12/Counterpunch_1.html

http://www.vdare.com/misc/macdonald_neoconservatism.htm
Also see: A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm:
http://www.israeleconomy.org/strat1.htm
and
http://www.thefourreasons.org/dirtywork.htm

and dont forget to (re)read: http://www.thefourreasons.org/PNAC/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf

Cowboy · Posted: Sat May 22, 2004 12:04 am Post subject:

You like Hollings?? Then you should understand that Hollings, who voted for the Senate resolution approving military action in Iraq, is actually on record for achieving security for Israel and the overthrow of Saddam.

Excerpt from "First Things First" By U.S. Senator Ernest F. Hollings

Originally published in the Charleston Post and Courier, August 30, 2002

We have problems:

1. The Muslim extremists' attack on 9/11 starting the Terrorism War.
2. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
3. The Saudi Arabian and other Muslim support of terrorists.
4. At the same time, the need for Muslim support in the Terrorism War.
5. Iraq.

For the moment, the Iraq problem is easily solved. Our friend Israel, with its Mossad Intelligence, knows the Iraqi threat - nuclear, chemical, or biological. In 1981, they didn't wait for the nuclear plant to be completed in Baghdad. They knocked it out and today stand ready to knock out such a threat again. We can depend on Israel for this. But Israel must depend on America to get it out of its present fix. Prime Minister Sharon's approach to peace - bulldozing homes, sending in gun ships, and re-occupying Palestinian territories - is creating more terrorists than are being eliminated. We must put first things first. Secure Israel and deal later with Saddam.

...

Whining, "they hate us," we refuse to discuss or recognize the Palestinian cause. The cause must be confronted. "You can't kill an idea with a sword." The Terrorism War won't be won militarily. Our foreign policy must not be left to the extremes, Sharon and Arafat. Five years from now, ten years from now, fifty years from now there will be an Israel and there will be a Palestine. The only course is for the Israelis and the Palestinians to learn to live together. For this to occur, President Bush must personally meet with the Middle East leaders and work out a realistic step-by-step institution for the security of Israel and the State of Palestine. Only after that can America get the support we need around the globe for the Terrorism War and the overthrow of Saddam.

Alpha

Subj: JTA: Hollings Tells it like is about AIPAC's Power, but....
Date: 5/21/04 3:49:14 PM Pacific Daylight Time
From: jblankfort@earthlink.net
Sent from the Internet (Details)

...will those who claim to be supporting Palestinian rights, while
denying the lobby's power, pay him any attention? I'm not holding my
breath.

Jeff B
http://www.jta.org/page_view_story.asp?intarticleid=14116&intcategoryid=3

Hollings blasts AIPAC

BEHIND THE HEADLINES
Not so gentle rhetoric from the
gentleman from South Carolina
By Matthew E. Berger

WASHINGTON May 21 (JTA) — Never known as genteel or soft-spoken, Ernest “Fritz” Hollings is ending his 38 years in the Senate with a typical bang — one that a number of Jewish groups could do without.
In a speech Thursday on the Senate floor, the South Carolina Democrat blasted the pro-Israel lobby for the second time this month and suggested that presidents and lawmakers for years have followed policy prescribed by the American Israel Public Affairs Committee.

“You can’t have an Israel policy other than what AIPAC gives you around here,” Hollings said. “I have followed them mostly in the main, but I have also resisted signing certain letters from time to time, to give the poor president a chance.”

Hollings, who is retiring this year at age 82, took to the floor to defend a column he wrote in a newspaper in his home state earlier this month, suggesting that the Bush administration went to war in Iraq on Israel’s behalf.

The comments come as Democrats are fighting to retain 3-1 support among Jewish voters and campaign donors. President Bush’s vigorous prosecution of the war on terrorism and his strong support for Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon have made him unusually popular, for a Republican, with Jewish voters.

Several American Jewish organizations reacted strongly to Hollings’ column, suggesting he was scapegoating the Jewish community and providing ammunition for anti-Semitic attacks.

“I don’t apologize for this column,” Hollings said. “I want them to apologize to me for talking about anti-Semitism.”

And he reiterated his view that the Iraq war was fought for Israel.

“That is not a conspiracy. That is the policy,” he said. “Everybody knows it because we want to secure our friend, Israel.”

Hollings also said that his concern for Israel and the dangers he believes the war raised for the Jewish state — “I think, frankly, we have caused more terrorism than we have gotten rid of,” he said — made him speak out.

In his newspaper column, he cited Israeli experts as saying that pre-war Iraq posed little danger to the Jewish state.

Hollings has had a mixed record in his 38 years in the Senate, and some pro-Israel lobbyists say he has a poor voting record on Israel.

He also is known for putting his foot in his mouth, and in the past has apologized for remarks that offended blacks and Japanese.

But no one was prepared for his May 6 column in the Charleston Post and Courier, suggesting that a Jewish columnist and two Jewish advisers to President Bush beat the war drums, and that the war’s aim was to enhance Israel’s security.

Hollings named columnist Charles Krauthammer; Richard Perle, the former chair of the Pentagon’s Defense Policy Board; and Paul Wolfowitz, a deputy secretary of defense, as leaders of a “domino school of thought that the way to guarantee Israel’s security is to spread democracy in the area.”

In his Senate speech Thursday, Hollings said he did not single out the three because they are Jewish but because their writings help prove his point that Bush was misled by mistaken advice.

Hollings also suggested that Bush agreed to the war plan to secure Jewish votes for his re-election campaign.

“He came to office imbued with one thought — re-election,” Hollings wrote. “Bush felt tax cuts would hold his crowd together and spreading democracy in the Mideast to secure Israel would take the Jewish vote from the Democrats.”

Several American Jewish organizations rebuked Hollings for his column.

“Regardless of whether one feels that America’s war on Iraq was justified, the charge that it is being fought by the U.S. on behalf of Israel grossly misrepresents the legitimate U.S. interests that are involved in the debate,” Abraham Foxman, national director of the Anti-Defamation League, wrote in a letter to Hollings.

The Republican Jewish Coalition also called on Democratic leaders — including Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.), the party’s presumptive nominee for president — to repudiate Hollings’ statements.

In an effort to garner Jewish votes, Republicans have been working to contrast President Bush’s support for Israel with anti-Israel and anti-Semitic comments by some notable Democrats. They’re likely to add Hollings to the list.

Democrats have adopted a similar tactic, pressing Bush to repudiate a close ally, Saudi Crown Prince Abdullah, for suggesting recently that “Zionists” were behind terrorist attacks in Saudi Arabia.

The National Jewish Democratic Council did not speak out against Hollings until two weeks after the column appeared. NJDC had won praise a year earlier when it was the first Jewish group to criticize Rep. James Moran (D-Va.) for suggesting that the Jewish community had pressed for the Iraq war.

Ira Forman, NJDC’s executive director, said his group had not spoken out because publicizing Hollings’ original comment might have fueled anti-Jewish sentiment.

“It’s patently absurd what Hollings said,” Forman told JTA Thursday, before NJDC’s statement was released. “The idea that Bush is going to take us to war with Iraq to swing 10 percent of 2 percent of the population is silly and stupid.”

A day later, Forman’s deputy, David Harris, said the NJDC had no problem speaking out against other Democrats who targeted Jews or Israel.

“Both parties have their outliers,” Harris said. “The only difference is we are more than happy to criticize our outliers.”

Hollings spokeswoman Ilene Zeldin told JTA that the senator stood by his floor comments and had no additional comments.

In his speech Thursday, Hollings specifically attacked AIPAC, suggesting that the organization manipulates American politics.

“I can tell you no president takes office, I don’t care whether it is a Republican or a Democrat, that all of a sudden AIPAC will tell him exactly what the policy is, and senators and members of Congress ought to sign letters,” he said. “I read those carefully and I have joined in most of them. On some I have held back. I have my own idea and my own policy. I have stated it categorically.”

AIPAC spokesman Josh Block would not comment on Hollings’ statement, referring questions to other Jewish organizations, such as the Anti-Defamation League and the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations.

But some Democrats on Capitol Hill said Hollings was on the mark about AIPAC.

“Sen. Hollings eloquently stated what many members of Congress believe but are too afraid to say,” said one senior Democratic Hill staffer, who spoke on condition of anonymity. “Every letter or initiative pushed by AIPAC is not only not always in Israel’s best interest, but not in America’s best interest.”

The staffer said lawmakers fear they’ll lose re-election if they don’t support AIPAC. More likely, the staffer said, they’ll lose key fund-raising support or be deluged with calls and appearances from pro-Israel lobbyists and constituents.

“Sometimes it’s just easier to sign the letter,” the staffer said.

Hollings touched on a wide range of issues in the floor speech. He said his description of retired Sen. Howard Metzenbaum (D-Ohio) a decade ago as the “senator from B’nai B’rith” was misunderstood.

He also suggested that the United States is no longer an evenhanded broker between Israel and the Palestinians, catering instead to Sharon.

“We are throwing over the United States-Israel policy of some 35 years insofar as negotiating the settlements and the refugees,” he said. “We are saying, ‘Forget about all of that, let Sharon keep bulldozing them.’ ”

Hollings’ bluntness may come from the freedom that beckons with retirement.

At one point, when asked to yield for a vote, he responded, “time is running out on me.”

Cowboy · Posted: Sat May 22, 2004 2:05 am Post subject:

Rep. Joe Wilson, R-SC Statement on Senator Hollings' Remarks

WASHINGTON, D.C. -- Today, Rep. Joe Wilson, R-SC made the following statement in response to remarks made by Sen. Ernest Hollings, D-SC, on the Senate Floor yesterday. Sen. Hollings made the remarks before voting against passage of S. Amdt. 3389, a resolution saying that the United States and Israel were "engaged in a common struggle against terrorism," and condemned Palestinian suicide bombings. Sen. Hollings and Sen. Robert Byrd, D-WV, were the only two votes against passage of the resolution.

"Once again, Senator Hollings proves he is out of touch with South Carolina and the nation," said Rep. Wilson. "He compares Ariel Sharon, our ally and Israel's democratically elected leader, with Saddam Hussein, an evil and brutal dictator. This type of logic is out of step with the overwhelming majority of Americans," said Rep. Wilson.

"Hollings also called Ariel Sharon 'the Bull Conner of Israel,' and for those who remember, Bull Conner was the Police Commissioner of Birmingham, Alabama in 1963 who unleashed attack-dogs and fire hoses on the peaceful civil-rights protestors, the movement led by Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. It seems to me that the Senator is comparing Arafat to Dr. King, and comparing the evil suicide-bombings being carried out by Palestinian terrorists to the peaceful protests of the civil-rights movement. This is beyond ridiculous, it is cruel and malicious."

"And before voting against a bill only Sen. Byrd joined with him dissent, Hollings called the measure 'simplistic and one-sided'. On that point, he is correct. The moral clarity of the U.S. is simple; we are against terrorism. And this is a one-sided issue; Israel is our ally and the only democracy in the Middle East. We stand with Israel."

"Israel is up against terrorists who practice a culture of death, where parents raise their children to take joy in murdering innocent women and children by strapping explosives to their bodies to bomb supermarkets. In response, Hollings urges us to 'listen awhile, set this aside, and move on.' I ask the Senator, how many more children must die before Israelis gain the right to defend themselves?" said Rep. Wilson.

Rep. Wilson voted in favor of a similar resolution in support of Israel in the House of Representatives, H.R. 392, as did the rest of the South Carolina delegation. Rep. Wilson is a member of the House Israel Caucus, and the first of the current South Carolina delegation to join.

Alpha

Perhaps Hollings has finally woken up to the fact that the USA is going into the tank for its support of Israel...

The Zionist Cowboy fails to mention that Bin Laden warned US in 1998 that the USA would be attacked (on US soil) if the Zionist occupied US government continued to support Israel's brutal oppression of the Palestinians with the BILLIONS of US taxpayer dollars (see the link at the upper left of www.wrmea.com) when US states, Social Security and Medicare are going broke (see Bin Laden's warning via the following URL, but the 'protect Israel first' US press/media did not convey this warning to Americans to the extent that it should have):

http://www.investigate911.com/binladensez.htm

Even former Republican Congressman Paul Findley (an American patriot) mentions in the third edition of his 'They Dare to Speak Out' book that the vast US taxpayer financial support of Israel's brutal oppression of the Palestinian people contributed to the tragic 9/11 attack.

Cowboy · Posted: Sat May 22, 2004 2:57 am Post subject:

Rep. Joe Wilson, R-SC Statement on Senator Hollings' Remarks

WASHINGTON, D.C. -- Today, Rep. Joe Wilson, R-SC made the following statement in response to remarks made by Sen. Ernest Hollings, D-SC, on the Senate Floor yesterday. Sen. Hollings made the remarks before voting against passage of S. Amdt. 3389, a resolution saying that the United States and Israel were "engaged in a common struggle against terrorism," and condemned Palestinian suicide bombings. Sen. Hollings and Sen. Robert Byrd, D-WV, were the only two votes against passage of the resolution.

"Once again, Senator Hollings proves he is out of touch with South Carolina and the nation," said Rep. Wilson. "He compares Ariel Sharon, our ally and Israel's democratically elected leader, with Saddam Hussein, an evil and brutal dictator. This type of logic is out of step with the overwhelming majority of Americans," said Rep. Wilson.

"Hollings also called Ariel Sharon 'the Bull Conner of Israel,' and for those who remember, Bull Conner was the Police Commissioner of Birmingham, Alabama in 1963 who unleashed attack-dogs and fire hoses on the peaceful civil-rights protestors, the movement led by Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. It seems to me that the Senator is comparing Arafat to Dr. King, and comparing the evil suicide-bombings being carried out by Palestinian terrorists to the peaceful protests of the civil-rights movement. This is beyond ridiculous, it is cruel and malicious."

"And before voting against a bill only Sen. Byrd joined with him dissent, Hollings called the measure 'simplistic and one-sided'. On that point, he is correct. The moral clarity of the U.S. is simple; we are against terrorism. And this is a one-sided issue; Israel is our ally and the only democracy in the Middle East. We stand with Israel."

"Israel is up against terrorists who practice a culture of death, where parents raise their children to take joy in murdering innocent women and children by strapping explosives to their bodies to bomb supermarkets. In response, Hollings urges us to 'listen awhile, set this aside, and move on.' I ask the Senator, how many more children must die before Israelis gain the right to defend themselves?" said Rep. Wilson.

Rep. Wilson voted in favor of a similar resolution in support of Israel in the House of Representatives, H.R. 392, as did the rest of the South Carolina delegation. Rep. Wilson is a member of the House Israel Caucus, and the first of the current South Carolina delegation to join.

Alpha · Posted: Sat May 22, 2004 2:57 am Post subject: House Israel Caucus Says It All

House Israel Caucus says it all... So is Wilson another Congressional AIPAC hack (who should be serving in the Knesset) and/or he is simply another Zionist (Jew) with greater loyalty to the interests of Israel than the best interests of America?

Alpha

Subj: Raimondo: Senator Hollings Is Right
Date: 5/21/04 7:22:56 PM Pacific Daylight Time
From: hectorpv@comcast.net
To: hectorpv@comcast.net
Sent from the Internet (Details)

Friends,

Raimondo: Senator Hollings Is Right

Yes, Hollings was right when he said that the purpose of the US war on Iraq was to enhance Israel’s security. Of course, the Zionist lobby unleashed a torrent of abuse against Hollings for daring to make this utterance. As Raimondo aptly puts it: "By calling attention to the obvious, Senator Hollings stands condemned as an ‘anti-Semite.’"

Despite the lethal charge of "anti-Semitism," Hollings remains unrepentant. At 82, he is retiring from the Senate and perhaps feels he has nothing left to lose. I have also included a second piece with Hollings recent remarks. "I don’t apologize for this column," Hollings said. "I want them to apologize to me for talking about anti-Semitism."

"And he reiterated his view that the Iraq war was fought for Israel.

"’That is not a conspiracy. That is the policy,’ he said. ‘Everybody knows it because we want to secure our friend, Israel.’"

"Every" knowledgeable person may know it, but few dare to say it.

Raimondo notes the obvious "benefits accrued to Israel on account of the invasion and occupation of Iraq. The annexation of significant portions of the West Bank, and now the attack on Gaza, have both received what amounts to the imprimatur of an American President. While Israeli ‘advisors’ teach their American pupils the basics of running an occupation, the next target on Ariel Sharon's wish list, Syria, is hit with sanctions, and accusations that Damascus is aiding the Iraqi insurgency."

Raimondo points out that Israel seeks to gain oil from the occupation—the reopening of an old pipeline from Iraq to Haifa. But the oil is just secondary; the main goal has been geopolitical. "Syria is outflanked, and now under U.S. sanctions, while the rest of the Arab world is psychologically demoralized, politically destabilized, and militarily defeated. Bush and Sharon – or, from the Arab viewpoint, Sharon and Bush – are masters of all they survey. Arab democrats, secular nationalists, and moderates in the region are more isolated, and even more powerless, than ever: only Osama bin Laden's followers are overjoyed to see that their leader's warning of an invasion of ‘Crusaders and Zionists’ has proved prescient."

Professional Jewish luminaries such as Abe Foxman of the ADL find it abhorrent that anyone would think that Jews would try to advance what they consider to be their own ethnic interest. However, Raimondo points out that such action would be expected: "Special interest groups of all ethnic and religious persuasions do their best to decisively influence U.S. foreign policy: why should Jews (and their ‘born again’ Christian allies) be any different?"

As Raimondo notes, the lethal charge of "anti-Semitism," is intended "to close down all debate on a question the War Party would just as soon not see raised. But that question – why are we in Iraq? – is one that urgently requires explaining." The war certainly hasn’t brought more oil. And it certainly hasn’t improved America’s global power. But it certainly has aided the interests of Israel, as the Likudniks interpret those interests.

________________________________________________________

http://www.antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=2621

May 21, 2004

Senator Hollings Is Right

It's all about Israel

by Justin Raimondo

Isn't it funny how politicians have to wait until just before going into retirement to say what they really think about Israel and its influence over Washington policymakers?

Congressman Lee Hamilton (D-Illinois), formerly the senior Democrat on the House International Relations Committee, waited until after announcing his departure from Congress to attend a symposium on the Middle East where he noted that his congressional colleagues are "not even-handed" when it comes to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict "for political reasons." Rep. Hamilton went on to say:

"Israeli leaders understand our system very, very well [and] because they understand our system they can exploit it."

Rep. Sonny Callahan (R-Alabama) earned the ire of Tel Aviv's lobby by opposing "emergency aid" to Israel. In a speech on the House floor, a clearly angered Callahan lashed out at the Amen Corner:

"I am going to offer amendments as we go through the bill to strike all of the aid to Israel that was included here without any request from Israel, without any request from the administration, without any requests from anybody. But someone within this beltway decided since we were going to have a supplemental bill, they were going to get some pork in it for Israel."

Please note that Callahan did this only after announcing his retirement plans. Now Senator Ernest Hollings, whose legendary disdain for political correctness has gotten him in trouble before, has joined the ranks of the belatedly honest, and said what a few others – such as Michael Kinsley, Pat Buchanan, and myself – have said all along. In an op-ed piece first published in the Charleston Post and Courier, the senator, having just announced his retirement, took up the question of why are we in Iraq, and came up with this answer:

"Now everyone knows what was not the cause. Even President Bush acknowledges that Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with 9/11. Listing the 45 countries where al-Qaida was operating on September 11 (70 cells in the U.S.), the State Department did not list Iraq. Richard Clarke, in Against All Enemies, tells how the United States had not received any threat of terrorism for 10 years from Saddam at the time of our invasion. … Of course there were no weapons of mass destruction. Israel's intelligence, Mossad, knows what's going on in Iraq. They are the best. They have to know. Israel's survival depends on knowing. Israel long since would have taken us to the weapons of mass destruction if there were any or if they had been removed. With Iraq no threat, why invade a sovereign country? The answer: President Bush's policy to secure Israel."

Hollings goes on to identify "a domino school of thought that the way to guarantee Israel's security is to spread democracy in the area," naming deputy Defense Secretary and chickenhawk-in-chief Paul Wolfowitz, neoconservative hardliner and Francophile Richard Perle, and former psychiatrist and deranged warmonger Charles Krauthammer. He furthermore goes on to savage George W. Bush, whose sole thought since taking office, according to Hollings, has been reelection, with a radical tilt toward Israel by U.S. policymakers a key part of the game plan:

"Spreading democracy in the Mideast to secure Israel would take the Jewish vote from the Democrats. You don't come to town and announce your Israel policy is to invade Iraq. But George W. Bush, as stated by former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill and others, started laying the groundwork to invade Iraq days after inauguration. And, without any Iraq connection to 9/11, within weeks he had the Pentagon outlining a plan to invade Iraq. He was determined."

Hollings has been roundly denounced and his remarks attributed to "anti-Semitism" by Israel's amen corner in the U.S. But there is nothing secret about the open effort by the Republican party to capture the Jewish vote. The whole idea of politics, after all, is mobilizing various interest groups around a particular candidate and building a majority coalition. Pandering to ethnic blocs is a grand American political tradition: it comes with being a nation of immigrants, which is something we're all supposed to glory in. Every ethnic group of any numerical significance is pandered to, in some way, and politicians are always making ethnic-based appeals. The Republican party's outreach to the Hispanic community is pursued to the point where our President often bursts into long stretches of Spanish (perhaps because it makes him sound less inarticulate, at least to those who have no idea what he's saying). Why shouldn't he reach out to Jewish voters, too?

By calling attention to the obvious, Senator Hollings stands condemned as an "anti-Semite."

I'll tell you what else is obvious: the benefits accrued to Israel on account of the invasion and occupation of Iraq. The annexation of significant portions of the West Bank, and now the attack on Gaza, have both received what amounts to the imprimatur of an American President. While Israeli "advisors" teach their American pupils the basics of running an occupation, the next target on Ariel Sharon's wish list, Syria, is hit with sanctions, and accusations that Damascus is aiding the Iraqi insurgency.

Hollings is absolutely on the mark about the real reasons for this war, even if his speculation about a GOP effort to go after the Jewish vote misses the real point. What Bush is after isn't primarily the Jewish voter, but holding onto and expanding the much larger "born again" Christian fundamentalist bloc, a significant proportion of which is fanatically devoted to Israel – even over and above American interests – for wacky theological reasons. When Hollings called Prime Minister Sharon "the Bull Connor of Israel," it wasn't the Jewish vote Rep. Joe Wilson (R-SC) was after when he demanded that Hollings apologize. South Carolina is Pat Robertson country, where the dispensationalist Christian heresy has deep roots – and even deeper political implications when it comes to this administration's foreign policy.

"Certainly, discussing and questioning policy is the right and duty of all responsible leaders. But when the debate veers into anti-Jewish stereotyping, it is tantamount to scapegoating and an appeal to ethnic hatred," says Abraham H. Foxman, National Director of the Anti-Defamation League.

But why shouldn't America's satellites avidly seek to manipulate and even control the Imperial Hegemon? After all, we hold their fate in our hands. That's what being an Empire is all about. Without American military and economic support, Israel could not and would not exist: one false move on the part of Washington, and the Jewish state would flounder and fall on the rocks of demographic reality and rising Arab nationalism.

Special interest groups of all ethnic and religious persuasions do their best to decisively influence U.S. foreign policy: why should Jews (and their "born again" Christian allies) be any different?

"This is reminiscent," raves Foxman, "of age-old, anti-Semitic canards about a Jewish conspiracy to control and manipulate government." If one so much as looks cross-eyed at Ariel Sharon, Abe Foxman is reminded of Kristallnacht, but the point is that, if I were Foxman I wouldn't pull this "age-old canard" business too often. Instead of fighting anti-Semitism, Foxman's weird insistence on re-imagining half-forgotten anti-Jewish caricatures can only encourage it. But, then again, if anti-Semitism went out of business, so would Foxman's organization. It's funny how that works….

Jonah Goldberg, who is obviously engaged in some kind of contest with Foxman to see who can do the best Al Sharpton imitation, notes the names Wolfowitz, Perle, and Krauthammer, and whines:

"Funny how the only names are Jewish. What? Jeanne Kirkpatrick doesn't count? Jack Kemp? Bill Bennett? I wonder why."

Perhaps because Kirkpatrick is a figure from another era, and only played a supporting role in the propaganda campaign that lied us into war. Jack Kemp was never a major figure, and his views on Iraq seem decidedly ambivalent, at best. As for Blackjack Bill, his reputation would certainly not have encouraged Americans to take his advice and gamble on committing our troops to a risky occupation, and so, understandably, he didn't take center stage in the prewar debate.

Wolfowitz, on the other hand, is not only a high government official but also the intellectual author of this administration's policy of preemptive global hegemony. As Richard Clarke and Bob Woodward reveal, the Deputy Secretary of Defense was the earliest and most persistent advocate of war with Iraq: Wolfowitz wanted to take Baghdad before bothering with Kabul.

As for the legendary Richard Perle, the neocon "Prince of Darkness," his style – and the numerous scandals in which he's been embroiled, all of them very high profile and exceptionally smarmy – ensures his prominence. A spotlight seems to follow him about, like a shadow.

Is it really necessary to point out the reasons for Krauthammer's prominence? Surely his was one of the loudest and most militant voices raised in support of this war, and certainly his position on the op-ed page of the Washington Post automatically lends his words a certain weight. In concert with Bill Safire and David Brooks over at the New York Times, Krauthammer constitutes a crucially important link in the neocon Iron Triangle of the American punditocracy.

If all these names are Jewish, then so what? Just as many Jews, if not more, figure prominently in the antiwar camp. Goldberg, being a clever chap, realizes this, and so falls back on trying to switch the blame from the War Party to the Bushies:

"Fritz Hollings is defending himself saying that he can provide quotes from Jews in America and Israel to support his position. I'm sure he can to some extent. But so what? His charge isn't that Jews support democracy in the Middle East to secure Israel's security (and because they support democracy). His charge is that Bush went to war to placate those Jews. The quotes he needs to prove his point aren't from Jews in Tel Aviv, they're from White House officials in Washington."

If the idea is to prove Washington's willingness to go along with Ariel Sharon in spite of American interests, how about quotes from the President of the United States and U.S. government officials in response to Israel's outright annexation of parts of the West Bank, and the IDF's current rampage through Gaza? Having endorsed the Israeli Lebensraum (marketed to world opinion as a "withdrawal," albeit a partial one), our President couldn't bring himself to condemn an Israeli attack on a peaceful Palestinian demonstration that killed 10 children and wounded 50, aside from urging "restraint." Bush has consistently referred to Israel's "right of self-defense" to excuse each and every bloody incursion into Palestinian territory, no matter how brutal – and no matter how much it ratcheted up tensions between the American army of occupation and its sullen Iraqi charges.

As Israel rampages through the Holy Land with unholy determination to dominate and drive out any who stand in her way, and the promise of a pipeline from Iraq's oil fields in Mosul to Haifa comes closer to reality, the key question, qui bono? – who benefits? – demands an answer. Last year, former Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, now Finance Minister, told a group of British investors:

"It won't be long when you will see Iraqi oil flowing to Haifa. It is just a matter of time until the pipeline is reconstituted and Iraqi oil will flow to the Mediterranean."

Philip Giraldi, a former CIA officer, now a partner in Cannistraro Associates, writes in the current issue of The American Conservative that "There are rumors that the deservedly moribund pipeline project to send Iraqi oil to Haifa may again be on the table."

But the oil is just the gravy on the meatloaf, or perhaps the dessert that comes after the main course, which is Israel's improved geopolitical position as a result of the Iraq war. Syria is outflanked, and now under U.S. sanctions, while the rest of the Arab world is psychologically demoralized, politically destabilized, and militarily defeated. Bush and Sharon – or, from the Arab viewpoint, Sharon and Bush – are masters of all they survey. Arab democrats, secular nationalists, and moderates in the region are more isolated, and even more powerless, than ever: only Osama bin Laden's followers are overjoyed to see that their leader's warning of an invasion of "Crusaders and Zionists" has proved prescient.

What irks American patriots, not a few conservatives among them, is that Sharon and the Israelis have shown no restraint: they are utterly heedless of the effect of their policies on the ground in Iraq. We undertook a vast project of social and political engineering in Iraq largely on Israel's behalf, only to see that they don't feel the least bit obligated to spare us the consequences of their actions. Surely such ingratitude contributes to rising resentment against the catalytic role of Israel's supporters – both in and out of government – in dragging us into Iraq.

Senator Hollings is right: this war was, and still is, all about protecting Israel's security and plans for expansion – at our expense. Not surprisingly, the catcalls are coming from the same people who say any reference to "neoconservatives" – up until recently a word that had entered the American political lexicon (sometime in the 1970s) without a hint of ethnic overtones – is really a "code word" for Jews. What they hope to accomplish is to close down all debate on a question the War Party would just as soon not see raised. But that question – why are we in Iraq? – is one that urgently requires explaining. Jonah Goldberg may persist in applying rules of political correctness that he would never otherwise invoke, but I would urge critics of Israel to take some solace in the words of John Derbyshire, Goldberg's colleague at National Review, who invokes what he calls:

"Derbyshire's First Law": Anything – anything whatsoever – that a Gentile says about Jews or Israel will be taken as rabidly antisemitic by somebody, somewhere."

NOTES IN THE MARGIN

Speaking of neocons trying to shut down all debate: I see that Michael Rubin, a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, and formerly of the Office of Special Plans, is attributing rising resentment against the neocons for pushing us into this war to a grand conspiracy involving The Nation, Lyndon LaRouche, Louis Farrakhan, and – me. He writes:

"Louis Farrakhan subsequently adopted the theme. 'All of the agenda of the neo-conservatives was to bring President Bush in line with Israel and use the power of the American military to destroy the real and perceived enemies of Israel,' said Farrakhan on May 3, 2004. Pat Buchanan and Justin Raimondo have pursued the theme in the pages of The American Conservative."

So, let's see if I get this straight: Karen is a LaRouchie, I'm a follower of Farrakhan (hey, that's a sun-tan!), and so is Pat Buchanan. What's next? I can hardly wait for the revelation that Ernest Hollings is really a former prison guard at Treblinka, or, more likely, Martin Bormann himself.

What drugs were they doing in the Office of Special Plans, anyway? Put down the crack pipe, Rubin, and check yourself into a rehab program.

–Justin Raimondo

http://www.jta.org/page_view_story.asp?intarticleid=14116&intcategoryid=3

BEHIND THE HEADLINES

Not so gentle rhetoric from the

gentleman from South Carolina

By Matthew E. Berger

WASHINGTON May 21 (JTA) — Never known as genteel or soft-spoken, Ernest "Fritz" Hollings is ending his 38 years in the Senate with a typical bang — one that a number of Jewish groups could do without.

In a speech Thursday on the Senate floor, the South Carolina Democrat blasted the pro-Israel lobby for the second time this month and suggested that presidents and lawmakers for years have followed policy prescribed by the American Israel Public Affairs Committee.

"You can’t have an Israel policy other than what AIPAC gives you around here," Hollings said. "I have followed them mostly in the main, but I have also resisted signing certain letters from time to time, to give the poor president a chance."

Hollings, who is retiring this year at age 82, took to the floor to defend a column he wrote in a newspaper in his home state earlier this month, suggesting that the Bush administration went to war in Iraq on Israel’s behalf.

The comments come as Democrats are fighting to retain 3-1 support among Jewish voters and campaign donors. President Bush’s vigorous prosecution of the war on terrorism and his strong support for Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon have made him unusually popular, for a Republican, with Jewish voters.

Several American Jewish organizations reacted strongly to Hollings’ column, suggesting he was scapegoating the Jewish community and providing ammunition for anti-Semitic attacks.

"I don’t apologize for this column," Hollings said. "I want them to apologize to me for talking about anti-Semitism."

And he reiterated his view that the Iraq war was fought for Israel.

"That is not a conspiracy. That is the policy," he said. "Everybody knows it because we want to secure our friend, Israel."

Hollings also said that his concern for Israel and the dangers he believes the war raised for the Jewish state — "I think, frankly, we have caused more terrorism than we have gotten rid of," he said — made him speak out.

In his newspaper column, he cited Israeli experts as saying that pre-war Iraq posed little danger to the Jewish state.

Hollings has had a mixed record in his 38 years in the Senate, and some pro-Israel lobbyists say he has a poor voting record on Israel.

He also is known for putting his foot in his mouth, and in the past has apologized for remarks that offended blacks and Japanese.

But no one was prepared for his May 6 column in the Charleston Post and Courier, suggesting that a Jewish columnist and two Jewish advisers to President Bush beat the war drums, and that the war’s aim was to enhance Israel’s security.

Hollings named columnist Charles Krauthammer; Richard Perle, the former chair of the Pentagon’s Defense Policy Board; and Paul Wolfowitz, a deputy secretary of defense, as leaders of a "domino school of thought that the way to guarantee Israel’s security is to spread democracy in the area."

In his Senate speech Thursday, Hollings said he did not single out the three because they are Jewish but because their writings help prove his point that Bush was misled by mistaken advice.

Hollings also suggested that Bush agreed to the war plan to secure Jewish votes for his re-election campaign.

"He came to office imbued with one thought — re-election," Hollings wrote. "Bush felt tax cuts would hold his crowd together and spreading democracy in the Mideast to secure Israel would take the Jewish vote from the Democrats."

Several American Jewish organizations rebuked Hollings for his column.

"Regardless of whether one feels that America’s war on Iraq was justified, the charge that it is being fought by the U.S. on behalf of Israel grossly misrepresents the legitimate U.S. interests that are involved in the debate," Abraham Foxman, national director of the Anti-Defamation League, wrote in a letter to Hollings.

The Republican Jewish Coalition also called on Democratic leaders — including Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.), the party’s presumptive nominee for president — to repudiate Hollings’ statements.

In an effort to garner Jewish votes, Republicans have been working to contrast President Bush’s support for Israel with anti-Israel and anti-Semitic comments by some notable Democrats. They’re likely to add Hollings to the list.

Democrats have adopted a similar tactic, pressing Bush to repudiate a close ally, Saudi Crown Prince Abdullah, for suggesting recently that "Zionists" were behind terrorist attacks in Saudi Arabia.

The National Jewish Democratic Council did not speak out against Hollings until two weeks after the column appeared. NJDC had won praise a year earlier when it was the first Jewish group to criticize Rep. James Moran (D-Va.) for suggesting that the Jewish community had pressed for the Iraq war.

Ira Forman, NJDC’s executive director, said his group had not spoken out because publicizing Hollings’ original comment might have fueled anti-Jewish sentiment.

"It’s patently absurd what Hollings said," Forman told JTA Thursday, before NJDC’s statement was released. "The idea that Bush is going to take us to war with Iraq to swing 10 percent of 2 percent of the population is silly and stupid."

A day later, Forman’s deputy, David Harris, said the NJDC had no problem speaking out against other Democrats who targeted Jews or Israel.

"Both parties have their outliers," Harris said. "The only difference is we are more than happy to criticize our outliers."

Hollings spokeswoman Ilene Zeldin told JTA that the senator stood by his floor comments and had no additional comments.

In his speech Thursday, Hollings specifically attacked AIPAC, suggesting that the organization manipulates American politics.

"I can tell you no president takes office, I don’t care whether it is a Republican or a Democrat, that all of a sudden AIPAC will tell him exactly what the policy is, and senators and members of Congress ought to sign letters," he said. "I read those carefully and I have joined in most of them. On some I have held back. I have my own idea and my own policy. I have stated it categorically."

AIPAC spokesman Josh Block would not comment on Hollings’ statement, referring questions to other Jewish organizations, such as the Anti-Defamation League and the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations.

But some Democrats on Capitol Hill said Hollings was on the mark about AIPAC.

"Sen. Hollings eloquently stated what many members of Congress believe but are too afraid to say," said one senior Democratic Hill staffer, who spoke on condition of anonymity. "Every letter or initiative pushed by AIPAC is not only not always in Israel’s best interest, but not in America’s best interest."

The staffer said lawmakers fear they’ll lose re-election if they don’t support AIPAC. More likely, the staffer said, they’ll lose key fund-raising support or be deluged with calls and appearances from pro-Israel lobbyists and constituents.

"Sometimes it’s just easier to sign the letter," the staffer said.

Hollings touched on a wide range of issues in the floor speech. He said his description of retired Sen. Howard Metzenbaum (D-Ohio) a decade ago as the "senator from B’nai B’rith" was misunderstood.

He also suggested that the United States is no longer an evenhanded broker between Israel and the Palestinians, catering instead to Sharon.

"We are throwing over the United States-Israel policy of some 35 years insofar as negotiating the settlements and the refugees," he said. "We are saying, ‘Forget about all of that, let Sharon keep bulldozing them.’ "

Hollings’ bluntness may come from the freedom that beckons with retirement.

At one point, when asked to yield for a vote, he responded, "time is running out on me."

Cowboy · Posted: Sat May 22, 2004 3:01 am Post subject:

War Without End

The global war against terror, news about the illegal invasion of Iraq, the corporate puppet presidents, the war criminal Tony Blair, September 11th 2001, the USS Liberty and New World Order crimes against humanity.

J.Raimondo: Hollings is right: It's all about Israel