War Without End

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 2:06 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

http://www.ihr.org/leaflets/jewishlobby.html

http://www.leftcurve.org/LC27WebPages/IsraelLobby.html

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

http://www.nowarforisrael.com

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

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.

Alpha

Perhaps Hollings has finally woken up to the fact that the USA is going into the tank for its support of Israel... I saw Congressman Joe Wilson on C-SPAN ( www.c-span.org ) earlier tonight, and he looks like a Jew.. If he isn't, then he is an AIPAC (pro-Israel) lobby hack, and/or he is pandering to the evangelical (whacko) Christian (Israel first for 'rapture') voter base in his southern state of South Carolina.. Wilson being a member of the 'House Israel Caucus' says it all as the traitorous bastard should be serving in the Israeli Knesset instead...

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.

Alpha

http://www.counterpunch.org/terrall1025.html

CounterPunch

October 25, 2002

Lantos' Big Lie:
The Pro-War Congressman Calls for Replacing Saddam with a Pro-West
"Dictator"
by BEN TERRALL

California Congressman Tom Lantos has never been accused of understatement.
But he may have set a new personal record for bombast when, as quoted in the
September 30, 2002 edition of the Israeli newspaper Ha'aretz, he told
Minister of Knesset Colette Avital, "My dear Colette, you won't have any
problem with Saddam. We'll be rid of the bastard soon enough. And in his
place we'll install a pro-Western dictator, who will be good for us and for
you."

After U.S. activists publicized the story, Lantos called it a "total
fabrication". He added, "I am amused by the comments Ha'aretz attributes to
me, because they fly in the face of my lifetime of work. I am a firm
supporter of democracy."

Since I have been working with Lantos' anti-war/pro-civil liberties
challenger Maad Abu-Ghazalah, I e-mailed MK Colette Avital for
clarification. I received the following response:

" I can confirm that the story is accurate. In fact, I myself was
surprised and pained by Congressman Lantos' comments. Since he is a friend
of Israel and I have had a long friendship with him, I did not want to react
to his denial, or to further embarrass him. Sincerely, Colette Avital, M.K."

For readers of John MacArthur's excellent "Second Front: Censorship and
Propaganda in the Gulf War," this latest duplicity comes as no surprise.
MacArthur details how, as Chairman of the Human Rights Caucus in 1990,
Lantos helped organize hearings at which the infamous "baby incubator"
invention was peddled to the U.S. congress and public. Lantos introduced a
Kuwaiti woman who claimed to have witnessed Iraqi soldiers killing babies by
ripping them from incubators in a Kuwait hospital. He neglected to mention
that the young woman was the Kuwaiti Ambassador'S daughter and her testimony
had been manufactured by public relations firm Hill and Knowlton, under
contract to the Kuwaiti Royal Family. Hill and Knowlton thoughtfully
provided rent-free office space and financial support to Congressman Lantos'
Human Rights Foundation.

As point man among the Democrats for Bush II'S war plans, Lantos worked
equally hard in recent hearings to sell the younger Bush'S insane
"pre-emptive" war, seeming physically unable to stop making overheated
references to Nazi Germany and World War II on a daily basis. He outlined
his vision by saying, "I foresee the total crushing of extremist Islamists
and their allies," adding Bush's campaign should go on as long as it takes
"to destroy all terrorist groups" and to create "regime changes in countries
that harbor them."

This enthusiastic cheerleading for global carnage has generated a backlash
of support for Abu-Ghazalah, a Palestinian-American running in protest of
post-September 11 warmongering and crackdowns on civil liberties. As an
American Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee (ADC) activist, Abu-Ghazalah
also opposes Lantos' lock step support for IDF attacks on Palestinian
civilians (during the bloody siege of Jenin last April, Lantos said that the
U.S. should 3let Israel finish the job2). But Lantos has ignored
Abu-Ghazalah'S challenge to debate the merits of war on Iraq; when a
reporter asked him what he thought of Maad's characterization of him as a
"war hawk," Lantos huffed, "I won't dignify that with a response."

Given the advantages in name recognition and fund raising machinery accorded
an 11-term congressman, Lantos also won't dignify his constituents with many
home district appearances. His time not taken up with pro-war blustering in
Congress has largely been spent helping his daughter Katrina Swett's
campaign in New Hampshire's 2nd district. As reported in Roll Call, Lantos
registered his own re-election campaign as a political action committee in
New Hampshire, and since June has given more than $34,000 to New Hampshire
politicians, some of whom have then sung Swett'S praises. Democratic
colleagues in Congress who received money from Lantos have also contributed
thousands to the Swett campaign.

Like his commitment to installing a new dictator in Iraq, none of this shows
much evidence that Lantos is "a firm supporter of democracy." Indeed, he is
one of only two Northern California Representatives (with Ellen Tauscher) to
buck the overwhelmingly anti-war sentiment of the voting public. Activists
in the Bay Area's 12th District have held bi-weekly demonstrations outside
the armchair warrior'S San Mateo base, noisy, spirited affairs that have
included a sit-in where 9 people were arrested and a visit from an official
UN B.S. inspector, whose detector found alarmingly high levels of B.S.
emanating from the direction of Lantos' office. The most recent protest
involved a contest for potential Saddam replacements in which participants
got their pictures taken on a mattress with a Lantos lookalike (these and
other visual manifestations of Citizens for Regime Change in San Mateo / San
Francisco can be viewed at <www.insanereagan.com>).

As with the broader U.S. public, people in the 12th district are beginning
to catch on that regime change starts at home. But the day when we don't
have Tom Lantos to kick around anymore cannot come soon enough.

Ben Terrall can be reached at: bterrall@igc.org

Alpha · Posted: Mon May 24, 2004 6:48 am Post subject: Fritz Hollings and Philip Zeliko

Subj: Fritz Hollings
Date: 5/23/04 7:02:02 AM Pacific Daylight Time
From: TOOL

Senator Ernest Hollings utters the forbidden words
By Senator Ernest Hollings and Axis editorial note.
May 22, 2004, 17:47

Email this article
Printer friendly page

Editorial Note: While it is finally about time that someone in the U.S. Senate has the guts and brains to utter forbidden words - But we are afraid it's too little ... and much too late - for the people of Iraq, the people of the United States, Senator Hollings, - and perhaps for the people of the entire the world ... - Les Blough, Editor

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sen. Hollings Floor Statement Setting the Record Straight on his Mideast Newspaper Column

I thank my distinguished colleagues. I have, this afternoon, the opportunity to respond to being charged as anti-Semitic when I proclaimed the policy of President Bush in the Mideast as not for Iraq or really for democracy in the sense that he is worried about Saddam and democracy. If he were worried about democracy in the Mideast, as we wanted to spread it as a policy, we would have invaded Lebanon, which is half a democracy and has terrorism and terrorists who have been problems to the interests of Israel and the United States.

It is very interesting that on page 231, Richard Clarke, in his book "Against All Enemies," cites the fact that there had not been any terrorism, any evidence or intelligence of Saddam's terrorism against the United States from 1993 to 2003. He says that in the presence of Paul Wolfowitz. He says that in the presence of John McLaughlin of the CIA. In fact, he says: Isn't that right, John? And John says: That is exactly right.

The reason was when they made the attempt on President Bush, Senior, back in 1993, President Clinton ordered a missile strike on Saddam in downtown Baghdad, the intelligence headquarters, and it went right straight down the middle of the headquarters. It was after hours so not a big kill--but Saddam got the message: You monkey around with the United States, a missile will land on your head.

So, in essence, the equation had changed in the Saddam-Iraq/Mideast concerns whereby Saddam was more worried about any threat of the United States against him than the United States was worried about a threat by Saddam against us.

I want to read an article that appeared in the Post and Courier in Charleston on May 6; thereafter, I think in the State newspaper in Columbia a couple days later; and in the Greenville News--all three major newspapers in South Carolina. You will find that there is no anti-Semitic reference whatsoever in it.

The reason I emphasize that upfront is for the simple reason that you cannot put an op-ed in my hometown paper that is anti-Semitic. We have a very, very proud Jewish community in Charleston. In fact, it is where reform Judaism began. The earliest temple, Kadosh Beth Elohim, is on Hasell Street. I have spoken there several times. I had the pleasure of having that particular temple put on the National Register. This particular Senator, with over 50 years now of public service, has received a strong Jewish vote.

Let me emphasize another thing because the papers are piling on and bringing up again a little difference of opinion I had on the Senate floor with Senator Metzenbaum. It was not really a difference. We were discussing a matter, and we referred to each's religion in order to make sure there would not be any misunderstanding or tempers flaring. The distinguished Senator from North Carolina, Mr. Helms, referred to himself as the Baptist lay leader, Senator Danforth as the Episcopal priest. I referred to myself as the Lutheran Senator. And when Senator Metzenbaum came on the floor, I referred to him as the Senator from B'nai B'rith, and he took exception. He thought it was an aspersion. I told him: Wait a minute, I will gladly identify myself as the Senator from B'nai B'rith. I did not mean to hurt his feelings. I apologized at that time but not for the legitimacy and the circumstances of the particular reference.

Now here we go again, some years later. The Senator from Virginia, Mr. George Allen, and I are good friends. Maybe after this particular thing he might feel different, but I know his role as the chairman of the campaign committee. And so I have an article here where Senator Allen denounces Senator Hollings' latest political attack, Senator Hollings' antisemitic, political conspiracy statement.

Let me read my column here from the May 6 Post and Courier, and you be the judge:

With 760 dead in Iraq, over 3,000 maimed for life--home folks continue to argue why we are in Iraq--and how to get out. 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, the State Department did not list Iraq. They listed 45 countries and at that particular date on September 11, 2001, they did not even 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. On page 231, John McLaughlin of the CIA verifies this to Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz. In 1993, President Clinton responded to Saddam's attempt on the life of President George H.W. Bush by putting a missile down on Saddam's intelligence headquarters in Baghdad. Not a big kill, but Saddam got the message--monkey around with the United States and a missile lands on his head. 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 .....

Let me divert for a second there. I was here when Israel attacked the nuclear facility in Baghdad during the 1980s. In all candor, when President Bush, on October 7, 2002, said, after all that buildup by Cheney, Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld and everybody else, that facing clear evidence of peril, we cannot wait until the smoking gun is a mushroom cloud, I thought we were attacking for Israel. I thought that they knew about some kind of nuclear development there. And rather than getting them in further trouble with the United Nations and the Arab world, that its best friend, the United States, would knock it out for them. That is why I voted for it. I got misled. Our attack on Iraq, the invasion of Iraq is a bad mistake. I will get into that later. But let me read even further:

..... With Iraq no threat, why invade a sovereign country? The answer: President Bush's policy to secure Israel. Led by Wolfowitz, Richard Perle and Charles Krauthammer, for years there had been a domino school of thought that the way to guarantee Israel's security is to spread democracy in the area. Wolfowitz wrote: "The United States may not be able to lead countries through the door of democracy, but where that door is locked shut by a totalitarian deadbolt, American power may be the only way to open it up."

Namely, invasion. That is Wolfowitz talking. And on another occasion: Iraq as "the first Arab democracy ..... would cast a very large shadow, starting with Syria and Iran but across the whole Arab world." Three weeks before the invasion, President Bush stated: "A new regime in Iraq would serve as a dramatic and inspiring example for freedom for other nations in the region."

I referred to those three gentlemen because I know them well. They are brilliant. I have been for years associated one way or the other with each of them. I read Charles Krauthammer. I wish I could write like he can. With respect to Richard Perle, he was sort of our authority in the cold war, best friend of Scoop Jackson. That is how I met him 38 years ago almost. I followed him and I followed his advice, and that is in large measure how we prevailed in the cold war. So I have the highest respect for Richard Perle.

And, of course, the other gentleman, Paul Wolfowitz, Paul Wolfowitz, I met him in Indonesia when he was Ambassador. He came back. We were good friends. He was looking around for a position, and I know I offered him one--in fact, we might go to the records and find temporarily he might have been on my payroll for a few weeks. But I have always had the highest regard for Paul Wolfowitz.

That is why I referred to him. I had their sayings and everything else. But let me go, diverting for a minute, right to the Project For The New American Century. I have a letter that was written on May 29, 1998, to Newt Gingrich, the Speaker, Trent Lott, the Senate majority leader. These are the gentlemen who said this: We would use U.S. and allied military power to provide protection for liberating areas in northern and southern Iraq, and we should establish and maintain a strong U.S. military presence in the region and be prepared to use that force to protect our vital interests in the Gulf and, if necessary, to help remove Saddam from power.

And that is signed by--and I want everybody to remember these names--Elliot Abrams, William J. Bennett, Jeffrey Bergner, John R. Bolton, Paula Dobriansky, Francis Fukuyama, Robert Kagan, Zalmay Khalilzad, William Kristol, Richard Perle, Peter Rodman, Donald Rumsfeld, William Schneider, Jr., Vin Weber, Paul Wolfowitz, James Woolsey, Robert B. Zoellick. There is a studied school of thought of the best way to secure Israel. We have been going for years back and forth with every particular administration, you can see where we are now.

But in any event, the better way to do it is go right in and establish our predominance in Iraq and then, as they say, and I have different articles here I could refer to, next is Iran and then Syria. And it is the domino theory, and they genuinely believe it. I differ. I think, frankly, we have caused more terrorism than we have gotten rid of. That is my Israel policy. You can't have an Israel policy other than what AIPAC gives you around here. 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.

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. 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.

The way to really get peace is not militarily. You cannot kill an idea militarily. I was delighted the other day when General Myers appeared before our Appropriations Subcommittee on Defense and he said that we will not win militarily in Iraq. He didn't say we are going to get defeated militarily but that you can't win militarily in Iraq.

The papers are the ones that pointed out Wolfowitz, Pearle, and Charles Krauthammer were of the Jewish faith. They are the ones who brought all this Semitism in there. I can tell you that right now, I didn't have that in mind. I had my friends in mind and I followed them. We had this in the late 1990s under President Clinton, when we passed a resolution that we ought to have Saddam removed from power, have a regime change. I was wondering how it went. I had to find my old file on this -- Project For The New American Century.

Now, going back to my article, I wrote: "every President since 1947 has made a futile attempt to help Israel negotiate peace. But no leadership has surfaced amongst the Palestinians that can make a binding agreement. President Bush realized his chances at negotiation were no better. He came to office imbued with one thought – reelection."

I say that advisedly. I have been up here with eight Presidents. We have had support of all eight Presidents. Yes, I supported the President on this Iraq resolution, but I was misled. There weren't any weapons, or any terrorism, or al-Qaida. This is the reason we went to war. He had one thought in mind, and that was reelection. I say that about President Bush. He is a delightful fella, a wonderful campaigner, but he loves campaigning. You cannot get him in the White House or catch him there, hardly. He doesn't work on these problems at all.

I have worked with all of the Presidents. I know the leadership goes to the White House and tries to work with him. He is interested in one thing, and that is to be out campaigning. So he had one thought in mind, and that was reelection.

Again, let me read: "Bush thought tax cuts would hold his crowd together and that spreading democracy in the Mideast to secure Israel would take the Jewish vote from the Democrats."

Is there anything wrong with referring to the Jewish vote? Good gosh, every one of us of the 100, with pollsters and all, refer to the Jewish vote. That is not anti-Semitic. It is appreciating them. We campaigned for it.

I just read about President Bush's appearance before the AIPAC. He confirmed his support of the Jewish vote, referring to adopting Ariel Sharon's policy, and the dickens with the 1967 borders, the heck with negotiating the return of refugees, the heck with the settlements he had objected to originally. They had those borders, Resolution No. 242--no, no, President Bush said: I am going along with Sharon, and he was going to get that and he got the wonderful reception he got with the Jewish vote. There is nothing like politicizing or a conspiracy, as my friend from Virginia, Senator Allen, says--that it is an anti-Semitic, political, conspiracy statement.

That is not a conspiracy. That is the policy. I didn't like to keep it a secret, maybe; but I can tell you now, I will challenge any one of the other 99 Senators to tell us why we are in Iraq, other than what this policy is here. It is an adopted policy, a domino theory of The Project For The New American Century.

Everybody knows it because we want to secure our friend, Israel. If we can get in there and take it in 7 days, as Paul Wolfowitz says, then we would get rid of Saddam, and when we got rid of Saddam, now all they can do is fall back and say: Aren't you getting rid of Saddam?

Let me get to that point. What happens is, they say he is a monster. We continued to give him aid after he gassed his own people and everything else of that kind. George Herbert Walker Bush said in his book All The Best in 1999, never commit American GIs into an unwinnable urban guerrilla war and lose the support of the Arab world, lose their friendship and support. That is a general rephrasing of it.

The point is, my authority is the President's daddy. I want everybody to know that. I don't apologize for this column. I want them to apologize to me for talking about anti-Semitism. They are not getting by with it. I will come down here every day--I have nothing else to do--and we will talk about it and find out what the policy is.

Let me go back to this particular column: But George Bush, as stated by former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill and others, started laying the groundwork to invade Iraq days before the Inauguration.

There is no question, he got a briefing. That was the first thing he wanted out of former Secretary of Defense Bill Cohen. Then the nominee, about to take the oath of office as President of the United States, wanted to be briefed on Iraq. They had this policy in mind coming to town. Mr. President, 9/11 had nothing to do with it, and we all know it now. We have to understand it because that is the only way really to help Israel and get us out of the soup. Everybody is worrying about Iraq. We better worry about Israel because we certainly have put her in terrible jeopardy with this particular initiative.

Without any Iraq connection to 9/11, within weeks President Bush had the Pentagon outlining a plan to invade Iraq. He was determined. President Bush thought taking Iraq would be easy. Wolfowitz said it would take only 7 days. Vice President Cheney believed that we would be greeted as liberators, but Cheney's man, Chalabi, made a mess of de-Baathification of Iraq by dismissing Republican Guard leadership and Sunni leaders who soon joined with the insurgents.

Worst of all, we tried to secure Iraq with too few troops. In 1966 in South Vietnam, with a population of 16 million, General William C. Westmoreland, with 535,000 U.S. troops, was still asking for more troops. In Iraq, with a population of 25 million, General John Abizaid, with only 135,000 troops, can barely secure the troops, much less the country. If the troops are there to fight, there are too few. If they are there to die, there are too many. To secure Iraq we need more troops, at least 100,000 more. The only way to get the United Nations back in Iraq is to make the country secure. Once back, the French, Germans, and others will join with the U.N. to take over.

With President Bush's domino policy in the Mideast gone awry, he can't keep shouting "Terrorism war." Terrorism is a method, not a war. We don't call the Crimean war, with the charge of the light brigade, the cavalry war, or World War II the blitzkrieg war. There is terrorism in Northern Ireland, there is terrorism in India, and in Pakistan. In the Mideast, terrorism is a separate problem, to be defeated by diplomacy and negotiation, not militarily.

Here, might does not make right. Right makes might. Acting militarily we have created more terrorism than we have eliminated.

The title of this article is "Bush's failed Mideast policy is creating more terrorism," and, I could add, jeopardizing the security of Israel.

They say: He talks like a big fan of Israel. I am. I have a 38-year track record. I will never forget some 34 years ago meeting with David Ben-Gurion. He talked about little Israel, less than 3 million at that time in a sea of 100 million.

Let's say Israel has 5 million people there now, but there are 150 million Muslims surrounding it. If you punch the particular buzzer I did with Yitzhak Rabin one day down on the Negev to scramble the air force, I think it was 21 seconds they were up in the air, and in a minute's time, they were outside over Jordan.

Militarily, Israel is a veritable aircraft carrier. You can hardly fly and you are out of the country, and everybody has to understand that. You cannot play the numbers game Sharon plays. He thinks he can do it militarily.

I want to remind you, it was in that 6-day war--the book is "Six Days of War" by Michael Oren. Look on page 151, and Major Ariel Sharon says: Look, we are going to decimate the Egyptian army and you will not hear from Egypt again for several generations. And Levi Eshkol, the Prime Minister, on page 152 says: "Militarily victory decides nothing. The Arabs will still be here."

That is my theme. I have watched it over the years. You have to learn not to kill together, but to live together. The finest piece I ever read was right in this morning's paper. There is still hope. I refer to an article: "Israeli Arabs Exalting in a Rare Triumph." There are a million Israeli Arabs. They won a soccer match in Tel Aviv. The majority of the team was of Israeli heritage, and they held an Israeli flag, if you can imagine that in the political United States of America. They are living together. Every Prime Minister since David Ben-Gurion has realized that fact: that they have to learn to live together. They all moved, and they almost had it under Ehud Barak and President Clinton. Arafat proved he did not want peace. He did not accept it. That was our one chance.

Unfortunately, rather than working on that one chance and continuing, Ariel Sharon went in their face at Temple Mount, the intifada started, and he has been killing 10 to 1. He plays the numbers game, almost like we had in Vietnam. He thinks he can eliminate by moving the ball some, getting some more settlements, bulldozing a house, but he is creating terrorism.

I had a headline the other day. When I saw it, I showed it to my staff. I said: You all come in here, I want to ask you something. "Israel plans to destroy more Gaza dwellings." You see that headline? I asked staff members: Suppose they bulldoze your daddy's home. Wouldn't you want to cut their throat? They said: In a New York minute.

How do you create terrorists? Where is the front line in the so-called war on terrorism? I learned the answer recently on a trip I was on with the distinguished chairman of the Appropriations Committee and the chairman of the Armed Services Committee. We talked for over an hour with the King of Jordan. He finally cautioned at the very end, when we stood up, he said: You have to settle this Israel-Palestine question. That is the only way to get on top of this. We went over to Kuwait to the Prime Minister when he got through, he said: You have to settle the Israel-Palestine situation. I will quote Mr. Musharraf, the President of Pakistan. When we got there, he cautioned if you can settle the Israel-Palestine question, terrorism will disappear around the world.

Then we came in on a Friday evening to make a little courtesy call with the French. The distinguished Senator from Virginia with Lafayette--and I have slept in Lafayette's bed over there in Richmond, VA, and I helped with that particular thing because I believe and remember the French help. I will never forget--everybody is going to the 60th anniversary of D-Day, but I was at the 50th anniversary and we went over to Ste-Mere-Eglise, where a major, who was a Citadel graduate, had broken through the line and saved us from having to leave the beachhead and go back to England. They made a movie of it. A shell burst killed him. They laid him down on their side. He is buried on the side of the chapel.

We went to the services. We had talks there. This little old lady came. She was about 80 years old, walking with a cane. I was listening to the mayor, and she pulled my jacket and she said: Thank you, Yank. If you had not come we would be goose-stepping. I turned to her and I said, thank you, madam, because if you had not come, we would still be a colony.

The majority of the troops on the field at Yorktown with the surrender of Cornwallis were French troops. We had French troops that helped us get this so-called freedom. All this anti-French stuff, do not give me french fries and everything else, is crazy.

I was proud to appear with the Senator from Virginia. But Chirac, he said, look, we have to have western solidarity. We have to work together now and we have to watch this competition from China in the Far East, and we in the western world have to stick together. He said he wanted to help in Iraq, but he needed a U.N. resolution to cover. He said what we have to do is do something about Israel and Palestine. I said, what would you do? He said, I would put in a peacekeeping force. I said, would French troops come? He said, French troops would come immediately. We would be part of it and we would separate them from killing each other every day.

My position is, and I believe in this particular policy as strongly as I know how, might does not make right, but right makes might. We have lost our evenhanded posture and reputation in the Mideast. We are in worse off shape with Israel, our principal interest in the gulf. Sharon has not helped us at all. We see him going back and forth. They say, oh, no, it is negotiation. But we are throwing over the United States-Israel policy of some 35 years insofar as negotiating the settlements and the refugees. We are saying forget about all of that, let Sharon keep bulldozing them. Now in the morning paper on the front page one sees the killing of children, they are saying, we are defending Israel. That is the U.S. policy. That is not just Israel's policy.

They are coming in there with U.S. equipment, U.S. gun helicopters, U.S. tanks that are bulldozing. That is our policy. That is the reason for 9/11, whend Osama said, I do not like American troops in Saudi Arabia, get the infidel out. That is why they went right into that thing. Where do you think we get all this talk about hate America? I do not buy that stuff. I have traveled the world. They love Americans.

Recently we met with the Ambassadors of Germany and France, and Britain in our policy committee and they said the young people are disillusioned. They always look to the United States for the moral position and taking and defending that particular position. They do not look there anymore.

We are losing the terrorism war because we thought we could do it militarily under the domino policy of President Bush, going into Iraq. That is my point. That is not anti-Semite or whatever they say in here about people's faith and ethnicity. I never referred to any faith. I should have added those other names from the Project For The New American Century, but I picked out the names I had quotes for. And for space, I left other things out.

Mr. President, on May 12 of this year, I had printed in the RECORD the article in its entirety.

This particular op-ed piece appeared in the Post and Courier. Never would they have thought, having read it, if it was anti-Semitic, that they would have ever put it in there. Nor would the Knight Ridder newspapers in Columbia, SC. Nor would the Metro Media newspapers in Greenville, SC. But the Anti-Defamation League picked it up and now they have given it to my good friend, Senator Allen of Virginia. I have his particular admonition how I am anti-Semitic and I cannot let that stay there.

My staff knew I was coming over and waiting my turn in order to talk under the Pastore rule. I know I am as vitally interested as anybody can be about this issue. Our distinguished colleague from Washington, Senator Cantwell, knows this subject backward and forward.

The reason I had not known or gotten all fired up is I have been doing some other work and South Carolina has already looked to me for everything at that Savannah River plant. I am on the Energy Appropriations Subcommittee and we have gotten all the money--do not worry about money. This is a policy of nuclear waste disposal, high-level waste, being reclassified under an end-around-end deal of trying to make it low-level waste and, as Senator Cantwell says, pouring in some sand and concrete on top of it. The scientists say, watch out, the remains in these tanks are 50 percent as deadly and dangerous as the entire tank container.

Back to Saddam, everybody is glad we have gotten rid of Saddam, but we can see what has happened. There is an old saying we learned in World War II that no matter how well the gun is aimed, if the recoil is going to kill the gun crew, you do not fire.

Did this White House and administration ever think of the recoil? It severely injured the gun crew. Yes, ordinarily to get rid of Saddam, like they put a missile on the intelligence head, they could have put a missile on him any time they wanted, but they did not want to do that. They wanted the domino policy to ensue.

No, no, getting rid of Saddam was not worth almost 800 dead GIs and over 3,500 maimed for life. Some say every time we want to criticize the policy, we are weakening the GIs. I am strengthening the GIs. I said let's get enough in there so they can secure themselves. We have 135,000 now. A third of those are guarding the other third, and that means leaving a third, 35,000 or 40,000 troops, running out like a fire drill to any particular trouble and coming back in and eating. I have been there. You can see it in Rafah. They are building a big old thing like in Kosovo, where we hunker down and act like we are in charge of Kosovo. The Albanians are in charge of Kosovo.

You can't force-feed democracy. It has to come from within. We helped liberate Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia, 60-some years ago, and Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia have not opted for democracy, nor has Libya, nor has Egypt, nor has Lebanon, nor has Syria, nor has Iraq, nor has Iran, nor has Afghanistan, nor has Pakistan, nor has Jordan, nor has Yemen, nor has Aden, nor has Saudi Arabia, nor has the United Arab Emirates.

Come on. So we have to go out and not speak sense with respect to policy, and when you want to talk about policy, they say it is anti-Semitic. Well, come on the floor, let's debate it. Because my friend from Virginia admonishes me. Referring to me he says, "I suggest he should learn from history before making accusations." I didn't make any accusations. I stated facts. That is their policy. That is not my policy.

Mind you me, when we went into Iraq, the only people in the world who favored that policy were the people of the United States and the people of Israel. The people of Jordan, Iraq, Britain, Spain, Poland, Italy, Japan, everywhere around the world said you just don't invade a sovereign country no matter how bad the rascal is. We have Kim Jong of North Korea--he has weapons of mass destruction, but we don't do anything there.

Don't give me this about how we saved this and we did this or did that. We have to sort of learn that the front line now is not the Pentagon but the State Department. We have to work through diplomacy. We live in a global economy and a global world. That is only going to come about economically, politically, diplomatically, and by negotiations.

The United States, until this invasion and this domino policy for Israel--don't tell me it is otherwise, about spreading democracy. They know what they are talking about. They are insisting on it. It is not a Jewish policy or a Semite policy. It is their domino policy. That is exactly what it is. But they know how to make you tuck tail and run. Not the Senator from South Carolina. We don't run, we don't win, we are not right, we are wrong a lot of times, but I have thought this out as thoroughly as I know how, and it worries me that here we are.

I said after we got into that thing in Vietnam with the Gulf of Tonkin--I came there at that particular time, in 1966, went to Vietnam when we were under fire three times--actually over into Cambodia before and that kind of thing. We finally came up with McNamara writing a book saying he was wrong.

I'll never forget, McNamara comes out to Allie Richenberg near Saint Albans to get his tennis lesson at 7 o'clock, and Bob Mcnamara turned to Allie and said, "Allie, what do you think about my book?" He said, "It's as bad as your backhand. You should not have written it."

But we had to wait 20 years for that one, and we killed 58,000 Americans. Now we have killed almost 800, maimed for life thousands of others. Are we going to just continue on?

What would the Senator from South Carolina do if I were king for a day? Yes, I would put the troops in to get security, and I would step up the election. I can tell you right now, I have run for all kind of offices, 20-some statewide offices and campaigns. But don't put me in on that temporary coalition. That fellow, El Baradei, who is running around the United Nations to get a temporary coalition or government to turn power over to on June 30--don't put me in that. I immediately have to repudiate the United States, that I am not a stooge for the United States. We just have our fingers crossed that we can hold law and order so we can have an election. But don't wait until 2005, or December; by September 30, let's get that election going.

Let's realize we are in real trouble. Saudi Arabia is in trouble. Israel is in trouble. The United States is in trouble. I am going to state what I believe to be the fact. In fact, I believe it very strongly. They just are whistling by on account of the pressures that we get politically. Nobody is willing to stand up and say what is going on.

It was a mistake like Vietnam. We got misled with the Gulf of Tonkin, we got misled here, and we are in that quagmire. "Municipal guerrilla war and a quagmire," that says George Herbert Walker Bush. I will end on my authority--President George Herbert Walker Bush said: Never commit U.S. troops into an unwinnable urban guerrilla war and turn off the Arab world. Look in that book of his and you will see exactly what I am talking about. He is not anti-Semitic. He is sensible. He didn't go in.

Yes, Colin Powell, General Powell said if you are going in, let's have enough troops. They tried to do it on the cheap. They were ill advised. My friend Paul Wolfowitz said you will do it in 7 days. Come on. And they let the Republican Guard back into the city of Baghdad and into the Sunni triangle, and the next thing you know, when Chalabi, who has now been demoted or set aside--he did away with their leadership and everything, so they got turned off and they buddied up with the insurgents, and now we have hell on our hands. Everybody knows that.

So it has been ill prepared, ill advised, and ill administered. The entire thing is a mess. Don't give me "support the troops, support the troops." I have been with troops, about 3 years in combat, so don't tell me about troops. I have always supported the troops.

You ask how many Senators have gotten a Woodward Award from the U.S. Army. They don't give that out lightly. I have been with every Secretary of Defense until this one, and I think he is brilliant, but I think he has made a mistake going along with this domino policy. We have it now out on the table, and we will all talk about it, and we will be around and ready to debate it.

I appreciate the colleagues yielding to me. I wish I had all the time to put all these articles in. I want to thank--and I am going to sit here and support my friend from Washington. She has done a magnificent job stating what the issue is.

It is simply under the auspices of an accelerated disposal plan going around end to reclassify--and it is around end. I had not heard anything about it. I have been handling everything at Savannah River for 30 some years. I called up the South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control--DHEC--and they were adamantly opposed and gave me the brief they signed a few weeks ago adamantly opposing it, with the assistant attorney general's name on it. They say this is DHEC policy. I talked to two members of DHEC and they said it was never brought up at their meetings. They do not know anything about it.

So, yes, it is a little rider for one special State that is injurious not only to the State itself--I say that advisedly--but also to the United States.

http://hollings.senate.gov/~hollings/statements/2004521A35.html

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Subj: Hollings and Philip Zelikow
Date: 5/20/04 3:25:09 AM Pacific Daylight Time
From: TOOL

Posted on Wed, May. 19, 2004

Hollings defends his statements on Israel

Column alleging Bush invaded Iraq to please Jews draws accusations of anti-Semitism

By LAUREN MARKOE

Washington Bureau

WASHINGTON — In the face of charges of anti-Semitism, U.S. Sen. Fritz Hollings on Tuesday defended a newspaper column he wrote alleging President Bush went to war in Iraq to defend Israel and please American Jews.

Hollings declined a request for an interview Tuesday, but he released a letter defending his comments and calling “ridiculous” any criticism of them as anti-Semitic.

One S.C. Jewish leader was “horrified” by Hollings’ writings. The nation’s most prominent Jewish civil rights organization called on Hollings to renounce his charges.

“The whole foreign policy of the United States is based on Israel? What kind of ridiculous statement is that?” said Rabbi Philip Silverstein of Columbia’s Beth Shalom synagogue. “It makes him anti-Israel. It’s anti-Semitic ... it’s dangerous.”

Throughout his 38-year Senate career, Hollings, a Charleston Democrat, has apologized for remarks that have been decried as callous toward Jews, blacks, Japanese and other groups.

In the column, published this month in The State and two other S.C. newspapers, Hollings wrote that Israeli officials had known there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.

“With Iraq no threat, why invade a sovereign country? The answer: President Bush’s policy to secure Israel.”

He also wrote that Bush “came to office with one thought — re-election. 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 also named three people as particularly responsible for Bush’s zeal to invade Iraq — Richard Perle, the former chairman of a board that advises Pentagon leaders; assistant Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz; and syndicated columnist Charles Krauthammer. All are Jewish.

Abraham Foxman, president of The Anti-Defamation League, urged Hollings to renounce his latest comments.

“This is reminiscent of age-old, anti-Semitic canards about a Jewish conspiracy to control and manipulate government,” Foxman wrote in a letter to Hollings.

Foxman said he knows some will dismiss Hollings’ choice of words as simply Hollings being Hollings.

“To them we say one doesn’t take bigotry in stride,” Foxman said. “He is one out of 100 (senators). These are 100 of the most prominent people in the country. To hear such crudeness, such ugliness, such classical anti-Semitism. It’s sad.”

In place of a statement, Hollings’ staff made available a letter to a constituent — whom they would not identify — who had written to Hollings to take issue with his column.

“It is my experienced opinion from supporting Israel here in the Senate for almost 38 years, that diplomacy and negotiation is the route we should take, not the military,” Hollings wrote. “I could cite numerous quotes to support my mentioning Perle, Wolfowitz and Krauthammer and otherwise give quotes of distinguished leaders of the State of Israel that support my position.”

Hollings wrote that calling his opinion “anti-Jewish stereotyping or scapegoating is ridiculous.”

U.S. Rep. Jim DeMint, R-Greenville, wrote a letter, that was published in The State, after he read Hollings’ piece. DeMint called the column “bizarre and, at worst, chilling.”

DeMint is seeking the GOP nomination for the Senate seat from which Hollings will retire next year.

DeMint said Tuesday he has refrained from criticizing Hollings but felt he had to respond because Hollings had so mischaracterized the president’s decision to go to war.

“I don’t know how anyone sitting in all those briefings for all those years could possibly bring it down to the motive for going into Iraq having anything to do with a focus on our friendship with Israel,” DeMint said. “It’s something Congress voted heavily in favor of doing.”

Hollings voted in 2002 to give Bush permission to attack Iraq but later said he was misled and that the war is a mistake comparable to American action in Vietnam.

Reach Markoe at (202) 383-6023 or lmarkoe@krwashington.com

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"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, the executive director of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States (the 9/11 Commission), has recently publicly admitted that the war on Iraq was NOT due to any threat to the United States, but was conducted specifically on behalf of Israel. Of course this revelation was largely ignored by the mainstream US media though in that both Americans and Iraqis are continuing to die everyday and many Americans are asking 'why?', one would think this should have made considerably more news than it did. After all, here is the answer to the 'why?'...

Articles about Philip Zelikow's admission that the war on Iraq was for Israel's benefit:

Asia Times Online "Iraq was invaded 'to protect Israel' - US official" By Emad Mekay
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Front_Page/FC31Aa01.html
Or directly from the Inter Press News Agency:
http://www.ipsnews.net/interna.asp?idnews=23083
http://www.ipsnews.net/interna.asp?idnews=23078
Excerpts: Iraq under Saddam Hussein did not pose a threat to the United States, but it did to Israel, which is one reason why Washington invaded the Arab country, according to a speech made by a member of a top-level White House intelligence group. ... Zelikow's casting of the attack on Iraq as one launched to protect Israel appears at odds with the public position of US President George W Bush and his administration, which has never overtly drawn the link between its war on the regime of Saddam and its concern for Israel's security. ... "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 September 10, 2002, speaking on a panel of foreign policy experts assessing the impact of September 11 and the future of the war on al-Qaeda. "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. ... 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. ... To date, the possibility of the US 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 that 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." ...

spencerl · Posted: Fri Aug 20, 2004 5:54 pm Post subject: Palestine and Israel

Quote:

(what is the background on General Tommy Franks as I have heard that he is of Russian Jew descent as he certainly looks like one -

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~`~~~~~~~~~~~~

Well thank you Alpha, From viewing several of your posts it certainly appeared that you are a bigoted, prejudice, stereotyping "neo-nazi", now you have confirmed it! Good for you! Zeig Heil Alpha! (I'm certain that Hitler is keeping a place open for you and your "Jack-Booted" Friends, in Hell!).

So, how many of you "ugly anti-Semites" are on this Board? Mad

Abdul Haq · Posted: Fri Aug 20, 2004 5:55 pm Post subject:

its disproportionate to nazi pharisee Laughing

spencerl · Posted: Fri Aug 20, 2004 6:04 pm Post subject: Israel and Palestine

My apologies for not following the correct formating. I am new to this Board ( and perhaps will be newly "Departed", if it appears that this is simply a Forum for anti-Semitics"). I'll work on learning the system. As I am certain "Alpha" has made clear, we Jews are also quite intelligent and pick up on things intellectual, quickly. Along with our being "money grubbing, hooked-nosed, banking controlling, slimy, second rate humans, or sub-humans, "Hitler was on the right track, just didn't murder enough of us, damn him", and...and....and......, but we are quick study's. Twisted

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.

A War for Israel? - page 3