Baghdad Morgue Tallies 1,815 Bodies in July

A report from the United Nations combining morgue and hospital body counts for June showed that, on average, more than 100 people were being killed every day.

So the real number is higher than 3000.

Posted by: b | Aug 10 2006 7:08 utc | 4

It’s those fuckin Connecticut demopublicans fault. No one is gonna be able to get across the Atlantic for days just cause they couldn’t accept the inevitable.
Still there are some interesting points to consider in particular there is the cover for the failed cover(Lieberman distracting from lebanon loss), for the failed cover (Lebanon distracting from Iraq invasion fuck up), angle, specially considerin’ this will probably fail too.
The neo-cons haven’t been able to scare tweetybird with any of the code red alerts within the US for a couple of years now, and as Miami showed the ‘lefty’ media can be all over it like a rash real quick pointing out the beat-up and putting the masses even further into couldn’t-give-a-shit, don’t-want-to-talk-about-a-game-we’re-not-winning somnolence.
Thing is as Billmon pointed out, a sizeable chunk don’t even know what year 911 was so it’s pretty unlikely they’re gonna give a toss about a limey plane that didn’t blow up.
As for the poms well the few that won’t see this as yet another attempt by the other Bliar (Ian Blair London Police Commissioner who is seen as responsible for the wanton murder of Brazilian electricians) will remember the inummerable other times that the woodentops have rolled up a terrorist network only to have it laughed out of court.
Still it will justify a few forests being chopped down to print this cliched fish and chips wrapper design on and that will keep Murdoch offa everyone’s back for a bit longer you’d spose.
It almost seems like everyone should make pretend they are all shock and horror. Because of course one of these days the penny will drop and the tired and unimaginative old has beens may get replaced with some ‘fresh blood’ mainchancers who could try something truly awful in the hope that the populace will ‘pay attention’.

Posted by: Debs is dead | Aug 10 2006 9:39 utc | 6

“The Internet Problem”
Only a corporate-owned, corporate-slanted media would call actual democracy via the internet (whose opinions, as link points out, agrees with current majority of Americans according to polls) “the internet problem.”
Why do some memes become predominant even though they are not true?
“See, in my line of work you got to keep repeating things over and over and over again for the truth to sink in . . . to kind of catapult the propaganda.”
–George W. Bush, May 24, 2005
Bush & Co. believe that it is OK to kill hundreds of thousands to get what they want–money, oil, power. They force death on hundreds of thousands to get their way. In a similar way, they also bully the memes about. They shove death down your throats and lies down your minds. They repeat lies over and over again: “They hate us for our freedoms”, “I believe Israel has a right to defend itself” [sly lie – an inherent untruth: Israel is not merely ‘defending itself’ when constantly expanding borders, i.e.: South Lebanon, which they’re not giving back, combined with ‘support of’ which gives the hidden lie a positive connotation – brilliant progit], “The Clean Air Initiative” and on and on. The only way they are able to bully these memes about – aside from elaborate set designs involving professional banners and codpieces – is through control of the media.
Thus, “the war on the internet” starting with “network neutrality.”
other:
Counterintelligence Officials Resign
David A. Burtt II, director of the Counterintelligence Field Activity, the Defense Department’s newest intelligence agency whose contracts based on congressional earmarks are under investigation by the Pentagon and federal prosecutors, told his staff yesterday that he and his deputy director will resign at the end of the month.
I need not tell you what happened last time a Counterintelligence Official resigned…
First day on his new job and the world chan…ahh, nevermind.
On a different note:
Can you say “Duke” Cunningham? There, I thought you could…
Funny how the New Terror Alerts cue up; The Repuglican Homestretch Scare Campaign Begins right on schedule.

Posted by: Uncle $cam | Aug 10 2006 17:39 utc | 8

secrecynews: Recipients of “Leaks” May Be Prosecuted, Court Rules

In a momentous expansion of the government’s authority to regulate public disclosure of national security information, a federal court ruled that even private citizens who do not hold security clearances can be prosecuted for unauthorized receipt and disclosure of classified information.
The ruling by Judge T.S. Ellis, III, denied a motion to dismiss the case of two former employees of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) who were charged under the Espionage Act with illegally receiving and transmitting classified information.
The decision is a major interpretation of the Espionage Act with implications that extend far beyond this particular case.
The Judge ruled that any First Amendment concerns regarding freedom of speech involving national defense information can be superseded by national security considerations.

hwo much longer til speaking against the u.s. govt is considered a threat to nat’l security? years, months or weeks? that’s where this slippery slope of despotism will lead, if history is any guide.

Posted by: b real | Aug 10 2006 17:46 utc | 10

Cynthia McKinney
Whatever your feelings toward Cynthia McKinney — and I know that many progressives have turned against her — her remarks on the night of her loss are worth reading. I am sorry to lose one of the few in Congress willing to voice such thoughts and embrace such alliances. History will laud this woman.
Cynthia McKinney’s questioning of
ChoicePoint after the FL election
of 2000 about the phony felons
list that disenfranchsed 50,000 FL
voters caused ChoicePoint to finger
its clients, Katherine Harris and
Jeb Bush. See Palast, “The Best
Democracy Money Can Buy.”
She is a hero. Everyone should see
“American Blackout”.
Watch her in action questioning
Rummy and you’ll see why she had to go.
Cynthia McKinney takes on Donald Rumsfeld

Posted by: Uncle $cam | Aug 10 2006 19:21 utc | 12

Fascist Focuses on ‘Islamic Fascists’
“You can’t go overboard when you’re trying to save lives,” Snow added.
bush criticism=you are an antisemite sissy-fag.

Posted by: slothrop | Aug 10 2006 21:00 utc | 14

Sorry, this may be the wrong topic or it may be old news (I have not kept up well with the posting) but anyway, here it is… shake up in the IDF
From Ha’aretz:

The Kaplinsky appointment / Halutz’s tough call

The appointment of Major General Moshe Kaplinsky as “coordinator of IDF efforts by land, sea and air in the Lebanon arena,” as the envoy of Israel Defense Forces Chief of Staff Dan Halutz, is the most dramatic personal move in the campaign to date. Despite Halutz’s statement, that he “has complete faith in the IDF line of command in general and of the Northern Command in particular, headed by Major General Udi Adam,” Kaplinsky’s appointment must be interpreted as a show of no-confidence in a frontline commander during wartime.

Posted by: 2nd anon | Aug 10 2006 21:12 utc | 16

slothrop,
Your mother is truly amazing. I would say generally speaking that’s a rather remarkable recovery.
Thank goodness… I’m sure we are all very happy for you.
Best wishes,
2nd anon

Posted by: 2nd anonymous | Aug 10 2006 21:19 utc | 18

Nice n/a is that the same from the other day? If so, it was nice , however, I wish I knew the language so as to know what she was saying, the music was beautiful. Do you have the lyrics?

Posted by: Uncle $cam | Aug 10 2006 21:58 utc | 20

re Diana Haddad – Ana al Insan
seconding Uncle Scam – I have looked for the lyrics online and haven’t found them
Anyone speaking Arabic care to do a translation for us? pretty please?

Posted by: 2nd anon | Aug 10 2006 22:36 utc | 22

glad to hear slothrop. hope that means you will be back to posting more soon. i was wondering about you and your mom. very good news.

Posted by: annie | Aug 11 2006 0:26 utc | 24

re slothrop’s link,

“This nation is at war with Islamic fascists who will use any means to destroy those of us who love freedom, to hurt our nation,” he said, his remarks carried live on television.

does this now signal a public transition from GWOT to GWOIF? phonetically, it resonates more w/ shrub’s legacy.

Because Bush had been getting regular briefings on the developments, Snow said the president was not awakened overnight as action by British authorities was made public.

hey, he wasn’t there for people in his own country during the disaster that was katrina, why expect the man to lose any sleep over what goes on across the pond? he needs that beauty sleep, man. got an all day photo shoot to worry about. lines to remember.

With the workers as a backdrop, Bush spoke briefly to his traveling group of reporters about the importance of supporting small businesses and keeping taxes low. He did not mention the terror plot and he walked away as they asked questions about it.

c’mon… bushman doesn’t travel w/ his own stenography pool so that he can reveal his terror plots. besides, questions like that probably just piss ‘im off since they remind him how far outta the loop he on these types of matters. even snarls ‘bigtime’ keeps tight-lipped on the big secrets. instead, they mock his average intelligence by handing him my pet goat and stocking his ranch w/ fart-joke books. no wonder he turned away. imagine that it’s painful bringing up such deep self-esteem issues for the guy. after all, where do you continue to fail upwards after the presidency? future don’t look too bright for the guy. kinda paradoxical, ain’t it, in that one can be so in over their head in a role that will likely end up costing them theirs.

Posted by: b real | Aug 11 2006 2:48 utc | 26

I kind of miss GWOT because it has that thuddish clash of consonants that was the ugliness of the arian nation’s ZOG.
GWOIF is the sound one of those brainless leashed pitbulls, which seem to be everywhere these days, when it lunges after pedestrians and children on the pretty suburban bikepath. gwoif, gwoif.

Posted by: slothrop | Aug 11 2006 3:17 utc | 28

Follow up to b real’s # 10
Greenwald:AIPAC ruling a blow to press freedom

Posted by: Uncle $cam | Aug 11 2006 4:30 utc | 30

Ahmadinjad about Bush:
A flimsy reed

Every time I hear about the “international community” and the United Nations and its Security Council, I exchange my tears for cynical laughter. There is no community without leadership, and no security council without someone or something to set the tone. The one that should be playing that leadership role, the United States of America, is a flimsy reed.
The election of George W. Bush as president of the United States was a terrible calamity for the world and all its inhabitants. We all know the world is a big place, and leading it is too big a job for Bush. He is not the one who can ease its pain. Ever since he was born again and his eyes opened, he views the world as flat. In a confluence of fundamentalist Christian and Texan cowboy traditions, he divides the world into good people and bad people, the sons of light against the sons of darkness. The division is sharp and clear, all black and white, with no shades of gray. What a pity it is that the American president has inherited the earth and not the skies, which are divided so clearly into heaven and hell.
The messenger-president never has and never will have any truck with those not on the “good path” laid down by evangelist preachers and the Pentagon’s “new world order” prophets.
…
In his total redemption crusade, Bush is ignorant of how the world does mourn. He tilts at the windmills of evil like some grumpy Don Quixote, and reaps the whirlwind.
…
Only in Israel do people still thrill at the sight of Bush and his Condoleezzian entourage. Maybe they have a plan to save Israel from its enemies, but they have no plan to save it from its big buddy or from itself. The bad guys, meanwhile, have long since stopped being impressed. They do their own thing, as if there was no America and it had nothing to say.
…
The United States under Bush single-handedly destroyed its deterrent power and that of the free world, including Israel. If the American demon that has taken over Iraq is not so terrible and can be worn down, then just how terrible could the Israeli demon possibly be?

Upps – wrong author.

Posted by: b | Aug 11 2006 6:56 utc | 32

My question is: how will the religious nutjobs on the right react to all this, assuming it happens?
Their inherent anti-semitism will come out in full.

Posted by: b | Aug 11 2006 7:59 utc | 34

Check out pages 2 & 3
A Handy-Dandy Guide To U.S. Foreign Policy

Q: Is Israel like Nazi Germany?
A: No.
Q: How do the two differ?
A: Israel is a deeply religious democracy with its own Bible containing a real-estate deed to the Middle East, while Nazi Germany did not have a Bible and did not put much stock in God since it had Adolf Hitler instead.
Q: But what about the accusations that the Israelis do things in Gaza and Lebanon which remind people of what the Nazis did?
A: Such accusations are only made by Islamists or persons with left-wing attitudes at a loss as to how to cause trouble since the fall of the Soviet Union. Also, French people sometimes say such things.
There are major differences between how Israel acts and what Nazi Germany did. For instance, when the Nazis decided to blow a community to kingdom come, they did it without any warning. The Israelis always warn first. They drop pamphlets from the sky, telling the residents they have anywhere from 20 minutes to a few hours to run for their lives. That’s time enough to slip on your flip-flops, scoop up the baby and get the hell out of the house before it gets bunker-busted. The Nazis would never give people that kind of humanitarian break.
Q: Is that the only difference?
A: No, not at all.
The Nazis had mass-murder factories where they poison-gassed and killed millions of Jewish and other people.
Israelis do not do anything like that. What they do when they come up against a million or so terroristo/Islamo-fascisto Arabistos is to seal off the buggers from land, sea and air so that nobody can leave and nothing can get in that the Israelis do not want to let in. If the people want food or medicine, they’ve got to grow it, or else they can pray to Allah if he’s such a big one-and-only G-O-D. Then the Israelis destroy the power plants, the water system, the sewage-treatment plants, the roads and the bridges and let the terroristo/Islamo-fascisto Arabistos stew in their own juices.

Posted by: John Francis Lee | Aug 11 2006 8:16 utc | 36

To be filed under the category, “Not to be believed until officially denied”?

Meanwhile, it’s nice to see that under all the heated rhetoric
about arming the “bad guys”, the big boys understand that it’s
just business . In fact, cynical old leftists will see
the munitions makers stimulating market demand while cutting production costs, while RGiap and the idealists will remember that even back in the late 60’s Russia was supplying the titanium used in U.S. planes bombing Vietnam.
The site http://www.mosnews.com is chock-full of other heartwarming stories, e.g. Lukoil’s multibillion dollar investment in Turkey, Gazprom’s deal with Sonantrach to
corner the European natural gas market, Goldman-Sachs newly acquired securities dealing licence for Russia, and many others. While the scribbler’s are blogging, the nomenklatura (Western and Russian) are busy making money with the same “the public be damned” spirit of 19-th century robber barons.

Posted by: Hannah K. O’Luthon | Aug 11 2006 9:10 utc | 38

Amerika Online
…search engine logs have always been a tempting target for law enforcement.
…they could then use those logs to request all the searches from people who look suspicious.
Bureaucracies chew people and their reputations up. It’s just what they do.

Posted by: Uncle $cam | Aug 11 2006 11:59 utc | 40

The Eastern World
It is explodin’
Violence flarin’
Bullets loadin’
You’re old enough to kill
But not for votin’
You don’t believe in war
But what’s that gun you’re totin’
And even the Jordan River has bodies floatin’
But you tell me over, and over, and over again my friend
Ah, you don’t believe we’re on the eve of destruction
Don’t you understand what I’m tryin’ to say
And can’t you feel the fears I’m feelin’ today
If the button is pushed, there’s no runnin’ away
There’ll be no one to save
With the whole world in a grave
Take a look around you boy,
It’s bound to scare you boy
And you tell me over, and over, and over again my friend
Ah, you don’t believe we’re on the eve of destruction
Yeah, my blood’s so mad
Feels like coagulatin’
I’m sittin’ here, just contemplatin’
I can’t twist the truth
It knows no regulation
Handful of senators don’t pass legislation
And marches alone can’t bring integration
When human respect is disintegratin’
This whole crazy world
Is just too frustratin’
And you tell me over, and over, and over again my friend
Ah, you don’t believe we’re on the eve of destruction
And think of all the hate there is in Red China
Then take a look around to Selma, Alabama
Ah you may leave here for four days in space
But when you return it’s the same old place
The poundin’ of the drums
The pride and disgrace
You can bury your dead, but don’t leave a trace
Hate your next door neighbor, but don’t forget to say grace
But you tell me over, and over, and over, and over again my friend
You don’t believe we’re on the eve of destruction
No, no, you don’t believe we’re on the eve of destruction
(about this song ..)

Posted by: DM | Aug 11 2006 12:19 utc | 42

Awakening the Resistance

Are we really surprised by the vast, Hizbullah-led resistance? By the linkage it makes with people across the boundaries of national insult, defeat and humiliation? Are we really surprised that 40 years after Israel’s occupation of the West Bank, East Jerusalem, the Gaza Strip and the Golan Heights and 6 years into its continued occupation of the Shebaa Farms in Lebanon that people are have had enough? Are we really surprised that 3 and a half years into the US occupation and devastation of Iraq, 5 years after the US invasion and destruction of Afghanistan and decades of killings, intrusions, violations, abductions, assassinations, meddling, economic sanctions, pilfering and exploitation of the people, lands and resources of the Middle East that the reckless, racist, power-drunk mercenaries of empire should finally be met with a legitimate popular resistance? –not an outgrowth of displaced fana! ticism, not an al-Qaeda gang of killers, but the beginnings of a grassroots pan-Arab and pan-Islamic movement seeking to heal the wounds of perpetual subjugation?
They tell you that a Jewish state is democratic but a Muslim state is evil; that Palestinians living in Palestine have no rights and no state but Jews living in the rest of the world can ‘return’ and live there as rights’-bearing citizens; that Jesus wants you in Palestine unless you are a Palestinian or a Muslim; that Washington, London and Tel Aviv can produce nuclear warheads but that Tehran is a global threat for daring to enrich uranium; that legitimate resistance is terrorism but state terrorism is “self-defense”; that the desert state of Syria is Nasrallah’s courier and puppeteer but that Washington is an honest broker and a partner for peace; that Iran is a rogue state for arming Hizbullah but that America is freedom-loving for arming Tel Aviv; that we cannot talk to Damascus or Tehran unless they ! renounce themselves out of existence first; that expansionism and regime change are necessary for American and Israeli national security but that the Arab and Muslim winners of free and fair democratic elections should be arrested in the middle of the night and imprisoned in secret police detention centers for attempting to rule.
They tell you that three soldiers captured by Hamas and Hizbullah are worth the collective destruction of Palestine and Lebanon but that civilians kidnapped by Israel are not worth the price of a printed page; that the tens of thousands of Palestinian and Lebanese prisoners in Israeli jails and the hundreds of Afghanis, Pakistanis, Arabs and others at Guantanamo Bay are worth less than the abandoned pets of the residents of North Israel fleeing to the bomb shelters. They sing sanctimonious hymns to the glory of international law as they veto it into the oblivion of a million shell fragments.

Posted by: John Francis Lee | Aug 11 2006 12:48 utc | 44

The Maryland Green, Libertarian Party of Maryland, and Populist Party of Maryland candidate for the US Senate in 2006 :
An Independent Unity Campaign for the Senate

I’m running for U.S. Senate because the two major parties no longer represent the interests of most Americans. A recent poll described in July 16 th Economist, asked voters if they thought their elected officials represented their priorities. Only 17 percent said yes. And, if we look at the policies being put in place by those in office we repeatedly see that the American people are correct – their views are unrepresented.

Posted by: John Francis Lee | Aug 11 2006 13:08 utc | 46

Meanwhile in Afghanistan: ‘Up to 50,000 troops’ needed to control Taliban

Between 40-50,000 Nato forces would be needed to control Taliban fighters in the troubled Afghan province of Helmand, a senior British source said today.
The number far exceeds the 4,500 UK troops currently in the region and their Nato counterparts.
But the source insisted it was never the intention to put international troops in every village in the province, but rather disrupt Taliban influence and encourage stability in rural areas.
“There is absolutely no way that we can garrison Helmand with 4,500 troops,” said the source. “If Nato was going to garrison Helmand and carry out that sort of operation, heaven knows how many troops you would need, 40-50,000. But we wouldn’t even think about that.”

The headline of course is missleading. Those ain´t Taliban, but pissed off Pashtuns. It is -like everything in Afghanistan- a fight for tribal power.
The number seams right to me. But not like the headline suggests to control the Taliban, but like the cited officer says to contol Helmland. Now that is just on province of Afghanistan and other provinces have already joined.
So make it about 500,000 troops to control Afghanistan against the will of the people and one would need to be prepared for high losses. Nobody wants to to that job?
Okay, then let’s get out.

Posted by: b | Aug 11 2006 16:03 utc | 48

The conflict in Lebanon and the standpoint of the working class

In a 1938 article, “A fresh lesson on the character of the coming war,” Leon Trotsky wrote:
“A new partition of the world is on the order of the day. The first step in the revolutionary education of the workers must be to develop the ability to perceive beneath the official formulas, slogans, and hypocritical phrases, the real imperialist appetites, plans, and calculations.”
Such a clarification remains the starting point for the political education of working people today and of the re-forging of the international workers movement on socialist foundations.
The World Socialist Web Site has sought to lay bare the essential nature of the period that we have now entered into and its political implications. The Bush doctrine of “preemptive war” marks the turn by the US to war as an instrument of foreign policy, aimed at securing is hegemony over the Middle East and the rest of the world.
This marks a new stage in world politics—the break-up of the post-World War II framework of international law and a return to the most naked and brutal forms of imperialist politics.
This also finds expression in the actions of the European powers that have aligned themselves with the US war drive. Blair may have assumed the role of the most craven apologist for Bush, but his policy of appeasement is the order of the day throughout Europe.
Appeasement is firstly dictated by military weakness—Europe’s leaders are in awe of American power and fear that opposition would only provoke Washington to pursue an avowedly unilateral course. But it is also determined by their own imperial ambitions and a desire to secure a share of vital oil and gas resources in return for supporting Washington.
That is why no section of the ruling class, in Britain or the rest of Europe, can be entrusted with opposing the US-inspired assault on Lebanon, or averting the growing danger of a wider war in the Middle East.
Neither the US, nor the British government, will retreat on Lebanon in the face of mere protest, because so much is invested in it.
The conflict is not the result of an independent move by Israel, in which it has utilised “disproportionate” violence. It was conceived of by Washington and the violence being utilised is entirely in proportion to its real aim—of reducing the entire Middle East to a colonial protectorate of the US, with Israel as regional enforcer. The goal of imperialist conquest cannot be accomplished without destroying every last vestige of resistance amongst the peoples of the region, Arab, Iranian, Afghan—and including the Jewish working class.
There are always parallels to be drawn with the actions of the Nazis in the 1930s. I would like to add one of my own.
Between 1933 and 1936, the Third Reich had begun a programme of rearmament in preparation for enacting an expansionist foreign policy. On March 12, 1938 Austria was occupied by the German army, and on the following day it was annexed to the Reich. The next target was Czechoslovakia.
The Shofar web site explains how this was conceived of by Hitler and Minister of War Wilhelm Keitel.
On April 22, 1938 the two discussed the pretexts which Germany might develop as an excuse for a sudden and overwhelming attack—an “incident” of their own creation, including the supposed assassination of the German Ambassador in Prague. The plan was known as the Green Case and had been circulated in secret to Germany’s armed forces.
On May 30, 1938 Hitler issued the revised military directive for Case Green.
It reads:
“1. Political Prerequisites.
“It is my unalterable decision to smash Czechoslovakia by military action in the near future. It is the job of the political leaders to await or bring about the politically and militarily suitable moment…
“The proper choice and determined and full utilization of a favourable moment is the surest guarantee of success. Accordingly the preparations are to be made at once.
“2. Political Possibilities for the Commencement of the Action.
“The following are necessary prerequisites for the intended invasion:
“a. suitable obvious cause and, with it
“b. sufficient political justification,
“c. action unexpected by the enemy, which will find him prepared to the least possible degree.
“From a military as well as a political standpoint the most favorable course is a lightning-swift action as the result of an incident through which Germany is provoked in an unbearable way for which at least part of world opinion will grant the moral justification of military action.”
Does this remind anyone of anything? It might today be renamed the Olmert doctrine, or the Shalit gambit.
We have already drawn attention to the report in the San Francisco Chronicle July 21 that Israel’s military response to the capture of its soldiers by Hezbollah commandos—and by extension the Israeli Defence Force’s earlier action in Gaza—was planned more than one year ago.
It shows that detailed foreknowledge of events was shared by Israel not only with the US government, but its media. They all knew that every word they spoke, every line printed claiming that Israel was mounting a defensive action, was a lie.
Now in the latest edition of the New Statesman, its editor John Kampfner writes that “Blair knew the attack on Lebanon was coming but he didn’t try to stop it, because he didn’t want to.”
He continues somewhat obliquely, “I am told that the Israelis informed George W. Bush in advance of their plans to ‘destroy’ Hezbollah by bombing villages in southern Lebanon. The Americans duly informed the British. So Blair knew.”
One must assume that Kampfner only makes this claim because his sources are impeccable.
These reports indicate an important fact. It is not Israel that is equivalent to Germany in the 1930s. That role should be assigned to the United States. In waging war against Lebanon, Israel is implementing a far more all-encompassing American plan to create—in the words of Condoleezza Rice—a new “Middle East.”
Israeli strategy has been devised by the same Washington neo-cons that determine US policy and is inexplicable outside of this reality. Israel relies on the US, not only for its armed forces and economic survival, but ultimately to ensure its position as an undisputed regional power.
As long ago as 1996, neo-cons including Richard Perle, Douglas Feith and David Wurmser proposed a plan by the Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies “Study Group on a New Israeli Strategy Toward 2000” to the incoming Likud government of Binyamin Netanyahu.
It called for an end to peace negotiations based on giving land to the Palestinians that threatened Israel’s national sovereignty:
“First and foremost, Israel’s efforts to secure its streets may require hot pursuit into Palestinian-controlled areas, a justifiable practice with which Americans can sympathize…. Israel has no obligations under the Oslo agreements if the PLO does not fulfill its obligations. If the PLO cannot comply with these minimal standards, then it can be neither a hope for the future nor a proper interlocutor for present. To prepare for this, Israel may want to cultivate alternatives to Arafat’s base of power.”
Under the heading “Securing the Northern Border” it said that “Syria challenges Israel on Lebanese soil. An effective approach, and one with which America can sympathize, would be if Israel seized the strategic initiative along its northern borders by engaging Hezbollah, Syria, and Iran, as the principal agents of aggression in Lebanon.”
The key task was to “focus on removing Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq—an important Israeli strategic objective in its own right—as a means of foiling Syria’s regional ambitions.”
They also called for “reestablishing the principle of preemption.”
In January 1998, these same layers famously sent a letter to then President Bill Clinton advising a second war against Iraq—a new Middle East strategy that should aim “at the removal of Saddam Hussein’s regime from power.”
The letter warned that “if Saddam does acquire the capability to deliver weapons of mass destruction” (a phrase that subsequently became all too familiar) “a significant portion of the world’s supply of oil will all be put at hazard.”
It concluded, “We believe the US has the authority under existing UN resolutions to take the necessary steps, including military steps, to protect our vital interests in the Gulf. In any case, American policy cannot continue to be crippled by a misguided insistence on unanimity in the UN Security Council.”
In 2003 the neo-cons got their wish of a war against Iraq, and on the very basis for which they had argued.
In April 2003, in the immediate aftermath of the Iraq war, Feith and others called for an immediate war against Iran and US Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld ordered contingency plans for war against Syria.
Bush vetoed the plans. Iraq was a major undertaking and a new war was not possible. But the elimination of Syria and more importantly Iran remained a necessity if US hegemony in the Middle East was to be fully realized.
One would do well to listen to what the neo-cons are saying now if one wishes to understand what is happening in the Lebanon. They make clear that Israel’s offensive is only the first chapter in a war that can and will only be concluded in Iran.
James Phillips, a member of the board of editors of Middle East Quarterly, the leading conservative journal of Middle Eastern policy studies, testified before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in May on “US Policy and Iran’s Nuclear Challenge.”
He urged the creation of a “coalition of the willing” to “seek to isolate the Ahmadinejad regime…. If Tehran persists in its drive for nuclear weapons despite these escalating pressures, then the United States should consider military options to set back the Iranian nuclear weapons program…. There is no guaranteed policy that can halt the Iranian nuclear program short of war.”
William Kristol, editor of the Weekly Standard, calls Hezbollah’s attacks on Israel “Iran’s proxy war.” He wrote a piece on July 24 titled, “It’s Our War: Bush should go to Jerusalem—and the U.S. should confront Iran.”
He states, “Regimes matter. Ideological movements become more dangerous when they become governing regimes of major nations. Communism became really dangerous when it seized control of Russia. National socialism became really dangerous when it seized control of Germany. Islamism became really dangerous when it seized control of Iran…. No Islamic Republic of Iran, no Hezbollah. No Islamic Republic of Iran, no one to prop up the Assad regime in Syria. No Iranian support for Syria.”
He concludes with the suggestion that “we might consider countering this act of Iranian aggression with a military strike against Iranian nuclear facilities. Why wait?”
Newt Gingrich, writing in the Guardian, declared, “The third world war has begun: Hezbollah’s attacks on Israel are part of a global crisis of civilisation.” Iran, he continued, was “at the epicentre” of this threat.
Michael Ledeen, writing in the National Review on July 13, urged that the war should now be taken over by the US military and expanded across the entire region. “The only way we are going to win this war is to bring down those regimes in Tehran and Damascus, and they are not going to fall as a result of fighting between their terrorist proxies in Gaza and Lebanon on the one hand, and Israel on the other. Only the United States can accomplish it. There is no other way.”
We must add to the list one of the world’s most prominent neo-cons, Prime Minister Tony Blair. His speech last week to the Los Angeles World Affairs Council called for a “complete renaissance” on foreign policy to combat “Reactionary Islam.”
Amidst his routine platitudes concerning calls for a just settlement of the Palestinian question and for a political struggle for democratic values, there was nothing of substance to distinguish his actual agenda from his US co-thinkers who have now discovered a so-called “Shia arc,” or as he described it, “the arc of extremism that now stretches across the region” to replace Al Qaeda as the central focus of the supposed war on terror.
He asserted, “We will continue to do all we can to halt the hostilities. But once that has happened, we must commit ourselves to a complete renaissance of our strategy to defeat those that threaten us.”
He continued, “The point about these interventions, however, military and otherwise, is that they were not just about changing regimes but changing the values systems governing the nations concerned. The banner was not actually ‘regime change’ it was ‘values change’.”
Thus, by sleight of hand, does Blair embrace and excuse the illegal policy of regime change as his own explicit goal. His references to Syria and Iran make clear who will now be targeted next. But his formulations are such that nowhere and no one are safe.
The ravings of the neo-cons often sound so insane that it is easy to ridicule them. But this would be wrong. Their insanity expresses the underlying logic of contemporary social and political relations.
On March 29, 2003, the World Socialist Web Site held a conference in the United States, “Socialism and the Struggle against Imperialism and War: The Strategy and Program of a New International Working Class Movement.”
In his opening remarks, David North made the following observation to explain our strategy for opposing war based on the independent political mobilisation of the international working class:
“But history never poses any problem for which it does not also provide the solution. There is not only the predatory imperialist response to the problems of world economic development. Lodged objectively within these global processes is the potential for an international social solution.”
North then drew attention to the significance of the mass protests against the war that had mobilised over 10 million people. He stated, “These demonstrations, which have developed almost spontaneously, independent of, and in opposition to, all the traditional political forces of the bourgeois establishment, can only be understood as the preliminary expression of the emerging internationalist and socialist response to the crisis of the world capitalism system.”
Let us also remind ourselves that the New York Times was moved to comment at the time, “The fracturing of the Western alliance over Iraq and the huge antiwar demonstrations around the world this weekend are reminders that there may still be two superpowers on the planet: the United States and world public opinion.”

Posted by: Anonymous | Aug 11 2006 16:15 utc | 50

this news about the neocons dumping Israel certainly is interesting. If the democrats should capture the house and senate this fall what will happen to the lobbies and PACs who have got into bed with the republicans and have roundly dissed the democrats in the process? will fauxnews suddenly start their endless and breathless support for liberals and only interview Jews who are not neocons?
I suspect that the democrats will quickly forget they were the targets of smear campaigns and somehow left off of all the cool party invitations once the checks start rolling in again…after all it is just business, nothing personal you know.
AIPAC has been pretty severe with democrats who have not taken their money and pushed forward their agenda. Now that people associate AIPAC with the republican will it be easier to for the dems to separate themselves (should they want to)?
I know there was some handwringing going on in the first years of the cheney adminstration among US Jews lamenting the eventuality of this weird (and it really is) relationship of bornagain WASPs and Zionists going sour and Jews taking the blame. It probably will happen and there is already enough distrust and jealousy of the Jews in the US that all that would be required is corporate media stop its continuous selling of all things Israel for things to change in a big way.
I already see small signs that this is underway. Even here we can freely speak of Israel and Israeli politics without invoking a shitstorm of LGF style trolls. I see that in many other places on the internets that others can criticize Israeli policies without immediately being called antisemites.
If Israel and the Jews lose their greatest PR asset, that of being victims, can they then be judged on other merits just as we do for other europeans and whitefellas? Or will it all just turn into another piling on with all Jews being blamed for all things that have gone wrong.
please excuse my clumsy writing. If I could write like Malooga the above would be a lot easier to read.

Posted by: dan of steele | Aug 11 2006 16:36 utc | 52

@b, #34:

Well, then, that raises another question. The religious rightwing nutjobs want Israel to expand not because they are in favor of Israelis or Jews (which are not the same thing in any case) but because they believe that Israel must take over a quite substantial chunk of real estate before the end of the world, and they have whipped themselves into a frenzy over how near the apocalypse (noticed my former misspelling) seems to be.

So if the nutjobs abandon Israel, they at least partially abandon their end-times mentality, because you can’t have the one without the other. Anyone think that’s a bad thing? If they stick with Israel, then they can’t let the anti-semitism make a full comeback. And regardless, they still have to make a choice between sticking with the Republicans, who screwed up their chance to bring about the end of the world, or moving to the Democrats, who still have a chance. Or, of course, forming their own party.

Posted by: The Truth Gets Vicious When You Corner It | Aug 11 2006 18:08 utc | 54

I always thought Limbaugh’s sneering way of saying liberal was code for Jewish. Reading the above snippet from b it looks like I might have been right. It seems quite likely that the rightwingers can hate Jews and love Israel. Seems odd but fits if you think about. Most Christians are quite taken aback if you mention that Jesus was a Jew. Jesus is normally depicted in Northern European paintings and such as being blond and blue eyed which is not likely if he were born in Nazareth.
just another one of those things I guess.
all things considered, I still put a lot of blame for what is going on with the Jewish elite in the US. I do believe they have considerable power and could alter this if they wanted to. I may be wrong and the alternative could be much worse…

Posted by: dan of steele | Aug 11 2006 19:45 utc | 56

b:
I am having an angry afternoon, so let me tell you this, and don’t take it personally: I have nothing but angry contempt for the unthinking use of the term anti-semitism, because the term assumes that a human can “be” jewish. That in turn is an inherently racist assumption, whether one is “philo” or “anti”. It also self-references the chosen people myth: if someone harbors anti-jewish feelings, then, supposedly, these are not about a set of religious beliefs, but about “a people”. Therefore this person is racist. Therefore “just like a Nazi”.
The successful imposition of the term “anti-semitism” has gotten us to the bizarre situation where it is socially acceptable to be “anti-catholic” (cus of Torquemada) or “anti-communist” (cus of the Gulag) or “anti-American” (cus of Ayrak) or “anti-whathaveyou” (cus I’m having an angry afternoon), but not “anti-jewish” — because that’s then “anti-semitic”, right?
Something is semantically very twisted here, and guess what: for a reason. Linguistics as a continuation of politics by other means.

Posted by: Guthman Bey | Aug 11 2006 21:40 utc | 58

AND THIS NEWS FLASH FROM ANGRY ARAB:
Israeli Peace Movement: refers to those in Israel who only disagree with the government on how long Israeli wars should be.

Posted by: Malooga | Aug 11 2006 23:02 utc | 60

@ Uncle $cam 57:
What proof do we have that the recordings were transcribed properly?
This should be seen as the bookend to the limited hangout, capping the necessary damage.
@ Guthman Bey:
Let’s turn that around:
“You can’t go into an office in America today without finding a US TV station featuring the daily carnage of Arab Terror. It’s now the Muzak of the American world, and it is toxic for Arabs and their American friends.”
Now we have a statement I could agree with.

Posted by: Malooga | Aug 12 2006 3:37 utc | 62

Yeah, someone got to him, big time. I couldn’t believe that shit.

Posted by: Malooga | Aug 12 2006 4:03 utc | 64

Speaking of people of the lie, a beloved German author, nearing the end of his life, has come clean. How Distressing

Posted by: jj | Aug 12 2006 5:35 utc | 66