| Author | Message | | Fishy | | Posted: Mon May 27, 2002 5:44 pm Post subject: There's a Firestorm Coming |
| Robert Fisk: There is a firestorm coming, and it is being provoked by Mr Bush
More and more, President Bush's rhetoric sounds like the crazed videotapes of Osama bin Laden
25 May 2002
Robert Fisk: There is a firestorm coming, and it is being provoked by Mr Bush
So now Osama bin Laden is Hitler. And Saddam Hussein is Hitler. And George Bush is fighting the Nazis. Not since Menachem Begin fantasised to President Reagan that he felt he was attacking Hitler in Berlin – his Israeli army was actually besieging Beirut, killing thousands of civilians, "Hitler" being the pathetic Arafat – have we had to listen to claptrap like this. But the fact that we Europeans had to do so in the Bundestag on Thursday – and, for the most part, in respectful silence – was extraordinary.
I'm reminded of the Israeli columnist who, tired of the wearying invocation of the Second World War to justify yet more Israeli brutality, began an article with the words: "Mr Prime Minister, Hitler is dead." Must we, forever, live under the shadow of a war that was fought and won before most of us were born? Do we have to live forever with living, diminutive politicians playing Churchill (Thatcher and, of course, Blair) or Roosevelt? "He's a dictator who gassed his own people," Mr Bush reminded us for the two thousandth time, omitting as always to mention that the Kurds whom Saddam viciously gassed were fighting for Iran and that the United States, at the time, was on Saddam's side.
But there is a much more serious side to this. Mr Bush is hoping to corner the Russian President, Vladimir Putin, into a new policy of threatening Iran. He wants the Russians to lean on the northern bit of the "axis of evil", the infantile phrase which he still trots out to the masses. More and more, indeed, Mr Bush's rhetoric sounds like the crazed videotapes of Mr bin Laden. And still he tries to lie about the motives for the crimes against humanity of 11 September. Yet again, in the Bundestag, he insisted that the West's enemies hated "justice and democracy", even though most of America's Muslim enemies wouldn't know what democracy was.
In the United States, the Bush administration is busy terrorising Americans. There will be nuclear attacks, bombs in high-rise apartment blocks, on the Brooklyn bridge, men with exploding belts – note how carefully the ruthless Palestinian war against Israeli colonisation of the West Bank is being strapped to America's ever weirder "war on terror" – and yet more aircraft suiciders. If you read the words of President Bush, Vice-President Dick Cheney and the ridiculous national security adviser, Condoleezza Rice, over the past three days, you'll find they've issued more threats against Americans than Mr bin Laden.
But let's get back to the point. The growing evidence that Israel's policies are America's policies in the Middle East – or, more accurately, vice versa – is now being played out for real in statements from Congress and on American television. First, we have the chairman of the US Senate Foreign Relations Committee announcing that Hizbollah – the Lebanese guerrilla force that drove Israel's demoralised army out of Lebanon in the year 2000 – is planning attacks in the US. After that, we had an American television network "revealing" that Hizbollah, Hamas and al- Qa'ida – Mr bin Laden's organisation – have held a secret meeting in Lebanon to plot attacks on the US.
American journalists insist on quoting "sources" but there was, of course, no sourcing for this balderdash, which is now repeated ad nauseam in the American media. Then take the "Syrian Accountability Act" that was introduced into the US Senate by Israel's friends on18 April. This includes the falsity uttered earlier by Israel's Foreign Minister, Shimon Peres, that Iranian Revolutionary Guards "operate freely" on the southern Lebanese border. Now there haven't been Iranian Revolutionary Guards in Lebanon – let alone the south of the country – for 18 years. So why is this lie repeated yet again?
Iran is under threat. Lebanon is under threat. Syria is under threat – its "terrorism" status has been heightened by the State Department – and so is Iraq. But Ariel Sharon, the Israeli Prime Minister held personally responsible by Israel's own enquiry for the Sabra and Shatila massacre of 1,700 Palestinians in Beirut in 1982, is – according to Mr Bush – "a man of peace". How much further can this go? A long way, I fear.
The anti-American feeling throughout the Middle East is palpable. Arab newspaper editorials don't come near to expressing public opinion. In Damascus, Majida Tabbaa has become famous as the lady who threw the US Consul Roberto Powers out of her husband's downtown restaurant on 7 April . "I went over to him," she said, "and told him, 'Mr Roberto, tell your George Bush that all of you are not welcome – please get out'." Across the Arab world, boycotts of American goods have begun in earnest.
How much longer can this go on? America praises Pakistani President Musharraf for his support in the "war on terror", but remains silent when he arranges a dictatorial "referendum" to keep him in power. America's enemies, remember, hate the US for its "democracy". So is General Musharraf going to feel the heat? Forget it. My guess is that Pakistan's importance in the famous "war on terror" – or "war for civilisation" as, we should remember, it was originally called – is far more important. If Pakistan and India go to war, I'll wager a lot that Washington will come down for undemocratic Pakistan against democratic India.
Across the former Soviet southern Muslim republics, America is building air bases, helping to pursue the "war on terror" against any violent Muslim Islamist groups that dare to challenge the local dictators. Please do not believe that this is about oil. Do not for a moment think that these oil and gas-rich lands have any economic importance for the oil-fuelled Bush administration. Nor the pipelines that could run from northern Afghanistan to the Pakistani coast if only that pesky Afghan loya jirga could elect a government that would give concessions to Unocal, the oddly named concession whose former boss just happens to be a chief Bush "adviser" to Afghanistan.
Now here's pause for thought. Abdelrahman al-Rashed writes in the international Arabic daily Asharq al-Awsat that if anyone had said prior to 11 September that Arabs were plotting a vast scheme to murder thousands of Americans in the US, no one would have believed them. "We would have charged that this was an attempt to incite the American people against Arabs and Muslims," he wrote. And rightly so.
But Arabs did commit the crimes against humanity of 11 September. And many Arabs greatly fear that we have yet to see the encore from the same organisation. In the meantime, Mr Bush goes on to do exactly what his enemies want; to provoke Muslims and Arabs, to praise their enemies and demonise their countries, to bomb and starve Iraq and give uncritical support to Israel and maintain his support for the dictators of the Middle East.
Each morning now, I awake beside the Mediterranean in Beirut with a feeling of great foreboding. There is a firestorm coming. And we are blissfully ignoring its arrival; indeed, we are provoking it. | |  | | sharkman | | Posted: Fri May 31, 2002 7:48 pm Post subject: excellent article by fisk |
| excellent post as fisk is one of the best if not the best journalist covering the middle east... none of the pro-israel bias which is so blatant in the us media... fisk mentions such in the following piece which is excellent as well:
http://www.independent.co.uk/story.jsp?story=285777
i just had the following exchange with a professor of middle east history at ucla in southern california:
Dear Professor,
Thank you for your reply which clarifies the situation... I think you have a lot of courage to take such a position with the Palestinian v. Israeli situation. Robert Fisk of the UK Independent newspaper is going to be speaking at various churches in Palo Alto, Berkeley and Sacramento in about three weeks. It would be beneficial to have him speak at UCLA as well in the future as I was wondering if you would be interested in helping to set such up if possible? Jeff Blankforth (who is arranging Mr. Fisk's upcoming speaking engagements in northern California) mentioned that Mr. Fisk will be booked for the three days that he is to be in northern California.
Have you read the following article by Fisk in which he mentioned the pro-Israel bias in the US media, and he also mentioned the speech he made at USC from when he was in Los Angeles last a few months ago?:
http://www.independent.co.uk/story.jsp?story=285777
Fisk's speech from USC can heard via computer by accessing the link found at the following URL:
http://www.webactive.com/pacifica/demnow/dn20020522.html
An excellent interview with Fisk can also be heard by accessing the following URL (in order to listen, you just need to have the Real Player software downloaded which you can do free of charge via the link provided at the following site as well):
http://www.kcrw.org/cgi-bin/db/kcrw.pl?show_code=tp&air_date=1/25/02&tmplt _type=show
The following is also an excellent article by Fisk as well:
http://argument.independent.co.uk/commentators/story.jsp?story=298681
Do you cover the Arab v. Israel ("Six Day War") in detail in your current UCLA history course about the Middle East? If so, I was wondering if you mentioned the intentional and savage Israeli attack on the USS Liberty as I have been in touch with Jim Ennes who was on the bridge of the USS Liberty when she was attacked? Mr. Ennes wrote a book about the attack and manages the following Web site as well:
http://www.ussliberty.org
Mr. Ennes along with other surviving crew members have been trying for years to get an opportunity to personally testify in front of Congress as to whether the attack was intentional which it most certainly was, however, the pro-Israel lobby has apparently prevented such from happening as the US media won't touch the situation either. Fortunately, a recent documentary about the attack has aired repeatedly on the History Channel..
I am also interested in the situation between Secretary of State Rogers and Kissinger. Per UN Resolution 242, Rogers was pursuing land for peace between the Arabs and Israelis before the 1973 Arab v. Israeli war. However, Kissinger undermined Rogers' efforts and then took over his position as Secretary of State. I believe that Rogers might have made a difference had Kissinger not undermined his efforts. Kissinger successfully "sold" Nixon that Israel needed to keep being armed as the Cold War proxy for the USA against Egpyt and Syria which were the proxies for the USSR. I am sure that Nixon's involvement in the Watergate scandal played a role in that he was distracted and let Kissinger have a free hand for the most part in US foreign policy making at the time which allowed Kissinger to undermine Rogers' peace-making attempts as well.. I would be very interested to learn your thoughts about such..
With kind regards,
In a message dated 5/31/02 6:52:19 AM Pacific Daylight Time, professor writes:
Subj:Re: nuke terrorism price of continued us support for israel?
Date:5/31/02 6:52:19 AM Pacific Daylight Time
True, I told my class the first day that I was married to a Palestinian and that I consider the Palestinian issue to be the great moral issue of our time, similar to the anti-Apartheid struggle of the 1980s or the civil rights movement of the 1960s. I also told the class that all history professors set up narratives, those narratives determine what we consider to be facts, and that the narrative I was setting up was structured as a clash between two national communities. What I did was similar to "truth in advertising." I do not know what is going on in Berkeley, but I did not tell students who felt differently that they were unwelcome in my class or that they should get out. As a matter of fact, many students who had opinions that differed from mine remained in the class and, I hope, got a lot out of it. | | | | sharkman | | Posted: Fri May 31, 2002 7:55 pm Post subject: nuke terrorism price of ongoing us support for israel? |
| Nuclear Nightmares
http://www.salon.com/news/letters/2002/05/10/ketcham/
http://www.csmonitor.com/2002/0523/p07s02-wome.html
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com
http://www.antiwar.com/justin/justincol.html
http://www.dailybruin.ucla.edu/db/articles.asp?ID=17769
http://www.dailybruin.ucla.edu/db/articles.asp?ID=19042
http://www.independent.co.uk/search.jsp?keywords=hobeika
please also read the excellent article by liam hughes about senator lieberman's
conflict of interest with israel which is included below as well...
Nuclear Nightmares
>From the web site at:
>http://liamhughes.home.mindspring.com/lieberman.html
>
>Sen. Lieberman: A Conflict of Interest?
>By William Hughes
>
>May 30, 2002
>
>On May 2, 2002, the Senate of the U.S. passed a notorious
>pro-Israel Resolution (S. Res. 247), with respect to the Mid-East
>controversy. Its co- author was Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman (D-CT).
>In pushing the measure, he barked, "You are either with us or the
>terrorists" (Washington Times, May 3, 2002). Who is this "us" he
>is talking about?
>
>The measure falsely equated the U.S.'s post-9/11 fight against
>terrorism with Israel's brutal occupation of the Palestinian
>people in the occupied West Bank and Gaza. It also condoned
>Israel's vicious military attacks on Jenin, Ramallah and
>Bethlehem.
>
>Black's Law Dictionary (5th Ed.) defines a conflict of interest as
>a "Term used in connection with public officials and their
>relationship to matters of private interest or gain to them."
>
>The Senate Code of Official Conduct, "Conflict of Interest," Rule
>37, Par. 2, states:
>"No Member...shall engage in any outside business...which is
>inconsistent or in conflict with the conscientious performance of
>official duties." The legislative history of this provision says,
>"It should be read to prohibit any outside activities which could
>represent a conflict of interest or the appearance of a conflict
>of interest" (See, Senate Ethics Manual, Select Committee on
>Ethics, United States Senate, p. 66).
>
>The Congressional Directory, (107th Congress, 2001-2002), list the
>official biography for Lieberman. It is silent about his
>membership or association with any Zionist organizations or his
>adherence to a Zionist political ideology. Lawmaking is built on
>trust. Lieberman has an obligation to his fellow senators to
>disclose fully his agenda to the members of the Senate. Almost all
>elected political entities abide by these ethical rules, which are
>centered on revealing any conflict of interest, appearance of a
>conflict of interest, prejudice, or bias.
>
>Like all members of the Senate, Lieberman is required to file an
>annual "Financial Disclosure Statement" with the Secretary of the
>Senate. In his May 15, 2001 submittal, he again failed to mention
>any official membership in any Zionist organizations. Although, he
>does disclose his significant connection, as an advisory board
>member, to three Israeli based non-profit organizations: "The
>Peres Center for Peace" at Tel Aviv; "Begin-Sadat Center for
>Strategic Studies" at Bar-Ilan University, and the "Natural
>History Museum," located in Jerusalem.
>
>Lieberman's membership in these Zionist affiliated groups does
>raise, on its face, an appearance of a conflict of interest on his
>part with respect to an issue, like S. Res. 247, since it advances
>the cause of Zionism and/or Zionist Israel. If he is in fact a
>Zionist, then the conflict between his public duties and his
>private interests becomes even more pronounced.
>
>The Anti-Defamation League, a hot air organ for Israel, defines
>Zionism as, "The guiding nationalist movement of the majority of
>Jews around the world, who believe in, support and identify with
>the State of Israel." Does Lieberman subscribe, as a matter of
>personal political philosophy, to the ADL's definition of Zionism?
>If so, shouldn't he put that fact on the public record, whether he
>is a card carrying Zionist or not?
>
>Actually, Zionism is an alien based political movement, global in
>scope, racially restrictive, with its spiritual headquarters in
>Tel Aviv, and not Washington, D.C. It aspires to a land grabbing
>"Greater Israel."
>
>On another disturbing front, Israel Radio (Kol Yisrael), reported
>on Oct. 3, 2001, that Israel's Prime Minister, Ariel Sharon, had
>boasted at a Cabinet meeting, "I want to tell you something very
>clear, don't worry about American pressure on Israel, we, the
>Jewish people control America, and the Americans know it."
>
>In light of the above, I feel the Senate had a right to know any
>relevant information about Lieberman's Zionist political ideology,
>memberships, and associations in order to weigh the value of
>endorsing or opposing his pro-Israel resolution. He should have,
>at a minimum, disclosed to the Senate any and all of his Zionist
>connections, and then, if appropriate, recused himself on the
>matter of S. Res. 247.
>
>Our country is at high risk for terrorist attacks, partly, because
>of its flawed policy of giving unconditional support to a hawkish
>Israel, presently led by a man universally-loathed for his
>brutality. This policy, unfortunately, also includes unfairly
>demonizing and punishing Muslims and Arabs leaders in general; for
>example, the economic sanctions against Iraq, which have caused
>the death of hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqi children,
>fall into the latter category (CASI, 01/02).
>
>During the 2000 election, Lieberman received $86,000 from Pro
>Israel PAC contributors towards his Senate re-election campaign,
>(See, Janet McMahon, WRMEA, Oct/Nov. 2000 issue). What effect did
>that financial contribution, and others like it, have on his
>voting record and on his hidden political agenda?
>
>Let me make this clear: Lieberman's religion is no one's business
>but his own. His politics, however, and any foreign links to it,
>are the public's business. I am pro-America. I am also an
>anti-Zionist and against Sharon's colonial policies.
>
>S. Res. 247, which passed the Senate by a 94-2 vote, will only
>increase the hostility towards America in the Arab and Muslim
>world. It also, more importantly, will send a green light to the
>blood stained Sharonists to continue their killing spree against
>innocent Palestinians. Thankfully, Senators Robert C. Byrd (D-WV)
>and Ernest F. Hollings (D S.C.) had the courage to oppose the
>resolution.
>
>No special foreign-based interest, like Zionism, should ever be
>placed above the interest of our Republic. Lieberman must be
>forced to come clean with the Senate about all his Zionist
>connections. Senate Rule 37 requires it and so does the future
>security of our nation.
>
>@ William Hughes 2002
>
>William Hughes is an attorney and the author of Andrew Jackson vs.
>New World Order (Authors Choice Press) and Baltimore Iconoclast
>(Writer's Showcase).
_________________________________________________________________
_
(=B7< I'll tell you the truth about the USS LIBERTY, visit
_)W)
>/^^ http://home.cfl.rr.com/gidusko/liberty/
http://www.ussliberty.org
_________________________________________________________________
forwarded:
Dear Mr. Oppenheim,
Why didn't Mr. Matthews visit any of the illegal Israeli settlements on the
occupied Palestinian land of the West Bank in the MSNBC/CNBC "Hardball" episode
that he hosted from Israel yesterday? Especially when those illegal Israeli
settlements are the heart of the current Israeli v. Palestinian conflict as the
Palestinians are simply fighting to keep what land that hasn't been stolen from
them yet by the Israelis?:
http://www.independent.co.uk/story.jsp?story=276379
http://www.independent.co.uk/story.jsp?story=292865
http://argument.independent.co.uk/commentators/story.jsp?story=298681
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/story.jsp?story=300084
Also, why hasn't Mr. Matthews even touched on the following article which
couldn't be more topical when domestic terrorism has been in the news of late
in the USA?:
http://www.csmonitor.com/2002/0523/p07s02-wome.html
Incredible how much of a pro-Israel bias there is in the US media as eloquently
put forth by Robert Fisk in the following article:
http://www.independent.co.uk/story.jsp?story=285777
NEW YORK IS STARTING TO FEEL LIKE BREZHNEV'S MOSCOW
Public debate in America has now become a question of loyalty
By Jonathan Steele
The Guardian (Britain) -- May 16, 2002
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Archive/Article/0,4273,4414414,00.html
What a sad place New York City has become. A vibrant, disputatious town
with a worldwide reputation for loud voices and strongly expressed
opinions is tip-toeing around in whispers. Grief over the casualties of
the twin towers massacre is not the reason (those wounds are slowly
healing), but a stifling conformity which muzzles public discourse on US
foreign policy, the war on terrorism and Israel.
"If people knew I held these views, I wouldn't be able to stay in this
job," an old college friend confided as I passed through the city for a
few days last week. He was appointed by the Bush administration to a top
Federal position (not connected to foreign policy) some months ago. His
subversive views on the Middle East, if uttered in Europe, would raise
no eyebrows: Ariel Sharon has no vision or strategy; his tactics on the
West Bank are counter-productive; the American media are failing to
report adequately on the suffering of innocent Palestinians in cities
ransacked by Israeli troops. Another friend, a liberal rabbi, was about
to set off on a regular visit to Israel. She contrasted the usual
furious public arguments which she expected to find there to the
behind-the-hand mutterings of New Yorkers. "Over here Sharon and
Netanyahu have managed to turn the issue of terrorism, which was
provoked by Israeli behaviour on the West Bank, into an existential
question of the survival of the Israeli state. Debate becomes
disloyalty," she complained.
The Israeli prime minister's humiliating refusal to heed the White
House's call last month for an immediate halt to Israel's West Bank
incursions should have prompted a debate on whether Bush or Sharon makes
US foreign policy, she argued. Instead, the leaders of most American
Jewish organisations sided with Sharon and were pleased when Bush backed down.
Listening to these anguished but private complaints suddenly reminded me
of the Soviet Union of the Brezhnev era when lower-level officials,
journalists and other fringe members of the regime sat around their
kitchen tables, expressing their true views only to family and close
friends. A far-fetched analogy, of course, until you look at the
narrowness of public discussion, not just on Israeli-Palestinian issues,
but also on the threatened American attack on Iraq and the
administration's war on terrorism in general.
When Tom Daschle, the Senate majority leader, suggested this spring that
the war had failed because Osama bin Laden and Mullah Omar were still
free, he was fiercely attacked and never dared to repeat the point. The
campaign for an all-out attack on Iraq continues in full swing with none
of the congressional opposition which marked the Gulf war a decade ago.
John Bolton, the state department's most hawkish official, is taken
seriously when he "names" countries with biological weapons programmes
which the US claims the right to target with military strikes. No one
contrasts his purported expertise with the fact that, after seven
months, the FBI has failed to discover the whereabouts of the people or
the laboratories in the US which produced and mailed anthrax-coated
letters last autumn. If the administration is so ignorant about events
on its own doorstep, why should anyone believe it knows what is going on
in labs in Iraq, Iran or Cuba?
To enforce this abandonment of reasoned argument in the name of a
witch-hunt against terrorists, a strange alliance of evangelical
Christians in Congress has come together with the leaders of American
Jewish organisations who normally support the Democratic party. "We live
in a culture where there is a diminishing tolerance of dissent,"
commented Abe Brumberg, long-time editor of Problems of Communism, the
Soviet-era journal which was funded by the US government.
He drew my attention to a column by Frank Rich in the New York Times.
The piece reported that America's foremost Jewish newspaper, Forward,
was fielding subscription cancellations for accepting an ad from Jews
Against the Occupation. Mainstream papers are also being targeted. "Our
press is not being muzzled," Rich was careful to write, "but the
dictates of what constitutes politically correct conversation about the
Middle East are being tightened to the point that American leaders of
all stripes increasingly seem to be in a contest to see who can pander
the most to American Jews."
On CNN's domestic news one morning their vacuous presenter Paula Zahn
urged viewers to stay with her until after the break. "A new book which
criticises American foreign policy and says the US has been guilty of
terrorism has sold 160,000 copies. We'll have more," she announced.
Noam Chomsky's book, I wondered. Are they really going to let him
appear? No such luck. The offending book was indeed by Chomsky but
America's leading dissident was not invited on to the show. Like Soviet
television in the 1970s, which regularly put up regime hacks to pillory
the two giants of non-conformity, Andrei Sakharov and Alexander
Solzhenitsyn, without giving them a say, Ms Zahn's guest was William
Bennett, a Republican former cabinet minister. He proceeded to "explain"
Chomsky's high sales with a flippant "kooks in our midst" argument. Many
Americans were still in deep confusion after the shock of September 11,
and some people were prepared to believe anything, he claimed.
Chomsky was unsurprised when I rang him later. "It's typical," he said.
"CNN International interviews me a lot, but the US channel doesn't
dare." Far from being depressed, Chomsky was in bullish mood. Like an
intellectual rock star he is perpetually on the move, travelling to
packed auditoria on campuses around the US and abroad. "I spend about an
hour every night turning down email requests to speak," he said. He was
off to Bogota in Colombia later that day.
Other professorial friends were not so gung ho about the extent of
campus radicalism, in spite of recent peace marches in Washington and
New York. But they agreed that universities are the only place for
political discussion these days. "I hear there was a fantastic debate at
Yale Law School recently," my highly placed Bush appointee reported.
"Two Palestinian law students wiped the floor with Tom Friedman, the New
York Times columnist."
The fascination, and frustration, of America has always been the way one
society can produce so much optimistic vigour and risk-taking
intellectual energy alongside a ruling culture of such boorish ignorance
and cruelty. To judge from the east coast today, the middle-aged liberal
intelligentsia is letting itself be intimidated into taking the wrong
side.
>From the web site at:
>http://liamhughes.home.mindspring.com/lieberman.html
Sen. Lieberman: A Conflict of Interest?
By William Hughes
May 30, 2002
On May 2, 2002, the Senate of the U.S. passed a notorious pro-Israel Resolution
(S. Res. 247), with respect to the Mid-East controversy. Its co- author was
Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman (D-CT). In pushing the measure, he barked, "You are
either with us or the terrorists" (Washington Times, May 3, 2002). Who is this
"us" he is talking about?
The measure falsely equated the U.S.'s post-9/11 fight against terrorism with
Israel's brutal occupation of the Palestinian people in the occupied West Bank
and Gaza. It also condoned Israel's vicious military attacks on Jenin, Ramallah
and Bethlehem.
Black's Law Dictionary (5th Ed.) defines a conflict of interest as a "Term used
in connection with public officials and their relationship to matters of
private interest or gain to them."
The Senate Code of Official Conduct, "Conflict of Interest," Rule 37, Par. 2,
states:
"No Member...shall engage in any outside business...which is inconsistent or in
conflict with the conscientious performance of official duties." The
legislative history of this provision says, "It should be read to prohibit any
outside activities which could represent a conflict of interest or the
appearance of a conflict of interest" (See, Senate Ethics Manual, Select
Committee on Ethics, United States Senate, p. 66).
The Congressional Directory, (107th Congress, 2001-2002), list the official
biography for Lieberman. It is silent about his membership or association with
any Zionist organizations or his adherence to a Zionist political ideology.
Lawmaking is built on trust. Lieberman has an obligation to his fellow senators
to disclose fully his agenda to the members of the Senate. Almost all elected
political entities abide by these ethical rules, which are centered on
revealing any conflict of interest, appearance of a conflict of interest,
prejudice, or bias.
Like all members of the Senate, Lieberman is required to file an annual
"Financial Disclosure Statement" with the Secretary of the Senate. In his May
15, 2001 submittal, he again failed to mention any official membership in any
Zionist organizations. Although, he does disclose his significant connection,
as an advisory board member, to three Israeli based non-profit organizations:
"The Peres Center for Peace" at Tel Aviv; "Begin-Sadat Center for Strategic
Studies" at Bar-Ilan University, and the "Natural History Museum," located in
Jerusalem.
Lieberman's membership in these Zionist affiliated groups does raise, on its
face, an appearance of a conflict of interest on his part with respect to an
issue, like S. Res. 247, since it advances the cause of Zionism and/or Zionist
Israel. If he is in fact a Zionist, then the conflict between his public duties
and his private interests becomes even more pronounced.
The Anti-Defamation League, a hot air organ for Israel, defines Zionism as,
"The guiding nationalist movement of the majority of Jews around the world, who
believe in, support and identify with the State of Israel." Does Lieberman
subscribe, as a matter of personal political philosophy, to the ADL's
definition of Zionism? If so, shouldn't he put that fact on the public record,
whether he is a card carrying Zionist or not?
Actually, Zionism is an alien based political movement, global in scope,
racially restrictive, with its spiritual headquarters in Tel Aviv, and not
Washington, D.C. It aspires to a land grabbing "Greater Israel."
On another disturbing front, Israel Radio (Kol Yisrael), reported on Oct. 3,
2001, that Israel's Prime Minister, Ariel Sharon, had boasted at a Cabinet
meeting, "I want to tell you something very clear, don't worry about American
pressure on Israel, we, the Jewish people control America, and the Americans
know it."
In light of the above, I feel the Senate had a right to know any relevant
information about Lieberman's Zionist political ideology, memberships, and
associations in order to weigh the value of endorsing or opposing his
pro-Israel resolution. He should have, at a minimum, disclosed to the Senate
any and all of his Zionist connections, and then, if appropriate, recused
himself on the matter of S. Res. 247.
Our country is at high risk for terrorist attacks, partly, because of its
flawed policy of giving unconditional support to a hawkish Israel, presently
led by a man universally-loathed for his brutality. This policy, unfortunately,
also includes unfairly demonizing and punishing Muslims and Arabs leaders in
general; for example, the economic sanctions against Iraq, which have caused
the death of hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqi children, fall into the
latter category (CASI, 01/02).
During the 2000 election, Lieberman received $86,000 from Pro Israel PAC
contributors towards his Senate re-election campaign, (See, Janet McMahon,
WRMEA, Oct/Nov. 2000 issue). What effect did that financial contribution, and
others like it, have on his voting record and on his hidden political agenda?
Let me make this clear: Lieberman's religion is no one's business but his own.
His politics, however, and any foreign links to it, are the public's business.
I am pro-America. I am also an anti-Zionist and against Sharon's colonial
policies.
S. Res. 247, which passed the Senate by a 94-2 vote, will only increase the
hostility towards America in the Arab and Muslim world. It also, more
importantly, will send a green light to the blood stained Sharonists to
continue their killing spree against innocent Palestinians. Thankfully,
Senators Robert C. Byrd (D-WV) and Ernest F. Hollings (D S.C.) had the courage
to oppose the resolution.
No special foreign-based interest, like Zionism, should ever be placed above
the interest of our Republic. Lieberman must be forced to come clean with the
Senate about all his Zionist connections. Senate Rule 37 requires it and so
does the future security of our nation.
@ William Hughes 2002
William Hughes is an attorney and the author of Andrew Jackson vs. New World
Order (Authors Choice Press) and Baltimore Iconoclast (Writer's Showcase). | | | | sharkman | | Posted: Fri May 31, 2002 8:42 pm Post subject: excellent article by pat buchanan |
| Patrick J. Buchanan : What price the American empire?
What price the American empire?
Posted: May 29, 2002
1:00 a.m. Eastern
Last week, Vice President Cheney and Secretary Rumsfeld warned that more
terror attacks are a certainty and may involve the detonation of an atomic
weapon on American soil. They have concentrated the mind wonderfully. Even
a small, crude nuclear device, exploded in a U.S. port or city, could kill
many thousands more than died on Sept. 11.
Rightly, the U.S. government is focused on how to anticipate such an
attack, prevent it, prepare for it. But there has been no debate over the
most critical question. Why? Why do these Islamic radicals so hate us they
are willing to commit suicide, if they can take hundreds or thousands of us
with them?
They don't know us. They cannot defeat or destroy the United States, even
with an atom bomb. What can they hope to accomplish? Are they simply madmen?
In our focus on improved intelligence, preemptive strikes, color-coded
alerts and evacuation plans, have we overlooked a course of action that
could end the threat of cataclysmic terror? Like Poe's "Purloined Letter,"
is a way out right there on the mantelpiece in front of us?
Consider: While no Western nation has endured an act of terror on the scale
of 9-11, all have known terror. Brits were ambushed by the Irish in the war
of independence from 1919 to 1921. British civilians were blown up by
Zionists in the King David Hotel in 1946. Settlers were murdered by Mau Mau
in Kenya. French were massacred in movie theaters and cafes by the Algerian
FLN until 1962. U.S. Marines were blown up in Beirut in 1983. From Netanya
to Jerusalem to Tel Aviv, Israelis today die in terror attacks and suicide
bombings.
In all these atrocities, terror was a weapon of the weak and stateless
against Western powers they could not defeat with arms. In each case,
terror was used to expel an imperial power or drive out foreign troops. In
each case but one, terror ended when the Western power went home.
The dynamiting of the King David Hotel convinced the British to accelerate
their departure from Palestine. Zionist terror ended. Mau Mau terror ended
when the Brits left Kenya. When De Gaulle cut Algeria loose, FLN terror
ended. When Reagan withdrew his Marines from Beirut, anti-American terror
ended in Lebanon.
Lesson? The price of empire is terror. The price of occupation is terror.
The price of interventionism is terror. As Barry Goldwater used to say, it
is as simple as that. When Israel departed Lebanon, Hezbollah's attacks
fell off almost to nothing. But as long as Israelis occupy the West Bank,
which Prime Minister Barak conceded belongs at least 95 percent to the
Palestinians, Israel will be hit by terror attacks.
Either Israel gets out, or it pays the price of staying in: terrorism.
But this column is not about Israel -- it is about us. It is about why we
are being told by our leaders, in tones of resignation and fatalism, that
it is not a question of whether, but of when, the next act of cataclysmic
terror occurs here, and why we must accept the possibility that a nuclear
weapon will be exploded here.
But when Americans ask, "Why do they hate us?" and "Why do these Islamic
radicals on the other side of the earth want to come over here and commit
hara-kiri killing us?" we get responses that ought not to satisfy a
second-grader. They hate us, we are told, because we are democratic and
free and good, and we have low tax rates.
Well that is no longer enough. Before, not after, the next terror attack on
this country, America's leaders should start telling the truth: Evil though
they may be, Islamic killers are over here because we are over there. They
are not trying to kill us because they dislike our domestic politics, but
because they detest our foreign policy.
Fifteen of the 19 hijackers came from Saudi Arabia. They did not fly into
those twin towers to protest universal suffrage or to advance
self-determination for the Palestinian people. As Osama bin Laden said,
they want us to stop propping up the Saudi regime they hate, and to get off
the sacred Saudi soil on which sit the holiest shrines of Islam. They want
our troops out of Saudi Arabia – and if we don't get out, they are coming
over here to kill us any way they can.
That is reality. Now while America should use every weapon in her arsenal,
from intelligence to diplomacy to war, to prevent terror and to punish
terror, we must address the central issue: Terror on American soil, and
eventual cataclysmic and atomic terror on American soil, is the price of
American empire.
Is the empire worth it? French, Brits, even Soviets said no. They went
home. And nothing over there – not oil, not bases in Saudi Arabia, not
global hegemony – is worth risking nuclear terror over here. I may be the
only right-winger in America who loves D.C., but then I grew up here.
Washington is my hometown. It comes first, and empire isn't even a close
second.
Related offer:
Buchanan's latest book is here!
"The Death of the West" is
<http://www.shopnetdaily.com/store/item.asp?ITEM_ID=332>an eye-opening
expos<http://www.shopnetdaily.com/store/item.asp?ITEM_ID=332> of how
immigration invasions are endangering America. Both autographed and
unautographed copies are now available at WorldNetDaily's online store!
Patrick J. Buchanan was twice a candidate for the Republican presidential
nomination and the Reform Party’s candidate in 2000. Now a commentator and
columnist, he served three presidents in the White House, was a founding
panelist of three national television shows, and is the author of seven books. | | | | sharkman | | Posted: Fri May 31, 2002 8:50 pm Post subject: |
| THE INFAMOUS ISRAELI ATTACK ON THE USS LIBERTY
THE UNDISPUTABLE EVENTS OF 8 JUNE, 1967
By Dr. E.A. Richards, P.E.
At 11:32 am the USS Liberty, a sophisticated intelligence gathering
vessel, commanded by Captain William L. McGonagle, was 15.5
miles north of the Sinai, and east of El Arish, Egypt, adjacent to the
12 mile limit off Egyptian waters, cruising in an easterly direction.
Just before 2:00 pm, the Liberty was north of the Bardawil
Peninsula, still outside Egyptian territorial waters. In morning hours,
Israeli reconnaissance planes had circled the Liberty several times,
ostensibly taking photographs, and other surveillance Israeli aircraft,
including one slow-moving propeller-driven craft, were in the area at
that time.
Without any warning, the Liberty was attacked by Israeli fighter
planes and torpedo boats while she lay in quiet waters off Bardawil.
The United States naval vessel was machine-gunned repeatedly,
and took 81 hits from aircraft rocket and cannon fire and a direct hit
midships from a torpedo fired by one of the Israeli torpedo boat
attack squadron.
Thirty four American sailors were killed in the dastardly attack, and
more than 150 were wounded.
II. REPORTS FROM LIBERTY PERSONNEL.
Lt. Richard F. Kiepher, a USS Liberty medical officer, wrote this to
his mother: "We were cruising along, and it was a beautiful day
under clear skies and the men were commenting about the
Mediterranean pleasure cruise and what fine day it was for
swimming. I heard the first explosion and then the jets were raking
the decks with machine gun and rocket fire.
"Our .50 caliber machine guns, which are our only armament, had a
chance to return some small fire before another wave of jets
knocked out the gun mounts and destroyed all the lifeboats and life-
rafts."
Kiepher wrote that when fires broke out, and crews attempted to put
them out, the men were cut down by the strafing Israeli aircraft.
Keipher himself was shot in the leg, his kneecap shattered, but in
spite of the wound he set up an emergency hospital in the mess
hall, as the sick bay was knocked out by four direct hits. He treated
wounded sailors there for 18 hours straight.
He told his mother of an extraordinary act of heroism by Lt. Jim
Pierce, who secured a flood-hold hatch so as to keep the ship from
sinking; Lt. Pierce had to secure the hatch from inside the hold, thus
staying inside the flooding compartment.
Joseph C. Lentini said this: "There was no way the Israelis could
have mistaken the Liberty for an Egyptian ship. The hull was
distinctively American, the lettering on the ship was English and not
Arabic." He said the US flag was flying when the Israeli planes
made their advance surveillance, and it flew during the attack.
"The firing was too precise to be a spontaneous target-of-
opportunity attack," Lentini went on, "The Israelis shot out the black
boxes controlling the guns," noting, "precise fire such as that could
only have come after the aerial photos taken by the Israelis had
been carefully studied.
"Moshe Dayan lied when he said the Israelis realized it was a
mistake when they saw a life raft with "U.S. Navy" on it, and that is
when the attack stopped. It stopped a few seconds after a United
States aircraft carrier finally received instructions from Washington
to send American aircraft to the rescue of the Liberty."
Captain McGonagle was awarded the Congressional Medal of
Honor for his command of the Liberty during the attack; Lt. George
Golden, the ship's engineering officer, was given the Silver Star for
his efforts to keep the crippled ship afloat and under power.
III. ISRAELI STATEMENTS.
After US jet fighters had been launched from the air craft carrier,
and the unmarked Israeli planes had fled, the Israeli government
called the US naval attache from the US Embassy to notify him that
the Israeli air force had attacked the USS Liberty "by accident"
thinking it was an Arab ship, and offering its abject apologies.
United Press International Reporter Bill Small said that Menachim
Begin stated, "Anyway we can defy the American Congress and it
will go along."
IV. OFFICIAL INQUIRIES INTO THE ATTACK
Lyndon Johnson was president when the Naval Board on Inquiry
investigated the attack on the Liberty, and appeared to have made
certain that the hearings were highly classified. The only public
information concerning the hearings came out in a summary which
made the statement that the attack was "unprovoked."
When Adlai Stevenson was chairman of the Senate Select
Subcommittee on the Collection and Production of Intelligence in
1980, he wanted to conduct hearings dealing with the Israeli attack
on the Liberty, even though that same subcommittee had voted in
secret not to investigate. Barry Goldwater also requested the same
hearings, but the request was "shot down" by a majority of his
senate committee members. Neither Stevenson nor Goldwater
believed that the Liberty attack was accidental.
V. STIFLING THE CREW MEMBERS.
Members of the Liberty crew were transferred to stations far apart
from one another after the incident. Investigative reporters
attempted to interview some of the crew, but the crewmen located
said they had been ordered not to breathe a word about the attack
to anyone, that they were afraid to talk even if their names were not
used, especially those still in service as of 1976. They said they
feared for their jobs, their families, and some, their lives.
VI. QUESTIONS STILL UNANSWERED.
A number of questions still have not been answered concerning the
incident, for example:
1. Why did the government of the United States order the officers
and crew of the USS Liberty to remain silent about the incident
under implied penalty? If the attack had come from an Arabian
state the hearings would have come thick and fast.
2. Why did one member of the crew consent to a an interview with
expenses fully paid, then back out? His mother said she "didn't
want him to end up with a bullet in his back."
3. In 1976 it was reported that the secret findings of the Naval
Board of Inquiry included the comment that the Israeli attack was
deliberate. Why are certain elements of the report, and their
conclusions still suppressed by the government and almost all of
the media?
4. Why were 6th Fleet Phantom jets ordered by McNamara,
Rostow, and the White House to halt a planned retaliatory strike on
the Haifa torpedo base from where the attackers came?
5. Israeli officials admitted later that they knew an American naval
vessel was operating off the Sinai coast; why didn't they pass on
that information to the planes and PT boats that attacked the
Liberty, unless the attack was planned?
6. Why did Senators Javits, Kennedy, and Ribicoff come out with
alibis for Israel within hours of the attack? Javits said the attack
was a "tragic fall-out of war and that the incident would have been a
lot more dangerous in its implications if it had been caused by the
Soviet or Arab forces. With Israel, we know it was a mistake."
7. Why wasn't the Israeli attack met by US aircraft immediately?
When Captain Joe Tully of the Saratoga was informed of the attack
by a Liberty radioman, he sent four A-1 aircraft to the rescue. Tully
notified Admiral Martin of the attack and Martin ordered both the
Saratoga and the America to help out.
Within a few minutes, Rear Admiral Lawrence R. Geis, commander
of Carrier Task Force 60, ordered the immediate withdrawal of the
Saratoga's planes. For the next 90 minutes, the White House and
the Defense Department "discussed" options, finally ordering
another rescue attempt, at which time the Israelis withdrew and
"apologized."
(It was later found that Robert McNamara had personally recalled
the planes that had been sent to help the Liberty)
8. After the attack ceased, why did the Liberty have to wait 16 hours
before another American ship arrived? There was a Soviet ship
hove to that offered assistance, but her help was refused.
9. A crewman on an American submarine in the battle area during
the attack stated that sub personnel took motion pictures of the
attack on the Liberty, through the periscope. Why didn't the sub
radio the 6th fleet for help. If the story is true, and the evidence is
that the reporting sub crewman had no reason to lie about the
incident, where then are the motion pictures?
VII. POSSIBLE REASONS FOR THE ISRAELI ATTACK.
1. One view has it that the Israelis did not want the US to know they
were massing troops along the Golan Heights and the West Bank
for fear the US would bring pressure on them to halt the operation.
2. Another view states that there was a high-jacked freighter nearby
which was filled with uranium stolen from the US, which would
subsequently be used to make the Israeli nuclear weapons. And if
the uranium report was untrue, where DID Israel get the nuclear
material for their atomic weapons?
III. REPARATIONS.
Some angry members of Congress called for an inquiry and
reparations from Israel in the amount of $26 million, far short of the
$40 million it had taken to build the Liberty, which was so badly
damaged it had to be scrapped. Just after Reagan had beaten
Carter in the 1980 elections, the Israeli ambassador met with Walter
Mondale, then V.P., and the two concluded an agreement to reduce
the US damage claim for $26 million to $6 million, with the
understanding that it could be "paid later," after arrangements had
been made to give Israel the money to do so.
Carter announced his approval of the settlement in a press release
on December 18th, 1980, just 32 days before Reagan became
president. The title of the release was, "The Book is Now Closed
on the USS Liberty Affair."
But was it closed? In September, 1980, the Atlantic magazine
contained an 8000 word article which completely white-washed the
criminally overt Israeli attack and subsequent cover-up actions. It
was produced by Zeev Schiff, a senior associate of the "Carnegie
Endowment for International Peace," a group once headed by
Soviet agent Alger Hiss, along with Hirsh Goodman, a
correspondent of the Jerusalem Post, which is owned and
controlled by the family of unionist Lane Kirkland, who is a trustee of
the Rockefeller Foundation and who was one of Walter Mondale's
closest friends and sponsors.
The authors began by saying that the Israel government gave them
full access to the secret "naval and air-defense archives and
transcripts of two internal Defense force investigations which remain
classified."
In the two paragraphs concluding the article, the authors state that
originally Israel refused a demand of the United States for
compensation for damages to the "Liberty" because "it did not
accept the contention that it alone was responsible for the
circumstances leading to the attack."
The article goes on: "The question of damages has bounced back
and forth over the (past twenty) years with no results. Finally, in
January of 1980, Israel agreed to negotiate a settlement, but none
has been negotiated to this day." This was in mid-1984.
IX. ISOLATED INCIDENT?
In 1976, an American reconnaissance spy plane was flying a sweep
over middle east territory; whether it was over Israeli-claimed land is
unknown, but the mission did confirm that Israel did have at least 13
nuclear weapons of 20 kiloton intensity.
Tape recordings made by US Government listening posts reported
the following conversations:
Israeli Pilot: "I have it on my radar, it is an SR-71 American
Blackbird.
Isreali Air Force Commander: "Down it."
But the American craft easily out climbed and outdistanced the
Israeli pursuers, unlike the two civilian transports, with passengers,
that the Israelis shot down long before the Soviet kill of flight 007.
X. ANTHONY PEARSON.
Anthony Pearson is a British journalist who made an in-depth study
of the events of the 1967 war, including tracking down and
interviewing many of the survivors. Here are some of his
conclusions:
1. The United States had prior knowledge of and approved the
Pearl Harbor-like attack of Egypt in June of 1967. It, too, wanted to
get rid of President Gamel Nasser and also minimize Russian
influence in the Middle East.
2. It was made very clear to the Israelis before the attack that they
should only fight Syria, if it was impossible to do otherwise, and for
no reason could they attack Jordan. The US knew of the emotional
aftermath that would engulf the Arab world after such a defeat and
did not want to lose Jordan as an ally.
3. After Israel became aware of the scope of its sneak victory -
destroying 80% of the Egyptian Air Force on the ground - it became
greedy and decided it could take Jerusalem, the West Bank, and
Golan with little resistance if the opportunity arose. That
opportunity presented itself quickly.
4. President Nassar radioed King Hussein in Jordan to advise him
to stay out of the battle since all was lost because of his shattered
Air Force. The Israelis intercepted this message and scrambled it
so it would not reach Hussein. At the same time it sent a faked
message in a Nassar-like voice telling Hussein "the moment of the
Arab triumph had arrived, that the Egyptian forces were routing
Israeli forces in the Sinai and that Jordan should attack Israel
immediately to share in this glorious triumph."
5. The Israeli plan was brilliant and worked like a charm. Jordan did
attack, but history shows Israel was prepared and finished them off
easily.
6. The only fly in the ointment was the USS Liberty. It had such
sophisticated electronic surveillance equipment aboard that it could
beam 600 miles inland and even pick up individual tank
commanders on either side. The "Liberty" would know that the
Israelis had used a trick not only to bait Jordan and get Jerusalem,
but purposely go against a policy of a country which had made its
victory over Egypt possible. It was necessary in Israeli thinking to
get rid of that annoying "fly." So they tried to swat it.
7. The USS Liberty and the 285 Americans aboard were ordered
expendable. A coordinated attack by the Israeli Air Force and Navy
was ordered, with the command decision deeming it absolutely
necessary to kill all personnel and then to blame the attack on
Egypt.
End of comments by Anthony Pearson.
XI. Stephen Green.
In his book, "Taking Sides: America's Secret Relations with a
Militant Israel," Stephen Green reported the following:
1. Israel had the arrogance to order the US ship to leave the
international waters and warned, several times, that it would attack
the ship if she remained. (The question is, whom did Israel warn?)
2. The attack was with unmarked aircraft. Israel expected to sink
the ship after killing her communications system. Israel could then
blame the attack on Egypt. (The warnings could then be denied as
"unauthorized" and "something we would never really do.")
3. One of the six shore circuits survived the Israeli attack long
enough for the Liberty to communicate its distress. But the defense
department (Robert Strange McNamara) ordered American vessels
not to come to the aid of the Liberty.
4. The night before the attack, Israel had ordered the US
government to remove the ship or it would be attacked. The DOD
then told the Liberty to change course, but the messages never
reached the ship.
5. Within 15 minutes US planes from the Saratoga were en route to
the Liberty. Their presence would have cut off the attack by the
Israelis, limited the damages, and save many American lives. They
were recalled.
6. Evidence of the Israeli plan to leave no survivors was compelling.
The lifeboats were shot out of the water and the lifeboats still on the
vessel were shot full of holes.
7. Green said after a discussion of his book at the National Press
Club, and repeated it in a subsequent telephone interview, that
"Official Washington had immediate knowledge that the attack was
deliberate, even while pronouncing it a tragic mistake, and the
amazing uninterest of the establishment press was part of the
biggest cover-up in history.
End of quotes from Stephen Green.
XII. JIM ENNES.
Lt. James Ennes' book, Assault on the Liberty, is the more well-
known of the Liberty incident publications and has already been
quoted extensively. Most of his book corroborates Green and
Pearson in his description of weather conditions, circumstances of
the attack, and the media cover-up after the fact.
XIII. Summary.
1. Much of the information on the cowardly attack on the USS
Liberty by the forces of Israel has been garnered through the
Freedom of Information Act; however, one of the researchers of the
attack, E. H. Sharp, who has collected huge files of data on the
incident, was denied access to nine key documents, about 48
pages of critical material.
2. Sharp stated that, no full official record of the attack, none of the
alleged failures of communication before and after the attack, none
of the data describing the heroic defense of the Liberty by its
personnel, or of the rescue attempt, has ever been given or even
made available to the American people.
3. Sharp said in 1981, "Attempts to piece the full story together
through the Freedom of Information Act have been frustrated by the
government."
4. One line in a Newsweek article said, "Some high Washington
officials suspect that the attack might not have been accidental."
5. A CIA observer in the US Embassy in Tel Aviv, reported that on
the afternoon of 7 June 1967 the Israeli leaders had decided to sink
the USS Liberty if it came near what they considered the "war
zone."
XIV. Aftermath.
1. William McGonagle, captain of the USS Liberty, was awarded
the Congressional Medal of Honor in an almost secret White House
ceremony, hidden so it would not offend the Israelis.
The brave American Naval Officer, Lt. George Golden, the Silver
Star recipient, who also happens to be of Jewish faith, has become
the unofficial leader of the USS Liberty survivors group. All of the
group steadfastly agree on one fact, the attack by Israel was a
deliberate attempt to sink the Liberty and kill all those aboard, and
that the attack was halted only with the approach of American
planes.
George Golden has been working with a California businessman,
Norman E. Wallen, who has formed a limited partnership in order to
provide pre-production effort on a feature motion picture presently
titled "The Violation of the Liberty."
Wallen said, "We have a working agreement with Japanese film
producer Maru Okuda, who wrote 'None but the Brave,' coproduced
'You Only Live Twice' with Sean Connery as James Bond; produced
'Marco Polo" for ABC-TV in 1971, and coproduced 'The Sailor Who
Fell from Grace with the Sea.'"
"The real purpose for making the film," said Wallen, "is to allow
these men and the families of the dead men to have their story told
- the part about living, breathing people whose lives were twisted
and destroyed by an international injustice of immense proportions
that has been successfully covered up so far."
2. Reunion.
The survivors of the USS Liberty attack had a reunion which was
held in 1982, not a media event, but a reunion wherein they were to
do all in their power to help bring about a motion picture which will
dare to relate everything they have been forced to keep inside them
for these many years.
3. Note: As of this date, mid-1986, there have been no reports that
the motion picture describing the Liberty attack has been finished or
distributed for public viewing, but a British group has recently
produced a version for television.
XV. Concluding Questions.
1. When is a 'war crime' not a war crime?
Answer: When the propaganda apparatus of the guilty party is able
to convince the world that the act in question was an "accident."
2. When is an individual anti-Semitic?
Answer: When he dares to question the official Israeli position as to
what really happened to the USS Liberty.
Bibliography:
Time Magazine
Newsweek
National Review
The Spotlight
NY Times
Washington Post
Books by:
Ennes: Assault on the Liberty
Green: Taking Sides
Pearson: USS Liberty
The Atlantic
Funk & Wagnalls
Britannica
Janes
Various other periodicals and newspapers discussing the subject.
Note: Contrary to what has been implied elsewhere, the Six Days
War began militarily when Israel attacked the planes of the Egyptian
Air Force while the Egyptian planes were parked next to the
runways. Nasser had made no overt or covert military attack on
the Israelis; he had said Egypt would close a main waterway to
Israeli shipping, which was the excuse Israel was looking for to
attack Egypt, Syria, and Jordan in order to take over Jerusalem, the
West Bank, and the Golan Heights.
This paper was written ca 1985, but the information is as horribly
true today as it was then.
EAR
Memorial Day - 2002 | | | | msteffan1 | | Posted: Wed Jun 05, 2002 10:18 pm Post subject: Re: There's a Firestorm Coming |
| Oh dear...Someone else has found some terrorists in their backyard...Well nows the time to sort em out...Presidento has led the way for all to follow...
http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/200206/04/eng20020604_97133.shtml
Robert Fisk: There is a firestorm coming, and it is being provoked by Mr Bush
So now Osama bin Laden is Hitler. And Saddam Hussein is Hitler. And George Bush is fighting the Nazis | | | | | ©2002-2009 WarWithoutEnd.co.uk |
