| Author | Message | | Alpha | | Posted: Thu Oct 28, 2004 9:42 am Post subject: Bush or Kerry: Any Real Difference in Foreign Policy? |
| http://www.ihr.org/news/041026_weber.shtml
October 26, 2004
Bush or Kerry: Any Real Difference in Foreign Policy?
by Mark Weber
Oct. 26, 2004
President George W. Bush's fervent support for Israel and its hardline premier is well known. He reaffirmed it, for example, in June 2002 in a major speech on the Middle East. In the view of "leading Israeli commentators," the London Times reported, the address was "so pro-Israel that it might have been written by Ariel Sharon."
Indeed, concern for Israel's security was an important factor in Bush's decision to invade Iraq. This is so widely understood by Washington insiders that US Senator Ernest Hollings was moved in May to declare that Iraq was invaded "to secure Israel," and that "everybody" knows it. Referring to the cowardly reluctance of his Congressional colleagues to openly acknowledge this reality, Hollings said that "nobody is willing to stand up and say what is going on." Due to "the pressures we get politically," he added, members of Congress uncritically support Israel and its policies.
In August 2002, some months before the invasion of Iraq, General Wesley Clark, the former NATO Supreme Allied Commander, said in an interview: "Those who favor this attack now will tell you candidly, and privately, that it is probably true that Saddam Hussein is no threat to the United States. But they are afraid at some point he might decide if he had a nuclear weapon to use it against Israel."
In an address to pro-Israel activists at this year's convention of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), Bush said: "The United States is strongly committed, and I am strongly committed, to the security of Israel as a vibrant Jewish state." He also told the gathering: "By defending the freedom and prosperity and security of Israel, you're also serving the cause of America."
Condoleeza Rice, Bush's National Security Advisor, echoed the president's outlook in a May 2003 interview, saying that the "security of Israel is the key to the security of the world."
In light of all this, it's no wonder that millions of people — across the United States and around the world — look with hope to Bush's challenger in this year's presidential election campaign.
But is John Kerry really an alternative? Although he is more polished and articulate than Bush, Kerry's record of emphatic commitment to Jewish and Zionist interests offers little reason to believe that, as president, he would chart a fundamentally different policy in the strife-torn Middle East.
In an advertisement issued by their campaign and published in the Jewish community weekly Forward (Sept. 17), Kerry and his vice-presidential running mate, John Edwards, proclaim that "Israel's cause must be America's cause." They also renew their "commitment to a safe and secure Jewish state of Israel," and pledge to "strengthen our special relationship with Israel." In another ad by their campaign (Forward, Sept. 24), Kerry and Edwards proclaim that they "have always stood firmly with Israel," and that "they stand with American Jews on every issue."
Kerry has named Mel Levine, an ardent Zionist, as his top advisor on Middle East affairs. Levine, a former US Congressman, has been a board member of AIPAC, the powerful pro-Israel lobby organization.
During the presidential campaign debate on Sept. 30, which focused on US foreign policy, neither Bush nor Kerry made a single reference to the Israel-Palestine conflict. To be sure, each did mention Israel, but only to reaffirm his commitment to the Zionist state.
"A free Iraq," said Bush, "will be an ally in the war on terror, and that's essential. A free Iraq will set a powerful example in the part of the world that is desperate for freedom. A free Iraq will help secure Israel. A free Iraq will enforce the hopes and aspirations of the reformers in places like Iran. A free Iraq is essential for the security of this country."
Kerry was no less fervent in his _expression of concern for Israel: "Soldiers know over there [in Iraq] that this isn't being done right yet. I'm going to get it right for those soldiers, because it's important to Israel, it's important to America, it's important to the world, it's important to the fight on terror."
Two decades ago, Admiral Thomas Moorer, one-time Chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, spoke with blunt exasperation about the Zionist hold on Washington: "I've never seen a President — I don't care who he is — stand up to them [the Israelis]. It just boggles the mind. They always get what they want... If the American people understood what a grip those people have got on our government, they would rise up in arms. Our citizens certainly don't have any idea what goes on."
Most Americans are still clueless.
Bush and Kerry, like most US politicians, are so beholden to Jewish-Zionist power, and so committed to Israel and its interests, that regardless of who wins the presidential election on November 2, there will be no real change in US foreign policy, and certainly not in the Middle East.
See also: A Look at the 'Powerful Jewish Lobby' | |  | | Alpha | | Posted: Sat Oct 30, 2004 9:43 am Post subject: Terribly Convenient Timing: Osama bin Laden, He's Back |
| From: "Couples Company"
Subject: Terribly Convenient Timing: Osama bin Laden, He's Back
Date: Fri, 29 Oct 2004 21:03:10 -0700
Was today insane or what? You know I'll fine tune this over the next several days as new information becomes available:)
Since this is breaking news, any new info I should include or facts now disproven, let me know. Enjoy
http://www.couplescompany.com/Features/Politics/2004/BinLaden.htm
COMMENTARY
Terribly Convenient Timing: Osama bin Laden
He's Back
By Laura Dawn Lewis
On October 29, 2004 Osama bin Laden, via a professionally shot video tape finally stated he ordered 9/11 and further clarified that his assault on the US will not stop until US foreign policy in the Middle East changes. He is quite clear; his beef with the US is what we are doing, not what we are. This position, objecting to US foreign policy remains consistent with interviews he did in 1996 and 1998 with US Media, where he stated the same objections.
This well-timed tape along with its effectiveness at vilifying anyone looking for diplomatic solutions just made the only just and humane resolution impossible insuring this "war" goes on indefinitely
US Policy is defined as: Israel/Palestine, ending the US support of apartheid and ethnic cleansing the United States funds, supports and diplomatically protects from International law; invading countries that did not attack us on false pretense and an end to shielding the governments of Saudi Arabia and other regimes hurting their people. Nearly 70% of the world's people agree that US foreign policy is the problem and cite this as why they are angry with Americans. Some polls have shown this as high as 90%. Americans by comparison remain largely oblivious. Of course bin Laden stated nothing about hating our "Freedom" or that we are "Infidels" which is also consistent with previous interviews. In fact he mocked the Bush Administration's attempt to paint his objectives in such simplistic terms worthy of the kindergarten corner.
Excerpts from the Tape:
"We decided to destroy towers in America," bin Laden said, referring to the World Trade Center.
"God knows that it had not occurred to our mind to attack the towers, but after our patience ran out and we saw the injustice and inflexibility of the American-Israeli alliance toward our people in Palestine and Lebanon, this came to my mind," he said.
In his statement, Bin Laden accused President Bush of "misleading" the American people since the 2001 attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.
"Your security is not in the hands of (Democratic candidate John) Kerry or Bush or Al Qaeda. Your security is in your own hands," bin Laden said.
"To the U.S. people, my talk is to you about the best way to avoid another disaster," he said.
"I tell you: security is an important element of human life and free people do not give up their security."
"If Bush says we hate freedom, let him tell us why we didn't attack Sweden, for example. It is known that those who hate freedom do not have dignified souls, like those of the 19 blessed ones," he said, referring to the 19 hijackers.
"We fought you because we are free .. and want to regain freedom for our nation. As you undermine our security we undermine yours."
"Despite entering the fourth year after Sept. 11, Bush is still deceiving you and hiding the truth from you and therefore the reasons are still there to repeat what happened (with new attacks)," Bin Laden added.
Bin Laden also said that Bush's reaction toward the Sept. 11 attacks was slow which gave the hijackers the time they needed to carry out the attacks.
Al-Jazeera 10/29/2004
View the 18 Minute Broadcast
Unlike the discredited Bin Laden tape of December 2001, there is no reason to suspect this latest tape is not genuine, (though rumors our flying that it is not) Bin Laden's statements are consistent with previous statements on PBS, (The discredited version of 2001 was not) and the person on the tape appears to be him; the quality is good and clear.
We'll concede this is the real thing. The next logical question is, why wait three years and nearly two months to claim responsibility September 11, 2001, four days before the election? That has been one of the main sources of doubt and contention with journalists like myself digging, questioning and increasingly becoming alarmed at the inaccuracies and propaganda whipping Americans into a all-out blood lust fear inspired, blindly patriotic frenzy. This tape furthers this emotional smorgasbord, making it awfully convenient on several levels.
John Kerry made a big deal about the fact that we invaded Afghanistan to "Hunt down Bin Laden" then took our eye off the ball so we could invade what we really wanted, Iraq. Cheney made it clear within 5 hours of the planes hitting on 9/11, Afghanistan was a convenience, scribbling a note insisting they find some way to tie Saddam to 9/11. (The Movie Hijacking Catastrophe goes into this in depth). In fact this administration used bin Laden as long as they needed to and then substituted Saddam changing everyone's focus.
This is the first tape in almost three years. Nothing, no appearances, messages, taunts...nothing for three years and now last week we have an obvious American accented "terrorist" promising worse than 9/11. Today Bin Laden suddenly pops up?
Most disturbing, bin Laden articulates what the peace movement and anti-war movements have said, "It's our foreign policy stupid", which is the problem and why terrorism targeted at US interests exists. There is no way around that. US Foreign Policy is the root cause of terrorism. Bush couldn't have asked for a better tool.
Bush and Kerry adamantly declared they will not "Be intimidated or influenced" by anything bin Laden says, suggests or intimates thus positioning anyone stating the problem is our foreign policy as "terrorist sympathizers" rather than rational human beings who object to breaking international law and discarding the constitution via acts considered war crimes when committed by any one other than the US or Israel. It kills the diplomatic solution and supports the force solution, the Bush Doctrine.
Bin Laden's objections to our foreign policy are legitimate. What we are doing by proxy in Palestine is wrong. Not my opinion, that is according to the Hague Resolutions, Geneva Conventions, Rome Statues, The United Nations, our own constitution and International law. For those using the God excuse, it's also against the teachings of the Gospels, which for Christians IS the final word of God and take precedence over all books of the Old Testament. That is another can of twisted worms that Bush's agenda distorted well.
What we are doing in Iraq is wrong. Again, not my opinion. That statement originates with the Hague Resolutions, the Geneva Conventions, Rome Statues, our own constitution and International law. Terrorism's defeat only occurs upon the removal its causes: Oppression, greed, apartheid, ethnic cleansing, occupation, colonization, conquest and invasion, not the branches or seeds illustrated by the people. Our policies cause terrorism both in Palestine and Iraq, and yes the two are intimately connected. Anything other than addressing the realities on the ground of these two policy nightmares feeds terrorism, creates more of these reasons and more baby bin Ladens. Simply put, unless you get the root, the weeds always grow back. We're dead heading by attacking the results of these policies, the terrorists. We're not pulling weeds out by the roots since we continue to fertilize the situations causing terror to grow in the first place.
Unfortunately, this tape provides fuel for Bush's objectives. Our "I'm never wrong and my actions are God inspired" President Bush and "me too" Kerry backed by warmongers and profiteers can now use any attempt addressing the causes of terrorism as being 'influenced by the terrorists'. This well-timed tape along with its effectiveness at vilifying anyone looking for diplomatic solutions eradicates humane resolutions, opting for the barbaric while effectively segregating those promoting diplomacy thus insuring this "war" goes on indefinitely. Concurrently it creates enough fear to insure the money keeps rolling in and the remaining portions of the PNAC plan, now known as the Bush Doctrine can continue to clear the Middle East of any person not 100% behind Israel or the US.
Fox News led the charge beginning at 5PM. O'Reilly set the pace, claiming Emen is siding with the terrorists and an anti-American sympathizer because he opposes the war? And people believe that. It only took one minute for O'Reilly to spin a 360. Not quite a record, but almost. A rap singer is a terrorist sympathizer because he opposes our invading countries that have not attacked us, killing over 100,000 civilians and basically raping their country? Has reason completely left the American mindset? By minute three Mr. O'Reilly insisted we are in World War III...against terrorism, forgetting that terrorism embodies a dynamic, non descript emotional adjective that sometimes serves as a verb or a noun but cannot be defined. Of course he's never explained how an army can fight an ever-changing idea that is a reaction and a tactic. Meanwhile 75% of the women in this country are terrified, just where the President wants them.
A Plea or a Warning?
The language of this statement caught my eye:
"Your security is not in the hands of Kerry or Bush or Al Qaeda. Your security is in your own hands," bin Laden said.
"To the U.S. people, my talk is to you about the best way to avoid another disaster," he said.
The tape is different in that it is appealing to the American people, What the tape says to me, reading between the lines is:
"Here's your chance America. We don't hate you. We hate what you're doing so we're giving you one last opportunity to change your ways. If you choose to continue killing us, our children, our culture and our faith, you leave us no choice but to fight back. Stop interfering with our ability to live and we'll stop interfering with you. If you don't, you have only yourselves to blame."
I see this as the moral equivalency of a clear conscience from bin Laden's point of view. A way of giving us one last chance to reverse this course. In his mind I'm believe he's saying,
"See I told the American people what they need to do in order to avoid being attacked. I'm not asking them to do anything illegal. I'm just asking them to stop doing what is illegal and return to the principles and values they pretend they espouse. And look, they don't care. They want to kill us. Therefore since they won't stop killing us and messing with our lives, they are not innocent any longer. Not their women. Not their children, none of them. Not innocent in God's eyes and not innocent in mine. They allowed this to happen therefore all are responsible."
Ominous, but I believe realistic.
bottom line
PRIMARILY: My questions show suspicion toward the timing. This administration, and as Kerry is a Senator I consider him part of it, finesses the American people and rarely tells the relevant truth. Cross reference Europe in the 1920's and 1930's and you see the same tactics, logic and agendas at work in the United States today.
Secondly: They've used 9/11 to strip us of our most personal rights and control the American people, basically taking our freedom and convincing us that the loss of freedoms is freedom. They've told us persons against pre-emptive strikes and our consistent violations of international law are unpatriotic, because we want to stop engaging in the policies that create terrorism.
Third: I find it strange that it took three years for bin Laden to claim responsibility for 9/11. Today is the first time; up until this point there was no concrete evidence. Now he's made it clear. Why now? I find it suspicious that he disappeared from consideration until Kerry pounded home the fact we used him to go to war and then changed our direction. He disappeared from the media, now he's back?
Extremely disturbing to me is the convenience of positioning the only sane resolution to ending this war, the addressing and reexamination of our foreign policy, as "intimidation" or caving to terrorists rather than diplomacy. This serves the agenda of those promoting this war by effectively silencing those of us seeking peaceful and humane resolutions inline with our constitution and international law.
Finally the most ominous, I suspect this tape is a gesture, a warning and a last opportunity for peace, which the bullheaded nature of our government now will never approach on the convenience of "being influenced by terrorists". You see with this, even those in the Arab world who may have sympathized with bin Laden's agenda but not his tactics, no longer need to feel guilty. Should another attack come they can say, "He gave the American people the chance to change this and they refused. Anything from this point forward is their own fault. They are all guilty"
The cost of war coming home with the majority of our reservists deployed eight thousand miles away, that is a very frightening thought. But of late nothing surprises me. We can create a win/win here and eliminate terrorism. But to so that we must step out of the fear and actually begin to think. <END>
Copyright © Couples Company, Inc. 1999-2004
All Rights Reserved
http://www.couplescompany.com/Features/Politics/2004/BinLaden.htm | | | | Alpha | | | | Alpha | | | | Alpha | | | | Alpha | | Posted: Tue Jul 19, 2005 6:07 pm Post subject: ROVEGATE - the Israeli Spying Connection |
| Wednesday 13th July 2005 (21h49) :
ROVEGATE - the Israeli Spying Connection
July 13, 2005 -- ROVEGATE -- Republican National Committee (RNC) Chairman Ken Mehlman has a good reason to come to Karl Rove’s defense. Mehlman’s July 12 RNC talking points memo on Rove and the leak of classified CIA information was not only an attempt to clear Rove but himself as well. When the CIA leak occurred in 2003, Mehlman was the White House political director and he reported directly to Rove, then counselor to the President. Mehlman and Rove were both mentioned in the infamous 2002 Power Point compact disc "found" (containing political disinformation to help Jeb Bush’s re-election in 2002) in Lafayette Park across from the White House. Mehlman would not comment on whether he was called before the grand jury, a sure indication that he was, along with a number of other White House aides. While not a core member, Mehlman was one of the adjunct neo-cons who helped steer the United States into war in Iraq. Rove apparently phoned Mehlman from the White House and helped dictate the RNC talking points, which may, itself constitute interference in an ongoing criminal investigation and misuse of White House resources for partisan political activity.
There is another major sub-story to Rovegate that is being missed by the main stream media: the forgery of the Niger government documents on Iraqi-Nigerien contacts. Those documents first surfaced in Italy and have been tied to a veteran cell of Iran-contra players, one of whom has a very close relationship with Karl Rove -- an individual who has always maintained close contacts with the Italian neo-fascist elements, the same players who forged the Niger documents and who are now under criminal investigation in Italy for running a parallel intelligence network in Italy and the Middle East and North Africa, including Libya, Tunisia, Egypt, Niger, and Chad.
The word is that special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald has more than the Plame leak on his hands -- that his investigation now encompasses the criminal investigation of the Niger document forgeries and AIPACgate.
Meanwhile, another veteran of the Iran-contra scandal has surfaced in the Bush administration. He is Robert L. Earl who confessed to the FBI of stealing classified national security documents and then destroying them in the infamous White House midnight "shredding party" and PROFS email erasing fest overseen by Oliver North. Earl hammered out an immunity deal with independent special counsel Lawrence Walsh in return for his testimony against other criminal conspiracists. Iran-contra led directly into the office of Vice President George H. W. Bush and resulted in the convictions of North, National Security Adviser and former G. W. Bush Internet spying czar John Poindexter, and current National Security Council official Elliot Abrams.
Does Robert "Shredder" Earl’s sudden appearance at the Pentagon mean another midnight shredding party is coming? (Wink, wink, nudge, nudge, Mr. Fitzgerald)
Amid a major FBI investigation of criminal conspiracies involving lying about the reasons for going to war in Iraq, forged documents, Israeli espionage, and CIA leaks, perhaps Earl’s expertise in document disposal and shredding is the reason why he is now the chief of staff for Deputy Defense Secretary Gordon England, who replaced chief Iraq war architect Paul Wolfowitz.
http://www.waynemadsenreport.com/
by : wayne madsen
Wednesday 13th July 2005 | | | | Alpha | | | | Alpha | | Posted: Sat Apr 22, 2006 8:31 am Post subject: Rice Accused Of Leaking Sensitive Defense Info To Israel Lob |
| Check out the 'Comments' section of the the following blog entry:
Rice Accused Of Leaking Sensitive Defense Info To Israel Lobbyist...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2006/04/22/rice-accused-of-leaking-s_n_19580.html
Here is a tiny URL of the above one:
http://tinyurl.com/n8cl2
Take a look at the following as well:
Middle East analyst Kenneth Pollack is one of two US government officials referenced in the indictment against two former staffers of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), JTA has learned. The other unnamed government official - identified by sources as David Satterfield, a former deputy assistant secretary of state:
http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/wake-up-america-your-government-is-hijacked-by-zionism/2005/08/31/prominent-mideast-analyst-associated-with-aipac-espionage.php
Here is tiny URL for the above one:
http://tinyurl.com/pdo5v
Here is another one:
Let the AIPAC Trial Begin:
Why Prosecuting Rosen and Weissman Matters
http://irmep.org/rosweiss.htm
Today Judge T.S. Ellis III offered a rare second opportunity
to the Rosen and Weissman defense team to make their
case that the indictment of the two former AIPAC lobbyists
was "trampling on their 1st Amendment rights". In a similar
March 30, 2006 hearing[i], the defense concentrated on
painting the 1917 Espionage Act as fundamentally flawed
and unconstitutional. The indictment charges Rosen and
Weissman with violating sections of the Act by having
"unlawful possession" of "information relating to the national
defense." Written in 1917, and never updated, the Espionage
Act does not use the term "classified" when referring to national
defense information. The law's antiquity offers the defendants
abundant openings for attack.
The mainstream press has come to the aid of Rosen and
Weissman by promulgating the "slippery slope" argument
that the charges leveled against two foreign lobbyists run amok
could soon be turned against investigative reporters.
"The case has drawn attention from First Amendment lawyers
because the judge, the prosecutors and the defense attorneys
have all noted that the two lobbyists, in receiving and
disseminating
classified information, are doing what journalists, academics and
experts at think tanks do every day." (Walter Pincus, Lobbyists'
Prosecutors Pointing to Spy Case, Washington Post)
This, of couse, is pure nonsense. Prosecutorial discretion means
that the press won't be a DOJ target any time soon. But cracking down
on think tanks and lobbies trafficking classified information is
another
matter...
Full essay in HTML at http://irmep.org/rosweiss.htm | | | | | ©2002-2009 WarWithoutEnd.co.uk |
