When my wife and I were driving back from the supermarket tonight I tried to tell her more about Sheldon Adelson and Doug Feith and she dropped her head to her chest in weariness and said, “Doug Feith is getting too much airtime in our relationship.” That’s why I have a blog!
I got home in time to catch the “60 Minutes” piece on Feith, first aired in April, rebroadcast tonight. It was OK. But there was no biographical stuff, no effort to talk to Feith’s enemies. Just Steve Kroft semi-grilling Feith. So the fact that Feith’s father Dalck lost his entire family in the Holocaust–unspoken. And though the interview seemed to be happening in Feith’s library, the camera didn’t pan around to show the photo of Theodor Herzl that the New Yorker reported some years ago was on the wall. No Jewish stuff, in short.
The heart of the piece was Feith’s failure to express any remorse for his bad decision-making. Kroft gave him plenty of opportunity. Feith put the decision to go to war completely on George Bush, thereby failing to have Scott McClellan’s common-sensical understanding, that intellectuals have power, that a president who didn’t know how to think was captured by intellectuals who had bad ideas. When Kroft noted that all the proceeds of Feith’s book will help veterans (something I also have applauded Feith for), he seemed to be saying, The telltale heart.
The highlight of the piece for me came when Kroft read various criticisms to Feith. Here’s “60 Minutes”‘s account:
”General Franks basically [called you], the dumbest guy on the face of
the planet. Former CIA Director George Tenet called your intelligence
evaluations ‘total crap.’ This isn’t normal Washington discourse,” says
Kroft.
“I agree. And some people, when they deal with controversy,
political issues, use harsh language,” says Feith. “And I – I don’t
think it’s a great thing.”
When asked why he thinks this vitriolic language was directed at him, Feith responds, “You’d have to ask them.”
In the actual report, Kroft’s question about why these people were saying these things was more open-ended, and you saw Feith’s hedgehoglike eyes going through a lot of feeling before he said what he said. I thought it was clearly an antisemitism question, Kroft was daring Feith to say It’s because I’m Jewish. Feith is obviously sensitive about religion. A few weeks back he angrily
refused to testify before a House Judiciary subcommittee hearing because Col. Lawrence Wilkerson, who was to be on the same panel, two years ago accused Feith of being a “‘card-carrying member
of the Likud party’ whose allegiance is to Israel rather than the
United States,” Feith’s lawyer wrote to the committee. Then there’s Wilkerson’s former boss, Colin Powell who has said that the idea for the Iraq War came out of the
“JINSA crowd,” the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs, on whose board Feith served. I believe that Feith thinks there’s antisemitism at work. If so, he ought to say so. That’s one of the biggest problems with the neocons. They never tell you what they really care about.
It is anti-Semitism. Feith evidently identifies so completely with his ethnic heritage that they merge together, heritage and self, therefore to attack him is to attack the Jews, and to attack the Jews is to be anti-Semitic.
To protect themselves against the unfair assault they do the things they're accused of, entering an irreversible spiral of reaction.
Stories of lifesavers who reach the drowning only to have to fight them into rescuable posture.
People don't always do what they obviously could to get what they're after, often because they can't see the other ways. Sometimes the overwhelming becomes just that.
Feith is overwhelmed by his Jewishness, blinded by it, unable to conceive of being anything else. That seems to have been the idea, at least Biblically.
So, Feith rationally infers, and is confirmed in that inference, his larger self is the moral center.
What's good for the Jews is what's good, period. Humanity is something else entirely.
There is footage somewhere of Jim Lobe interviewing Feith – before the war I think. He raised the dual loyalty issue and Feith literally bristled. I seem to recall him responding angrily and talking about his father's war service and the family's patriotism. It was all Stars and Stripes forever, Israel a mere bagatelle.
There is footage somewhere of Jim Lobe interviewing Feith – before the war I think. He raised the dual loyalty issue and Feith literally bristled. I seem to recall him responding angrily and talking about his father's war service and the family's patriotism. It was all Stars and Stripes forever, Israel a mere bagatelle.
"That's why I have a blog!"
You have a blog because you are a man on a mission: no fireworks this time! It's your way of loving "that well which thou must leave ere long."
————
"Doug Feith is getting too much airtime in our relationship."
If you want to make Witty a happy man bring the PAZ-JEW some airtime and be ready to fill those divorce papers. There is always a Debbie Wasserman-Shultz-PAZ waiting around the corner… and fireworks, bright and beautiful fireworks.
"To protect themselves against the unfair assault "
supposed unfair assault…
And JINSAN Feith also co-wrote the 'A Clean Break/war for Israel agenda that the Iraq war was based on:
'A Clean Break':
http://neoconzionistthreat.blogspot.com/2008/02/clean-break.html
Feith also had Israeli generals visit him at the Pentagon and had them not check in on the record either as conveyed in James Bamford's 'A Pretext for War' book as well and in the following article too (Karen Kwiatkowski was a witness to such):
Open Door Policy
A strange thing happened on the way to the war.
http://www.amconmag.com/2004_01_19/article1.html
Karen Kwiatkowski was also mentioned in 'The Lie Factory' article which is linked at the following URL about Feith:
Feith-Libby Lies Exposed:
http://www.commondreams.org/views07/0213-20.htm
Scott McClellan was asked about the JINSA crowd during the 'Q & A' of his presentation for his book at the Barnes & Noble in Santa Monica (Los Angeles) on June 16th, 2008:
Scott McClellan Questioned about Neocon Push for Iraq War:
http://neoconzionistthreat.blogspot.com/2008/06/scott-mcclellan-questioned-about-neocon.html
A War for Israel? Colin Powell seems to think so:
http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/zone0/viewtopic.php?t=61128
Kevin MacDonald's 'Thinking about Neoconservatism' article seems to explain JINSAN Feith and neocon movement well as it is linked near the top of the following URL (the MacDonald's 'Neoconservatism as a Jewish Movement' monographlinked near the top there is worthwhile accessing as well):
Neoconservatism as a Jewish Movement:
http://www.itszone.co.uk/zone0/viewtopic.php?t=32606
"What's good for the Jews is what's good, period. Humanity is something else entirely."
No, the argument must look pretty different from his point of view. There must be rationalizations that render his actions a choice-of-the-lesser-evil.
Something like?
America is threated by ME terrorists, just as Israel. Anti-Zionism is the antisemtism of the day. Do antisemitism and anti-Americanism merge?
Antisemitsm has a seismographic value concerning threats to democratic societies generally. It's 1938 all over again.
We have to fight these forces, people have to die for the better of all.
Phil, serious question. How much time do you spend contemplating this stuff. Do you ever go to a movie, a ball game. Bowling. Do you read anyting that doesn't pertaain to this?
My understanding of the militarist rationale in the Middle East is more plausible, but also more of a gamble.
That is that the prior state of permanent tension between Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Iran, Israel was a large drain.
That, IF it were possible to remove all of the fanatic regimes (Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, formerly Libya – voluntarily turned now), that the world would be a better place. And, that if the only way to accomplish that were militarily, and potentially surgically by the doctrine of overwhelming force applied in a focused manner, that those would be relatively minor moral compromises compared to the moral compromise of permanent fanatic regime.
But, the danger in the premise, the gamble, is that it would be easy militarily and with no aftermath.
Both of those were anticipated to not be true, and have now borne out to not be true.
Civil war ensued. And, US resources turned out not to be unlimited, even sufficient to accomplish the task.
The fantasy turned out not to be reality, and even the benchmarks presented (and still presented) to confirm success turned out to be self-talk more than evidence.
But the indulgence in self-talk is not limited to the neo-conservatives or even large portion of the old conservatives that continue to support the war in Iraq and even saber-rattle in Iran. The left indulges in similar self-talk, considering a success at a tactic as success.
Phil, its hard to follow our reasoning for anybody not as involved with a subject as we are. Maybe she is afraid you loose the ground under your feet? … "Babyface" is a cipher in a much larger power network. …
Your argument that he was a nobody catapulted into power by Adelson money is not very unconvincing. Who choose the "dark Prince" Richard Perle? Or do you think that is basically the same network? And strictly it contradicts your larger-Lobby-argument. I am alluding to this:
"Feith, an ***obscure*** hedgehog-like figure"
He was already one of the "crazies in the basement" during the Reagon administration, even was honored for his service.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douglas_Feith#Career
Looks as if his May 2006 lecture, "Policy and Intelligence", was impressive. At least for these guys:
http://www.da.mod.uk/colleges/rcds/CollegeNews/USA5.jpg
http://www.da.mod.uk/colleges/rcds/CollegeNews/USAVisit
Eric Margolis writes in a column today:
"According to Israel’s media, President Bush even told Israel’s Prime Minister Ehud Olmert that he could not trust America’s intelligence community and preferred to rely on Israeli intelligence."
Phil, you've come way too late to the party. Most of the kids are passed out on the floor. But have a beer anyway.
Hmmm? I cut out a part of the argument and now it's partly misleading. Of course Perle and Feith belong to the same network.
It feels to me, it all starts with Cheney. Has it ever happened that somebody heading the vice presidential selection office turns out to be the choice?
How many vice presidents were heading the department of defense? Is this business as usual?
Did anyone discuss the contradiction of "no nation building" strategy versus choosing a vice president who doubles as DOD head?
I absolutely agree with NF, if I remember him correctly, I don't think Cheney is somebody who'll allow people to pull his strings. Feith and Cheney must have essentially agreed. And Cheney knew the hesitancy of the oil lobby about boycotts, did he offer them, what if we change the problem essentially? Saddam was an uncontrolable force in the OPAC circles …
I agree with Richard, oil is part of the larger scenario. That's why Wolfowitz suggested that oil would pay for the war; I don't think he had done, hadn't the issue been discussed in inner circles.
What does Feith write about Cheney????
The Kroft interview epitomizes the politically correct cowardice of mainstream media, and its Zionist kowtowing. Granted an interview with Feith, any journalist worth his salt would have immediately reached back to Feith’s relationship with One Jerusalem (mentioned by Phil yesterday) and his “Clean Break” track record and associations with Likud, Netanyahu, Perle, the Wurmsers etc. in Israel, particularly given that they provide evidence of ulterior motives for the false Iraq war intelligence that Kroft did (barely) question Feith on, and which Feith blamed on the CIA. But Kroft went nowhere near any of this. I don’t think he even ever mentioned Israel.
This is how the mainstream media create a false consciousness, wherein the question of Israeli influence seems to exist only in a parallel internet universe supposedly inhabited by paranoids and anti-Semites, and one of the reasons those who get their news from mainstream media greet mention of the Israeli angle with blank stares: they are simply kept ignorant, just as they are kept ignorant of Israel atrocities perpetrated against Palestinians. In addition to political correctness, I suspect Jewish media ownership/influence and consequential self-censorship play a huge role in this.
A country that exists in a state of false consciousness sinks quickly, because it ends up flailing at all the wrong enemies while never addressing the cancer slowly eating away at its soft underbelly.
It feels to me, it all starts with Cheney.
LeaNder, the actual supremacy of Cheney in the "Bush" White House has long been a groveling point for me. Pretty incredible even that people don't widely acknowledge this. American journalists have even reported quietly that Bush isn't even informed of some decisions vis-a-vis emplying American military resources to Iran (I thought he was the Commander-in-Chief!)
Re: JINSA
Dick Cheney was its Distinguished Service Award winner in '91, and served on its Board of Advisors after that, before becoming vice-president in 2000.
I think Mr. Cheney is smart enough to see that zionism is good for business.
(The business of militarizing the world under the pretext of security.)
Phil, you've come way too late to the party. Most of the kids are passed out on the floor. But have a beer anyway.
Yeah I'm sprawled out in the corner huffing glue with Richard Witty.
That, IF it were possible to remove all of the fanatic regimes (Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, formerly Libya – voluntarily turned now), that the world would be a better place.
cf. "A Clean Huff". Witty et al, 1997
Man, can this guy huff.
Besides overthrowing the governments of Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria (you forgot them), and Iran, is there anything else we can do for you?
Civil war ensued.
LOL! Did anyone else notice how jumpy our zionist media was to declare Iraq a "civil war"? (From about the time a completely unknown, unidentified group carried out the Samarra golden mosque bombing?)
Yes, yes Richard. (Does anyone else always find themselves forced to agree with Richy in pure condescension?)
We all KNOW the zionist GOOD would like to have Iraq bombed from above, below, and both sides, and then divided in three.
Have you asked any Iraqis how they feel about that? Read any opinion polls?
Do you think keeping American troops in the country until it can be divided is an ethical policy for "Israel's supporters" to adopt?
MM,
You made the simple-minded mistake of confusing a description of neo-conservative logic with my own.
Technically you are nothing more than a different algorithm producing solutions belonging in the same feasible set. We talk about changing the feasibility criteria, but your makers did not provide you such dynamic abilities. Personally I think you are worthless as a study subject because you are a trademark KMacDonaldian specimen, a package of rationalization and self-deception. But the sarmatian insists on dealing with you. That's probably a result of his long residence at PSYCHOS Institute. Then again that residence was instrumental in helping tropical monkeys survive extreme bouts of the flu, which, you know, is the ultimate word in environmental activism.
On C-SPAN recently, they had on Richard Clarke (former State Dept. security analyst and author of "Your Government Failed You"). In the hour he was on, they had a large percentage of callers ask about Israel's role in our military actions abroad. In addition to the reasonable caller the C-SPAN moderator hung up on, Clarke sidestepped the rest. A call then came through that sounded like a character from Amos and Andy asking about the "Protocols of Zion" which Clarke then used to declare that all the calls focusing attention on Israel were anti-Semitic and that he would not bother to address any of them.
The bulk of the calls were thoughtful, and the 'protocols' guy sounded like a plant (i.e. uneducated minority stereotype). The C-SPAN moderator did his part in gatekeeping and, though obviously a topic that the C-SPAN viewers were interested in, Richard Clarke specifically chose to ignore the 'elephant in the room.'
I was disgusted….but not surprised.
I wouldn't expect the MSM to do much to hold Feith's feet to the fire either.
~
How did you find out? Anonymous?
At the moment they run a survey with a new collection of anti-constipation pills, here at Psychops Institute. The study is complicated by a meta study design. They test if after a while we monkeys realize what causes the runs. Mind you all of us realized this by now, the problem are the solutions. I have stopped to eat, hoping this will get me out of here soon, while the most fearful little monkey tries to eat even more hoping it will produce constipation. The problem is the pack has started to mix the pills into his food. Initially I found it funny too, but by now I simply find it boring.
It's not fair to ask Steve Kroft to raise the topic of Feith's Jewishness on 60 Minutes.
The program was founded by Don Hewitt, who is Jewish. He served as executive producer for 36 years until replaced by Jeff Fager, who is also Jewish. The show's chief anchorman, Mike Wallace, is Jewish. The show airs on CBS, which is owned by Summner Redstone. The corporation's news department is headed by Leslie Moonves. Both men are of Jewish (Moonves being the great-nephew of David Ben-Gurion).
Every social gathering Steve Kroft attends will always include a large proportion of Jews. Here is in the Hamptons, for example–
link to query.nytimes.com
It is inconceivable that anybody from that milieu would ever raise the topic of Zionism on public TV. Not just because he would damage his career, but because these are his friends and he would not want to embarrass them.
There are Americans who still regard the idea of Jewish preponderance in the mass media as a "canard." That's why it's so important for Phil to continue to emphasize the media. It's the most important aspect of the lobby.
emphasize the media. It's the most important aspect of the lobby.
Very well said, D.
You made the simple-minded mistake of confusing a description of neo-conservative logic with my own.
Actually the choice of words you used in your description, specifically "the world would be a better place", is the dead giveaway that you (perhaps subconsciously, but I doubt it) are in fact shilling for this extremist, genocidal, neo-Jabotinskyan position.
There is a subtext in what you wrote Richard that implies that if the carnage and chaos could somehow be subtracted from the invasion of Iraq, the "domino theory" might have some validity. Non-zionists completely disagree.
Your burning desire to call Iraq a "civil war" makes the whole thing incredibly obvious. You do not have "the world"'s interests at heart. Are you honest enough with yourself to see this? Probably not.
a result of his long residence at PSYCHOS Institute.
Not only that, but I have also severed ALL my diplomatic and commercial relations with women.
After PSYCHOS I'm kinda zionist like John Bolton. I'll berate anyone and anything. And in my head, whenever I see an actual lady specimen, I imagine her on a moustache ride.
Even if somehow implicit thanks for unleashing the sephardi man of peace got eaten in another PSYCHOS meta study the day was saved when the sound of big flapping wings was heard and reports surfaced of a whole media team getting their necks tasted by the one vampire.
Brrrr…