| Author | Message | | Alpha | | Posted: Sun Feb 17, 2008 12:55 am Post subject: |
| Email exchange with Donald Jones who is a retired consultant to the CIA, Janes and others:
From: "Donald Jones"
Subject: RE: Bush Won't Let Facts Stand in the Way of Regime Change in Iran
Date: Sat, 16 Feb 2008 19:18:44 -0500
Bunker busters are fine if you hit the bunker. If you don’t they are irrelevant. They just make big holes and fill up with water. Nobody knows where the nuclear facilities are because nobody knows how the tunnels run deep under ground. What the CIA/NRO is seeing is what the Iranians want them to see. If the USAF attacks it will do so all by itself. If the Iranians attack the US army and the USAF does not respond adequately the army is going to be beyond pissed off. I think 300 top generals and Powell are meeting at the Army-Navy Country Club in Arlington and talking things over. I suspect Bush has worn out his welcome with the generals thanks to Wolfowitz and Perle. I think an Iranian attack in Iraq right now would wipe out the 160,000 soldiers we have there and the USAF wouldn’t do a thing to stop it. The Iranians have supersonic anti-ship missiles and could sink our carrier and cruiser forces in minutes.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sent: Saturday, February 16, 2008 6:56 PM
To: Donald Jones
Subject: RE: Bush Won't Let Facts Stand in the Way of Regime Change in Iran
Donald Jones wrote:
Colin Powell said we are not going to war with anyone. He is speaking for the generals. If Bush pushes it, he could get a military coup. He is pushing for a military catastrophe that the military won’t tolerate. He likes to blame the generals for disasters that he gets them into. They don’t like that. The generals detest Bush’s LZNP pals like Wolfowitz and Perle.
Don,
I have heard similar from a very valued contact/friend in D.C. in that Gates and Fallon will more than likely resign if the attack on Iran order were to be given. Keep in mind though that even Colin Powell has conveyed (for Washington Post editor Karen DeYoung's bio book about him) that the 'JINSA crowd' was/is in control of the Pentagon (via JINSA/PNAC/AEI associated Dick Cheney of course - see http://tinyurl.com/2b6p5k ) and the Air Force would more than likely carry out any order to strike Iran when it comes down from Cheney via Bush.
I was at 'meet and greet' with Senator Gravel in Los Angeles recently as he also mentioned that the Air Force (see http://tinyurl.com/2a6md6 ) is eager to carry out the mission (especially after the B-2s are finished having their bomb brackets modified in Palmdale to enable them to carry the new 30,000 pound bunker busters which are obviously intended for the Iranian nuclear facilities as they could easily be launched from Diego Garcia where their facilities are already being upgraded - see the following URL):
B-2s being fitted for Bunker Buster Bomb - delivery to Iran :
http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/wake-up-america-your-government-is-hijacked-by-zionism/2007/07/26/war-with-iran-real-risk-according-to-former-cia-operative-page-7.php
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sent: Saturday, February 16, 2008 4:48 AM
Subject: Bush Won't Let Facts Stand in the Way of Regime Change in Iran
Bush Won't Let Facts Stand in the Way of Regime Change in Iran
http://tinyurl.com/yqqkoq
Donald Jones wrote:
If the USAF hits Iran, Iran will hit the US army in Iraq with 50,000 commandos plus 60,000 Iraqi Shiites. The army knows that and does not like it. The army is not going to invade Iran. The USAF can’t locate the nuclear targets. Iran has some very deadly weapons thanks to Russia. It can deploy 6,000,000 troops. The US couldn’t deploy more than 250,000 and that would take six months to do it. So, no wars with Iran. The next war may be between Powell, the generals, and the LZNP goons led by Bush.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sent: Saturday, February 16, 2008 6:25 PM
Subject: RE: Bush Won't Let Facts Stand in the Way of Regime Change in Iran
Secret U.S. Air Force team planning Iranian strike (for Israel), led by Jews:
http://www.wakeupfromyourslumber.com/node/3717
Exactly right, Don... Look at what General (Ret) Jim David has to say via the following URL (he is a very valued friend who is mentioned on the cover of Paul Findley's 'They Dare to Speak Out' book which is shown in the margin of http://tinyurl.com/26jf4d ):
http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/wake-up-america-your-government-is-hijacked-by-zionism/2008/02/14/war-with-iran-real-risk-according-to-former-cia-operative-page-61.php
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Donald Jones
Sent: Saturday, February 16, 2008 4:30 PM
Subject: RE: Bush Won't Let Facts Stand in the Way of Regime Change in Iran
Iran is not a terrorist nation to the Muslims. It is a terrorist nation to Israel and Bush. Terrorists to Israel are freedom fighters for Arabs. There are two points of view here. People need to keep their terminology straight. The term terrorist was coined by the Israelis to demonize the Palestinians. The Israelis were the ones who introduced terror into the Middle East, not the Palestinians.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bush Won't Let Facts Stand in the Way of Regime Change in Iran
By James Harris
View this story online at: http://www.alternet.org/story/76699/ | |  | | Alpha | | Posted: Sun Feb 17, 2008 9:28 pm Post subject: |
| http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/954463.html
Jewish functionaries stirring the Clinton-Obama race
By Akiva Eldar
Tensions in the race between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama for the Democratic presidential nomination are mirrored in the American Jewish community. As the gap between the front-runners narrowed in the primaries, the clash between the two Jewish camps has become more heated.
Official Israel is making an effort to maintain a respectable neutrality. Has-beens are being called into the ring, like a former ambassador to Washington, Dan Ayalon, who jabbed Obama in a sensitive spot - the volume of his support for Israel. Advertisement
Ayalon is not alone. Jewish advisers and non-Jewish supporters are almost obsessively occupied with searching for skeletons in the black candidate's past.
The Republican Party's neoconservative clique is trawling archives for "anti-Israeli" essays by advisers who had been seen in Obama's staff. Robert Malley, who was President Bill Clinton's special assistant during the Camp David talks, joined Obama. The neoconservatives reached Malley's father, a Jew of Egyptian descent, who, alas, kept childhood ties with Yasser Arafat. Malley junior is accused of publishing a joint article with an Oslo-supporting Palestinian, in which they dared to argue that Ehud Barak played a major role in the Camp David summit's failure in July 2000.
Obama is working hard to allay the fears of "Israel's friends," a description reserved mainly for activists of the pro-Israeli lobby AIPAC and for Malcolm Hoenlein, the executive vice chairman of the Conference of Presidents. As far as they're concerned, whoever doesn't support the Israeli government's policy 100 percent is unfit for leadership.
Clinton is reaping the fruit of her investment in the Jewish community and Israel since first running for a Senate seat in New York. She is also benefiting from Bill Clinton's popularity in synagogues, Israeli homes and among his rich Jewish friends.
A long list of initiatives and declarations has erased from the collective Jewish memory the first lady's "slip" in spring 1998, after Arafat threatened Benjamin Netanyahu with a unilateral declaration of a Palestinian state. Clinton then said at a gathering of Israeli and Palestinian youth, members of the Seeds of Peace organization, that it was important to have a "functioning modern" Palestinian state." She also said "it will be in the long-term interest of the Middle East for Palestine to be a state...responsible for its citizens' well-being...education and health care.''
Since then she has commended the Congress' decision to stop the aid to the Palestinians if they declared a state unilaterally. She also praised the separation fence and said that Ariel Sharon's visit to the Temple Mount was a "legitimate visit to a holy site."
She adopted a more aggressive stance than Obama about Iran.
Clinton's shift to the right on the peace process alienated some of her old friends on the Jewish left. But they remain convinced that if she wins the White House, she will quickly reclaim her old positions. Experience has taught that the link between a presidential candidate's statements and an elected president's actions is flimsy at best.
For example, since 1967 it's hard to find a candidate who did not promise to move the United States' embassy to Jerusalem. When Yitzhak Rabin reminded Gerald Ford of that promise, the president explained to him that life looked different from the Oval Office. The forecasts and evaluations regarding American politicians' basic positions regarding the Middle East also have a tendency to prove false. Thus, for example, Hafez Assad hoped for George Bush's victory over Al Gore. He counted on the Bush family's ties to the Saudi royal family and on its addiction to oil. The outcome is known.
And after all that, surveys conducted by Jewish organizations show that the candidates' positions on interior affairs, especially social issues like workers' rights, abortion, stem cell research and medical insurance, interest the Jewish Democratic voters more than their positions on moving the American embassy to Jerusalem or evacuating some illegal outpost in the territories.
That doesn't deter a few Jewish political wheeler dealers (elected by no one) from stirring the boiling cauldron. | | | | Alpha | | Posted: Sun Feb 17, 2008 9:34 pm Post subject: The row over Obama's stance on Israel is a dispute between J |
| Last update - 17:23 17/02/2008
The row over Obama's stance on Israel is a dispute between Jews
By Shmuel Rosner, Haaretz Correspondent
Tags: Zbigniew Brzezinski
Two of Obama's aides mentioned by critics seeking to undermine his credibility with pro-Israel voters.
Those who seek to undermine Barack Obama's credibility with his Jewish and non-Jewish voters who feel strongly about the Israeli issue, frequently mention two names: Bob Malley and Zbigniew Brzezinski. Malley was a member on former U.S. president Bill Clinton's peace team, and Brzezinski was an advisor for an earlier U.S. president, Jimmy Carter.
If these people are Obama's friends, his detractors say, then he cannot be seen as a friend of Israel. A claim which invites scrutiny.
Malley is one of the few people who believe that the Israeli-American narrative for the reasons that caused the 2000 Camp David Summit to fail does not reflect reality. Clinton and Ehud Barak both agreed that former Palestinian Authority chairman Yasser Arafat was the primary person responsible for those Camp David talks breaking down.
Advertisement
Most members of Clinton's team agree with that statement. Not Malley. He thinks Israel - or Barak - and the U.S. - or Clinton - bear more of the responsibility for failure than they are willing to admit.
Malley is an advisor to Obama's campaign. Which means he is asked to present his opinion on various matters. He is not "The Advisor." Many others like him are asked to contribute their opinions. Most of Obama's position statements on the Israel issue do not bear Malley's fingerprints.
Malley favors dialogue with Hamas, whereas Obama says he opposes it. Obama receives flak from people in the left wing who argue that if he values Malley's opinion, then there is reason to suspect that it could influence his policy. Those who believe this influence would harm the Israeli interest have reason to be concerned about the consultations with Malley.
Those concerns are legitimate, but there were those who have gone beyond reasonable and legitimate discourse. They attributed dark motives to Malley, and they tried to dig up dirt on him. Malley's former associates from Clinton's peace team didn't like that.
In a joint statement that these associates distributed among circles that deal with the Middle East, they wrote that although they had differences of opinion with Malley - which is an understatement - they found some of what had been written about him to be a "vicious" attack on his character.
The statement was signed by the who's who of Israel-U.S. relations in the 1990s: former ambassadors Martin Indyk and Daniel C. Kurtzer, special envoy Dennis Ross, peace team member Aaron David Miller and former national security advisor Sandy Berger. It's no coincidence that they are all Jewish. This specific showdon over Obama's candidacy is a dispute between Jews.
As for Brzezinski, Obama's circle is saying he does not advise the candidate about Israel-related issues. But Brzezinski could not have placed such a restriction on himself. A few months ago, he associated himself with a group that is calling for dialogue with Hamas.
Even if he's no big expert of the Middle East, Brzezinski served as Jimmy Carter's advisor. He is suspected of fostering a chilly attitude toward Israel since his days with Carter, as all of the former president's advisors.
Obama's detractors were only too happy to find an article in the New York Sun recently which said Brzezinski went to visit Damascus to head a delegation from the RAND Corporation. The timing of the publication was somewhat embarrassing, as it coincided with the news of the assassination of Imad Mughniyah in Damascus.
But the people who informed the paper of the trip forgot to mention just one small detail: Brzezinski was scheduled to visit Israel, too, and not only Damascus. | | | | Alpha | | | | Alpha | | | | dangerousdna | | Posted: Tue Feb 19, 2008 4:46 am Post subject: |
| Blame Syria game all over again - Israel - AIPAC whiners 
Take away any blame from wee little Israel who does no wrong in the eyes of the traitors 
Fervently Pro-Israel
President Bush’s fervent support for Israel and its hardline government 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 [Israel prime minister] Ariel Sharon.” [5] In an address to pro-Israel activists at the 2004 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.” [6]
Condoleeza Rice, who served as President Bush’s National Security Advisor, and later, as his Secretary of State, echoed the President’s outlook in a May 2003 interview, saying that the “security of Israel is the key to security of the world.”
http://www.ihr.org/leaflets/iraqwar.shtml
==============
http://www.maannews.net/en/index.php?opr=ShowDetails&ID=27850
(AIPAC)Washington accuses Syria of killing of Imad Mughniyya; Israel expects quick revenge
Date: 18 / 02 / 2008 Time: 12:44
Bethlehem – Ma'an – US Director of National Intelligence Mike McConnell suggested that Syria or internal Hezbollah factions could have been behind the assassination of Hezbollah's military commander, Imad Mughniyya in Damascus last week.
"There's some evidence that it may have been internal Hezbollah. It may have been Syria. We don't know yet, and we're trying to sort that out," McConnell told reporters on Sunday. The United States intelligence agencies are investigating these claims.
The US official said that Israel is expected to be the main target of Hezbollah's threats for revenge, however, the US is also taking preventive security measures because they consider that Mughnayya was number two killer of American citizens after Osama Bin Laden, the leader of Al-Qaeda.
Sources close to the Israeli intelligence services expect Hezbollah to take revenge as soon as February 22. The sources claimed that Hezbollah commandos will try to hit a prominent Druze leader in Lebanon in retaliation for the assassination of Mughniyya.
Separately, the Israeli website "Debka" :laughing: :laughing: claimed that a Syrian military commander has come back to Lebanon for the first time since 2005 for the purpose of undertaking assassinations in retaliation for the killing of Imad Mughniyya in Syrian territory.
Israeli unofficial sources quoted American intelligence sources as saying that information from Damascus added credence to the suggestion that Hezbollah will undertake a series of actions in retaliation rather than one single assassination.
The renowned Israeli political analyst Ehud Ya'ari said on Israeli TV that results of the investigations in the assassination of Mughniyya, once revealed, will be "an earthquake" because it is mostly likely to reveal that Lebanese actors possibly Druze leaders, were behind the assassination.
According to Debka, :laughing: :laughing: the initial results of the investigations were: Did you say Debka? Bwahahahahaha
1 - The Israeli Mosad sent a cell to Lebanon to assassinate Hezbollah's leaders in both Lebanon and Syria.
- 2 The cell, according to Debka, includes agents from Saudi or Jordanian origins.
3- The Syrian authorities have proof that the Lebanese intelligence and security services, which are led by the Druze, were behind the killing of Mughniyya.
4 - The unit sent to kill Mughniyya has planted several explosive devices to ensure that he would be hit even if he changed his route, or used another car. Investigations are also ongoing to detect where that Mitsubishi jeep came from and who imported it.
5 - Five hundred steel nails have been found in the jeep and the surrounding walls.
==================
www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3506535,00.html
Former CIA official: Mossad behind Mugniyah killing
Evidence in Damascus car bombing points to Israel, says Bruce Riedel, former advisor to three US presidents on Middle Eastern affairs. 'This proves Israel has infiltrated Hizbullah,' he notes, adding that Nasrallah has genuine reason for concern
Yitzhak Benhorin Published: 02.13.08, 22:09 / Israel News
WASHINGTON – While Israel has formally refuted allegations it was involved in the assassination of Hizbullah 'operations officer' Imad Mugniyah in Damascus on Tuesday, former CIA official Bruce Riedel says all signs seem to indicate the Mossad was behind the killing.
Riedel, who spent over 30 years with the CIA before serving as a senior advisor on South Asian and Middle East affairs under three US presidents, said Israel has already carried out similar operations in Syria.
Currently a senior fellow with the Saban Center for Middle East Policy at the Brookings Institute, he says Mugniyah's assassination proves Israel has successfully infiltrated Hizbullah and that even Secretary General Hassan Nasrallah knows he may also be in the crosshairs.
"Israeli intelligence services have motive and they have proven their ability to strike in Damascus in the past. This is a significant operation, whether or not the Israelis want to publicly admit to it. He (Mugniyah) has topped the US and Israel's most-wanted list for a quarter of a century," said Riedel.
The seasoned intelligence official said he believes Mugniyah was not the only name on a possible hit list. "It definitely includes Hassan Nasrallah," he said, "the Mossad is looking for Nasrallah and he knows it, that's why he conducts his operations from underground."
And the Hizbullah leader may have good reason to worry, said Riedel. "He's wondering who tipped off Mugniyah's location. That same individual could also reveal his own whereabouts."
When asked if the United States did not also have a stake in seeing the elimination of a man responsible for the deaths of American citizens, among them a senior CIA figure, Riedel said that while it was true Mugniyah was responsible for the murder of William Buckley "and that as far as we're concerned, he was
second only to Osama bin-Laden" – a car bombing was more consistent with the Mossad's modus operandi.
"In all honesty over the years we've become busy with many other issues, while ever since the summer of 2006 Hizbullah has returned to the forefront of Israel's concerns. Mugniyah also acted as a go-between with Iranian intelligence and Hamas." | | | | Alpha | | | | Alpha | | Posted: Wed Feb 20, 2008 11:28 am Post subject: Finkelstein gives Israeli-American relations lecture |
| Finkelstein gives Israeli-American relations lecture
http://media.sundial.csun.edu/media/storage/paper862/news/2008/02/20/News/Finkelstein.Gives.IsraeliAmerican.Relations.Lecture-3221274.shtml
Cynthia Gomez
Issue date: 2/20/08 Section: News
Norman G. Finkelstein spoke at the Musical Recital Hall during his second speech at CSUN, titled, "The Coming Break-up of American Zionism," which was attended by about 30 people on Feb. 13.
[Click to enlarge]
Media Credit: Mildred Martin / Staff Photographer
[Click to enlarge]
In a series of lectures last week, Norman Finkelstein, a noted political scholar and a former professor at DePaul University of Chicago, presented a lecture titled, "A Critique on the Walt-Mearsheimer Thesis," which focuses on the "core" thesis of a work that touches on Israeli lobby ties with American foreign policy.
"His case shows the difficulty of making wise decisions about teachers and students who work in political areas of scholarship," said Provost and Vice President of Academic Affairs Harry Hellenbrand, who invited Finkelstein to speak at CSUN.
The thesis comes from a working paper titled, "The Israel Lobby," written by John Mearsheimer, a professor from the University of Chicago, and Stephen Walt, a professor from Harvard University.
Finkelstein explained why he only focused on the thesis of the paper. "I wanted to avoid all of the nuances because I think a lot of the nuances are not really nuances, but efforts to detect themselves in the politically correct environment," Finkelstein said. He later explained why he does not support the thesis.
"I should be supporting (it), but the (fact of) the matter is, I don't determine my allegiances by ethnicities," he said. "I determine my allegiances by where the facts take me and in looking through the (working paper) and reading it very carefully, I simply was not convinced by the core thesis."
Finkelstein explained the argument both Mearsheimer and Walt have discussed in the thesis.
"The thrust of their argument was there is this powerful lobby in the United States," he said. "It is, they called it, the Israel lobby, but that in itself is an euphemism of sorts because clearly they believe the core of that lobby is American Jews or some American Jews. There qualification is important…they're promoting Israel's agenda."
Finkelstein said promoting Israel's agenda is "half of the problem," but the other half of the problem is that Israel's agenda is contrary to the best interest of the United States…so in promoting Israel's agenda, they are effectively underlying what they call U.S. national interests in the world."
The first argument that Finkelstein focused on was of the beginning of the main thesis made by Mearsheimer and Walt, which is "U.S. support of Israel does not serve U.S. national interest."
"They say that Israel was a strategic asset for the United States during the Cold War," he said stating that he was using Mearsheimer's and Walt's words and not his own. "Mainly it acted as a check on soviet expansion in the Middle East."
Finkelstein said he disagreed with Mearsheimer's and Walt's argument because it is "not what Israel's utility was to the U.S." He added that the main concern of the U.S. in the Middle East was anti-western nationalism and not soviet expansion. "That is, the U.S. was fearful that an independent autonomous power may emerge in the Middle East that will threat its strategic interests, most notable, oil," Finkelstein said.
"Secondly, Israel offers advantages to the west or to the U.S. which cannot be duplicated anywhere else in the Middle East," Finkelstein said. "You often hear the argument, 'Why is the United States investing so much in Israel and alienating the Arab regimes?' Doesn't it make much more sense for the United States to work with the neighboring Arab countries rather than work with Israel, from the point of view of our national interest?"
Finkelstein said the problem behind Mearsheimer's and Walt's argument is that it "completely misunderstands the special utility and the special value of Israel."
"Israel's special value for the U.S., which can't be duplicated anywhere in the Middle East is that fundamentally, Israel was a creation of the Western world," he said. He added that since 1967 Israel has been culturally, economically and politically in parole to the United States. "Unlike anywhere else in the Arab world, where you may have a regime which is committed to the U.S., you don't have populations committed to the U.S. and therefore the support of those countries can disappear overnight," Finkelstein said.
The political scholar disagreed with Mearsheimer's and Walt's claim that the "U.S. allies with Israel."
"Now to demonstrate that the U.S. allies with Israel distorts the American national interest, which is what Mearsheimer and Walt claim," Finkelstein said. "You have to show that U.S. policy in the Arab world would be different were it not for Israel. That seems to me an obvious requirement."
"If you're claiming that Israel is distorting U.S. policy in the Middle East then you would have to show that whether or not for Israel, U.S. policy would be fundamentally different," Finkelstein said, "but if you look at the historical record, there's just no evidence for that."
Finkelstein said he disagreed with Mearsheimer's and Walt's claim that "the U.S. supports Israel despite its powerful impact due to the Israel lobby."
"As I've already said, fundamentally I think that's mistaken," he said. "The U.S. supports Israel when it's useful to U.S. fundamental interests. However, and here I have to be a little bit more settle in the argument because that's what the evidence requires, I do think it's the case that the U.S. supports Israeli policy in the occupied territories due to the lobby."
Finkelstein clarified his statement, saying, "When it comes to broad regional fundamental interests, Iraq, Iran, South Arabia oil, it is U.S. national interests that take priority," he said. "When it comes to a local question like Israel and occupied territories, there I think it is a true that it's the lobby that is destroying U.S. policy because the obvious question you would ask yourself is, I think, 'What does the U.S. stand to gain from the settlements that Israel is building?' The answer quite obviously is nothing."
Later in the lecture, Finkelstein argued Mearsheimer's and Walt's claim that the Israel lobby was the "driving force behind the Iraq War." "The main architects of the war are always said to be Mr. Rumsfeld and Mr. Cheney," Finkelstein said. "Well everyone in this room knows Mr. Rumsfeld and Mr. Cheney are not Jewish and they don't fit the profile of these Jewish neoconservatives. So how do Mearsheimer and Walt reconcile? (Rumsfeld and Cheney) are obviously not Jewish neoconservatives, and yet you say it was the Jewish neoconservatives who caused the war?"
A question-and-answer session followed after Finkelstein's lecture. James Morris, 44, said he agreed and disagreed with Finkelstein's arguments.
"I think some of his arguments about the Palestinian situation and the lobbying influencing what happens in occupied territories are accurate," Morris said, "but then again if he uses the same argument with the lobby and how it influences our policy and occupied territories. And about that time the attack on the USS Liberty happened and that's been covered up ever since."
"Also, you had 9/11 that happened," Morris said. "If you look at the paperwork that's out there and the scholarly publications…our support of Israel resulted not only the attack on the World Trade Center in '93 but in 9/11. So that's not in our national interest. So when he's trying to say that we can't define that term, it's not in our national interest, right? So supporting Israel...was a direct result for the plotters of those attacks."
Morris commented on Finkelstein's arguments about Jewish neoconservatives. He wanted to rebut Finkelstein's argument that Rumsfeld and Cheney were supposedly not part of the neoconservative moment, said Morris.
"They've been associated with it for years," he said.
Morris said he was upset because he was "cut off" while asking a question to Finkelstein.
"I have a great deal of respect for Provost Hellenbrand, how he hosted this event, but he cut me off when I was trying to make my points to rebut," Morris said. "I didn't get a chance to finish my question. He cut me off. He said let's take one point at a time. I was cut off and I never came back to be able to make the rest of the question."
Mujahidul Haque, a political science major, said the lecture was informative to him and that some of Finkelstein's arguments caught his attention.
"What he said pretty much about the Jewish neoconservatives," Haque said, "I think all the neoconservatives are pretty much the same. I don't think I would want to separate the Jewish and Christian neoconservatives (from each other). The all have the same agenda. Other than that, I pretty much agreed with everything else he said."
Page 1 of 1 | | | | Alpha | | | | Alpha | | | | | ©2002-2009 WarWithoutEnd.co.uk |
