The judgment of history has been unkind to America for not getting involved in World War II sooner to save Jewish lives from the Nazis. Is history repeating itself two generations later? And will Obama permit his legacy to be defined as the American president who had the last clear chance of preventing a people from being annihilated with US-taxpayer funded weapons, and did nothing?

Deceit has nothing to do with it — Obama has eyes-open clarity of the war crimes committed by the previous administration which was under the spell of the "Clean Break" neo-con cabal. He was elected in large part because of his repudiation of the sins of the neo-con infiltrated Republican party. After caving on the Freeman issue, the coming weeks will be the litmus test to see whether Obama is mere rhetoric, or an agent of change.

Title "Israeli Nuclear Arsenal Prohibits US Foreign Aid Under Symington"

WASHINGTON, March 31 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ — The American
Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) and Zionist Organization of America
(ZOA) are heavily lobbying Congress for $2.775 billion in military aid to Israel.
However credible reports from the US Army and a former president confirm
the existence of an Israeli nuclear weapons arsenal. This could prohibit US
taxpayer funded fiscal year 2010 foreign aid.

The declassified US Army report titled "The Joint Operating Environment 2008"
identifies Israel as a nuclear weapons power. Specifically the US Army highlights
"a growing arc of nuclear powers running from Israel in the west through an
emerging Iran to Pakistan, India, and on to China, North Korea, and Russia
in the east." Jimmy Carter became the first former President to confirm in 2008
that Israel has secretly financed, developed and deployed an undeclared
arsenal of nuclear weapons.

The Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 as amended by the Symington Amendment
of 1976 and the Glenn Amendment of 1977 prohibit US military assistance to
countries that acquire or transfer nuclear reprocessing technology outside of
international nonproliferation regimes. Israel, unlike Iran, is not a signatory to
the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. If Congress wishes to provide US taxpayer
funded foreign aid to Israel in compliance with US law, it may do so only under
a special waiver from the office of the President as in the case for Pakistan.

Upholding the Symington Amendment could be an early litmus test as Congress
and Executive branch strive to restore public confidence in the aftermath of the
US invasion of Iraq and global financial crisis. According to IRmep director of
research Grant F. Smith, "Governance depends on rule of law– it is imperiled
if government openly flouts important laws. It is no longer acceptable for
Congress or the President to invoke 'strategic ambiguity,' a practice whereby
US government officials publicly pretend to the American people that Israel
possesses no nuclear weapons."

Links to the US army report on nuclear proliferation may be found at the Israel
Lobby Archive: link to IRmep.org
The Archive is a unit of the Institute for Research:
Middle Eastern Policy in Washington. The Archive digitizes declassified
documents obtained through Freedom of Information Act filings with law
enforcement, intelligence, and trade agencies.

http://tinyurl.com/WSJ-Nukes

MY CONTRIBUTION – Supreme Court Justice Louis D. Brandeis elaborated in Olmstead v. United States (1928): "In a government of law, the existence of the government will be imperiled if it fails to observe the law scrupulously. Our government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by example. Crime is contagious. If the government becomes a lawbreaker, it breeds contempt for the law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy."

That is what is coming up.

yes… try conveying that to a zionist and see where it gets you…

"The judgment of history has been unkind to America for not getting involved in World War II sooner to save Jewish lives from the Nazis."

Um, firstly I don't think anyone believes that even when America did get involved in World War II it was to save jewish lives from the Nazis. It got involved because Hitler essentially declared war on the U.S. simultaneously with Japan's attack on Pearl Harbor.

Secondly, lots of the industrialized killing of jews by the Nazis didn't start until later in the war.

Thirdly, even after it had started the scope of that killing wasn't even known for sure.

Fourthly, and not to put too fine a point on it for one who purports to speak for "the judgment of history," but there's lots of people whose view of things is that even if those killings had started earlier and had been fully known, the U.S. still should not have gone to war trying to stop same. And that's true not only because it probably could not even have accomplished same under those circumstances, but because U.S. citizens had no duty to go get themselves killed on that account.

And of course while one can say that they did have that duty, then one also has to say that they had that same duty to go to war with the Soviet Union who was killing tens of millions, and, later, China under Mao which killed more, and perhaps on and on fighting all other kinds of endless wars against foreign monsters.

A.) Nothing you said conflicts with the central point of my post that America did not get involved in WWII to save jewish lives.

B.) For what it's worth I don't think you can prove that "the USA deliberately forced Japan to declare war on it." (Not least because the whole idea that I can somehow "force" you to declare war on me would seem to have its weaknesses.)

C.) Nor even accepting your "forced" assertion anyway is it a "logical inference" that he USA forced Japan into war pursuant to an agreement with Britain and whoever else "to re-divide the colonial empires."

A logical *possibility,* yes. No different than the logical possibility that it was caused by little green men from Pluto.

A logically *possible* inference even, yes. As one amongst the cosmos of all possible inferences, such as that it was indeed little green men from Pluto.

But not a "logical inference." An inference is a belief, not a person or process. A person or process can be logical, but a belief can only be logically *arrived* at or not. Just as a cracker box cannot be said to be "logical."