Commenter Profile

Total number of comments: 495 (since 2009-09-02 22:24:45)

bob

Showing comments 495 - 401
Page:

  • So the U.S. military doesn't want to attack Iran and neither does Israel. Who does?
    • bob February 4, 2012 at 1:26 pm

      seanmcbride:

      You are right about the methodological differences.

      Dan Crowther. Thank you very much.
      You may want to draw your attention to the information within the link above regarding "the Israeli campaign caught the Clinton administration offguard.Israel’s advice did not fit Washington’s agenda; the Clinton White House was focused on Iraq, not Iran."

    • bob February 4, 2012 at 4:54 am

      Dan Crowther.

      I see where you were going in stating how the sanctions were not passed within a vacuum. The thing is, the The Israeli campaign caught the Clinton administration offguard.Israel’s advice did not fit Washington’s agenda;the Clinton White House was focused on Iraq,not Iran.
      Clearly, the Iran Sanctions in the 1990's were passed over the objections by powerful oil concerns. The Israelis and pro Israeli groups shifted their focus from getting the US to move closer to Iran before the regional competitor Iraq was weakened to moving against Iran after Iraq was weakened in the first gulf war.

      In other words, give these groups their own clearly recorded agency in the issue. Here's mondoweiss

      On Iran sanctions, Clinton bowed to Israel lobby in first term and corporate lobby in his second

      [I]n the first half of the Clinton administration, Israel, which viewed the Iranian government as a thorn in the side of its pursuit of colonial policies, began to direct the U.S. sanctions policy, using its various lobbies, think tanks, and allies in the U.S. government. However, the sanctions advocated by Israel ultimately became so severe and irrational that many countries around the world defied them. This defiance was one factor that slowed the imposition of new sanctions in the second half of the Clinton administration. Another factor in this slowdown was the concerted effort of U.S. corporations, which by then had been almost completely cut off from Iran’s vast resources and markets. Using their lobbies, think tanks, and hired hands in the government, U.S. corporations waged a massive campaign to stop the enactment of new sanctions and to remove many of the old ones. These efforts, however, were only partially successful. The partial success resulted, at the end of the Clinton administration, in an incoherent and inconsistent U.S. policy toward Iran that tried to reconcile the irreconcilable aims and interests of Israel and U.S. corporations....

      [Secy of State Warren] Christopher’s accusations and name-callings were very much in accord with those of the Israeli government. Indeed, not only did the Israeli lobby exert a direct influence over the U.S. president through Martin Indyk, but it also tried to exert a direct influence over Christopher. This is evidenced, for example, by a meeting arranged in January 1993 in the office of Senator Joseph Lieberman that included Christopher, the chairman of the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations, and AIPAC’s vice president and political director. According to the [January 7, 1993] New York Times article, the purpose of the meeting was to allay the fear of Jewish organizations that some of the newly appointed members of the new administration, who were veterans of the Carter administration, “might not be inclined to carry out the pro-Israel policies Mr. Clinton espoused during the campaign” ...

      From here onward, there was a coordinated effort by the Israeli government and Christopher to pursue the policy of “dual containment,” with a special emphasis on Iran, using the Israeli formula of three Iranian sins: sponsoring terrorism worldwide, opposing Middle East peace efforts, and developing weapons of mass destruction ([NYT report by Elaine] Sciolino 1995)....

  • The 'special relationship' and the arms race
    • bob January 3, 2012 at 9:53 am

      Theres a mix up in Giving and Selling here.

      Borrowing this from here.
      This sale has been under negotiations since 2007 and it is (as mentioned) conected with the Israeli deal with the F-35. For context, the U.S. suspended Israeli partnership with the F-35 in 2005 because of Israeli arms deals with China. There is considerable history with Israeli arms sales to China.

      The United States agreed to reconnect the F-35 deal as part of a new defensive package of giving $30 Billion in military aid so the US could sell the Saudis arms. Note the difference in giving and selling.

      Despite this deal with Israel, the deal with the Saudis was suspended (by people like Congressman Wiener) in a good portion over concerns over Israeli military supremacy in the region and over weapons the "U.S. has been selling Israel such weapons since the 1990s."

      Addressing Israeli concerns, advanced sensors on the new Saudi F-15s will have technology built in to prevent them being used against Israel.

      Forward
      Ensuring Israel’s qualitative military edge in the face of such an extensive arms deal required action on several fronts. First, the U.S. promised that Israel would receive the advanced F-35 jet fighter, which is considered a step above the F-15s the Saudi are getting. (Among other things, the F-35, a stealth fighter, would give Israel the capability of reaching Iran undetected by radar.) Also, the American aircraft will be delivered to the Saudis with certain “technical safeguards”—such as limits on their firing systems and radar software—that would give Israel, with its high-end countermeasures, the upper hand in the unlikely event the weapons were ever turned against it.
      In the past, the U.S. also made sure that Arab countries receiving advanced technology would be fully dependent on American parts and support, thus retaining America’s ability to pull the plug if arms are used against Israel.

  • AIPAC-championed amendment pushes Obama into a corner on Iran
  • 'Daily Beast' provides platform for 'warmongering' on Iran
    • bob December 29, 2011 at 12:07 pm with 1 replies

      This is directly about the AIPAC crafted sanctions. Wheres the news pointing this out for context during this recent coverage?

      Here’s Phil on Dec 08, 2011

      If you want to understand the pressure that Obama is under from the Israel lobby, consider this greasy story: Last week three high Obama officials urged Senators not to pass an amendment to the huge Defense Authorization Act that would apply far stiffer sanctions to Iran’s central bank than the Obama administration wanted. Two of the officials went to the Hill, and said the amendment would send oil prices higher, among other damaging effects.
      But the Senate rebuffed the administration and voted unanimously, 100-0, for the sanctions.

      Why did the Senate put aside appeals from Treasury secretary Tim Geithner, under secretary of the Treasury David Cohen, and Wendy Sherman, #3 at the State Department, all saying that the bill would be bad for business and bad for the U.S.’s efforts to build a coalition on Iran? Why did John Kerry, chairman of Senate Foreign Relations, acknowledge Tim Geithner’s letter against the legislation, and then vote against his president?

      The clear evidence is: because the lobby wanted this amendment and these guys feared for their political lives. AIPAC led the charge. AIPAC rolled the amendment out 3 weeks ago, and then led a letter-writing campaign to US Senators on the amendment, known as Kirk-Menendez (in part for the Senator from AIPAC, Mark Kirk of Illinois). Here’s the AIPAC memo from last month:

      [More in article]

      What about before this?

      2007 Israel, U.S. Jews Intensify Efforts To Isolate Iran
      A renewed push from Jewish organizations for tougher sanctions against Iran is facing tough obstacles in Washington and capitals throughout the world.
      American Jewish groups are aggressively attempting to rally support for isolating Iran until it ends its suspected nuclear weapons program. They are lobbying Congress, reaching out to friendly nations overseas and seeking allies in the United States.

      Malcolm Hoenlein, the executive vice chairman of the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations, is warning that Iran is close to acquiring the knowledge it needs to build nuclear weapons.

      Officials at the Anti-Defamation League have launched a campaign in support of tougher sanctions, and recently pressed the issue in a meeting in Moscow with Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov. Also, the American Jewish Committee has been meeting with foreign leaders, including French President Nicolas Sarkozy.

      In the latest manifestation of the renewed push, delegates to the General Assembly of the United Jewish Communities in Nashville are expected to be asked Monday to vote on a resolution calling on federations and Jewish community relations councils to move on the Iran issue by initiating, coordinating and funding “expanded efforts aimed at both educating and mobilizing the Jewish community as well as partnering with other respected members in the broader community.”

      In the 1990′s Bronfman and AIPAC in 1995 passed their research to the US government demonstrating how U.S. oil companies were Iran’s biggest customers by far. AIPAC worked with Sen D’Amato (Seymour Reich, Chair of of the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations called D’Amato “one of the best, if not the very best senator for Israel”) in passing the bill through the Senate.

      AIPAC passed the bill, again, through the senate during the wake of confusion of the 2000 election. Bush, who was still siding with Powell and had not yet kicked him out for the neoconservatives, was furious. Oil companies lost big here and were lobbying to have the sanctions dropped.

      Even during the Iraq war, one of the arguments that was used against the lobby was that the target was, all the while, really was Iran. Now the drums are beat against Iran, and its going to be hard to cover up this 800 lb elephant.

  • 'Economist:' analysis of Iraq war that leaves out neocons' Jewishness is 'deficient'
    • bob December 29, 2011 at 7:22 am

      This is directly about the AIPAC crafted sanctions. Wheres the news pointing this out for context during this recent coverage?

      Here's Phil on Dec 08, 2011

      If you want to understand the pressure that Obama is under from the Israel lobby, consider this greasy story: Last week three high Obama officials urged Senators not to pass an amendment to the huge Defense Authorization Act that would apply far stiffer sanctions to Iran's central bank than the Obama administration wanted. Two of the officials went to the Hill, and said the amendment would send oil prices higher, among other damaging effects.

      But the Senate rebuffed the administration and voted unanimously, 100-0, for the sanctions.

      Why did the Senate put aside appeals from Treasury secretary Tim Geithner, under secretary of the Treasury David Cohen, and Wendy Sherman, #3 at the State Department, all saying that the bill would be bad for business and bad for the U.S.'s efforts to build a coalition on Iran? Why did John Kerry, chairman of Senate Foreign Relations, acknowledge Tim Geithner's letter against the legislation, and then vote against his president?

      The clear evidence is: because the lobby wanted this amendment and these guys feared for their political lives. AIPAC led the charge. AIPAC rolled the amendment out 3 weeks ago, and then led a letter-writing campaign to US Senators on the amendment, known as Kirk-Menendez (in part for the Senator from AIPAC, Mark Kirk of Illinois). Here's the AIPAC memo from last month:

      [More in article]

      What about before this?

      2007 Israel, U.S. Jews Intensify Efforts To Isolate Iran
      A renewed push from Jewish organizations for tougher sanctions against Iran is facing tough obstacles in Washington and capitals throughout the world.

      American Jewish groups are aggressively attempting to rally support for isolating Iran until it ends its suspected nuclear weapons program. They are lobbying Congress, reaching out to friendly nations overseas and seeking allies in the United States.

      Malcolm Hoenlein, the executive vice chairman of the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations, is warning that Iran is close to acquiring the knowledge it needs to build nuclear weapons.

      Officials at the Anti-Defamation League have launched a campaign in support of tougher sanctions, and recently pressed the issue in a meeting in Moscow with Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov. Also, the American Jewish Committee has been meeting with foreign leaders, including French President Nicolas Sarkozy.

      In the latest manifestation of the renewed push, delegates to the General Assembly of the United Jewish Communities in Nashville are expected to be asked Monday to vote on a resolution calling on federations and Jewish community relations councils to move on the Iran issue by initiating, coordinating and funding "expanded efforts aimed at both educating and mobilizing the Jewish community as well as partnering with other respected members in the broader community."

      In the 1990's Bronfman and AIPAC in 1995 passed their research to the US government demonstrating how U.S. oil companies were Iran's biggest customers by far. AIPAC worked with Sen D'Amato (Seymour Reich, Chair of of the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations called D'Amato "one of the best, if not the very best senator for Israel") in passing the bill through the Senate.

      AIPAC passed the bill, again, through the senate during the wake of confusion of the 2000 election. Bush, who was still siding with Powell and had not yet kicked him out for the neoconservatives, was furious. Oil companies lost big here and were lobbying to have the sanctions dropped.

      Even during the Iraq war, one of the arguments that was used against the lobby was that the target was, all the while, really was Iran. Now the drums are beat against Iran, and its going to be hard to cover up this 800 lb elephant.

  • Columbia U book on Iraq war suggests Wolfie, Feith, Wurmser and Perle had 'Israeli interests, not just U.S. interests at heart'
    • bob December 22, 2011 at 7:46 am

      “No blood for Israel!” should be the slogan now but in case people haven’t noticed, despite all the talk about the likelihood of an attack on Iran, there has been no visible anti-war activity on the part of the groups that directed the protests against either Iraq war.

      No help from the left from sympathetic media members or people like Chomsky.

      Its worse when people think the baseless "took their oil" claim deserves equal treatment to the highly nuanced Israeli lobby genre of research which passed through an unimaginable gauntlet of trials and attacks. These premises and the rigor in which they were developed have an incredible inequality on the quality of their research. One has throngs of supporters ranging from highly paid professionals to emotional bloggers and posters throwing attacks and demangind nuance at every turn. One does not and its quite possible to throw the most hap hazard arguments about "oil corporations" with no chance of reprisal.

    • bob December 21, 2011 at 9:40 pm

      Powell, Scowcroft, and others were the most influential figures in pushing back from this neoconservative war for regime change. Powell and his representation of a more "Daddy Bush" style foreign policy, was particularly hamstrung, though, he had significant policy influence before 2002.

    • bob December 21, 2011 at 5:58 pm

      Oil companies were fighting and lobbying to increase trade to both Iraq and Iran. In the late 1990's, Iraq was begging to sell their oil, and U.S. companies like ExxonMobil (and the American Petroleum Institute) were lobbying to ease the sanctions . link to nytimes.com
      Meanwhile, the lobby, as it were, was pushing for both Iraq invasions (yes, the first one, too link to mondoweiss.net
      link to mondoweiss.net
      . In Iran, AIPAC, the Bronfmans, and senator D'amato lobbied and passed harsh sanction on trade with Iran when US oil companies was Iran's biggest oil trading partner by far. When the neocons were writing in the mid nineties about "removing Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq — an important Israeli strategic objective in its own right," Cheney was talking about how an invasion would be a quagmire.

      What about the opinion of the "oil guys." Obviously, Daddy Bush was against the invasion, much top the very public chagrin of the neoconservatives who very openly fought against Clinton, then Powell in pushing for the war. Phillip Carrol, the former CEO of Shell oil thought the neoconservative plan was terrible. The James A Baker Institute wrote a paper warning about the war.

      The James Baker institute "cautioned against expectations of an Iraqi oil bonanza with the assessment that "Iraq's oil industry is in desperate need of repair and investment" after more than two decades of wars and sanctions. It also warned that the pace of recovery in Iraq's oil sector would depend on the post-invasion political and security environment. "

  • Our demands (designing placards for a demonstration)
    • bob June 11, 2011 at 7:38 pm

      The whole “race” thing is BS.

      True. Thats been established as far back as the 1920's. The U.S. govt line is an arbitrary one as well. Its also the one thrust upon you the most.

    • bob June 11, 2011 at 4:10 pm

      Well, the whole concept is heavily criticized. However, thats how the entirety of the U.S. government words it. Thus, its easily the most used classification system by most Americans. Its importance warrants a place here.

    • bob June 11, 2011 at 3:03 pm

      • We demand an end to the horrors of intermarriage and their effects on the rapidly diminishing white population
      Where The White Women At?
      We demand the same rights as our Israeli friends enjoy.

    • bob June 11, 2011 at 3:00 pm

      It used to be a widespread belief and a trope used by whites to promote ethnic unity in the face of external aggressors. See birth of a nation for a little detail here.

    • bob June 11, 2011 at 2:54 pm with 8 replies

      The U.S. government defines "White" as "having origins in any of the original peoples of Europe, the Middle East, or North Africa." This is used by all of your government forms, the census, police organizations, applications, etc. Thats right, if you put your national origin down as Iranian or Egyptian or Moroccan, you are white as per U.S. government standards.

      The development of white as a term and the move from Christian as a term is extremely relevant here, at least for proper effect. Judaism has both religious and ethnic elements, and this can be missed. See link to mondoweiss.net

    • bob June 11, 2011 at 12:49 pm

      This has legs. It turns so many canards on their head.

    • bob June 11, 2011 at 11:31 am with 4 replies

      • We demand a White, Christian State - with land swaps - for security reasons
      • We demand that the Blacks and Indians recognize the White States right to exist

    • bob June 11, 2011 at 11:20 am

      Though, to counterpoint myself, there was a strong movement to maintain this Christian identity in groups like the Klu Klux Klan. They would use the term White and Christian grouped or, sometimes, interchangeably.

      Interesting. This might be a case of "what looks better."

    • bob June 11, 2011 at 11:09 am with 1 replies

      Good point. Identity shifted amongst those in Europe from "Christian" to "White" during the Early Modern period, in large part due to colonization and the Trans Atlantic slave trade. A new form of identity was needed to separate themselves from the ethnic other. Of course, there was a considerable amount of bleed over when dealing with, say, piracy and wars with the Maghreb. Here the language of "Christendom" rather than "White" was maintained. Its a good concept to be used for this developing meme.

      Still, its also powerful to use the entirety of this concept when trying to create an analog for the stickier term of "Jewish State," which contains both religious and ethnic components. Atheist, but Jewish by birth, and the small amount who make it through the very rigid process of an Orthodox conversion.

      The analog cant be perfect, and it will engender an argument that "White" isn't exactly the same. That is fine. its almost ridiculous to argue against the hypocrisy that's exposed with these signs with a discussion that a "Jewish State" doesn't mean a perfectly ethnic state as a small amount of people might make it through a very rigorous conversion process, and always be forced to be Orthodox rather than have the option of choosing other forms of Judaism or Atheism like one born from a Jewish mother can.

    • bob June 11, 2011 at 10:38 am with 5 replies

      Clever.

      You might want to play up on the distinct break of advocating for open immigration in the U.S. and advocating for an ethnic state in Israel.

      Graham
      … the driving force at the core of the movement, reaching back to the 1920s, were Jewish organizations long active in opposing racial and ethnic quotas. These included the American Jewish Congress, the American Jewish Committee, the Anti-Defamation League of B’nai B’rith, and the American Federation of Jews from Eastern Europe. Jewish members of the Congress, particularly representatives from New York and Chicago, had maintained steady but largely ineffective pressure against the national origins quotas since the 1920s…. Following the shock of the Holocaust, Jewish leaders had been especially active in Washington in furthering immigration reform. To the public, the most visible evidence of the immigration reform drive was played by Jewish legislative leaders, such as Representative Celler and Senator Jacob Javits of New York. Less visible, but equally important, were the efforts of key advisers on presidential and agency staffs. These included senior policy advisers such as Julius Edelson and Harry Rosenfield in the Truman administration, Maxwell Rabb in the Eisenhower White House, and presidential aide Myer Feldman, assistant secretary of state Abba Schwartz, and deputy attorney general Norbert Schlei in the Kennedy-Johnson administration.

      In other words, "The more diverse American society is the safer [Jews] are." Compare that to the many statements and laws creating and advocating an ethnic state in Israel.

  • Obama's mild defiance at AIPAC cost him $10 million in Jewish donations
    • bob May 28, 2011 at 3:10 pm with 3 replies

      Larry Wilkerson: Congress’s ‘remarkable’ reaction to Netanyahu might be explained by money

      Larry Wilkerson, a former chief of staff to then-Secretary of State Colin Powell, appeared on The Real News to discuss Congress’s reaction.

      “Even the obsequiousness of the United States Congress from time to time during States of the Union or other type speeches doesn’t come anywhere near this” Wilkerson marveled. “This was a refutation, really, of the standing policy position of the sitting president of the United States by the separate and equal branch of government, the Congress, with a foreign leader being the center pole around which they coalesced this opposition. It’s really quite remarkable.”

      When asked what he thought might explain the reaction, Wilkerson replied, “It’s a mystery to me, except money. That’s the only answer I can come up with. … Congressmen and women … understand what a powerful entity in America is the lobby group AIPAC for Israel, and that generates a lot of coin, a lot of money.”

    • bob May 28, 2011 at 8:27 am

      Thanks a million!

    • bob May 27, 2011 at 6:58 pm with 2 replies

      J Blankfort
      polls afterward showed that 85% of the public

      I've tried to find this poll. I'd like to use it. Do you have a link or a name I can reference?
      The closest i can come up for it is this

    • bob May 27, 2011 at 5:02 pm

      Lets see how this gets buried.

  • An angry Obama warns the lobby that the 'world is moving too fast' (to preserve a Jewish state)
  • Netanyahu has nothing to worry about
    • bob May 20, 2011 at 6:32 pm

      The two state solution is dead and untenable with the expansion in Jerusalem and the West Bank. Obamas arguments for it wont change that. Netanyahu, on the other hand, is a few steps behind, and worrying about a "solution" that can't work while the options of apartheid, transfer, or multi ethnic society roll forward..

  • What rough beast slouches toward Jerusalem?
    • bob May 16, 2011 at 6:47 pm

      Glenn Beck vs. the rabbis
      After MSNBC let go Keith Olbermann last week, Glenn Beck couldn't resist celebrating. "Keith Olbermann is the biggest pain in the ass in the world," he judged.

      But Olbermann's departure really should give Beck pause: With political speech coming under new scrutiny, how much longer can Beck's brutal routine continue at Fox News?

      The latest omen of Beck's end times came on Thursday -- Holocaust Remembrance Day -- when 400 rabbis representing all four branches of American Judaism took out an ad demanding that Beck be sanctioned for "monstrous" and "beyond repugnant" use of "anti-Semitic imagery" in going after Holocaust survivor George Soros.

      A Fox News spokesman brushed off the complaint in the usual fashion, attributing it to a "Soros-backed left-wing political organization." But that's not going to fly: The statement's signatories included the chief executive of the United Synagogue of Conservative Judaism and his predecessor, the dean of the conservative Jewish Theological Seminary rabbinical school, and a number of orthodox rabbis.

      Beck has outlasted past complaints over his race baiting, his violent words, and his conspiracy theories. He's not new to questionable talk about Jews (years ago he called Barbra Streisand a "big-nosed cross-eyed freak"), and for the past couple of years his Nazi accusations against opponents have come by the hundreds.

      But in June, he promoted on air the work of a Nazi sympathizer, Elizabeth Dilling, who had referred, in writings Beck didn't mention, to Eisenhower as "Ike the kike" and Kennedy's New Frontier as the "Jew Frontier." A few days later, Beck referred to Soros's Jewish ancestry, accused him of currency manipulation and said "he's got disturbing hair in his nose."

      On July 13, Beck told his Fox News viewers: "Jesus conquered death. He wasn't victimized. . . . If he was a victim, and this theology was true, then Jesus would have come back from the dead and made the Jews pay for what they did." (After complaints, Beck clarified that "the Romans, not the Jews, put Jesus to death.")

      Then came Nov. 9, which -- by sheer coincidence, no doubt -- happens to be the anniversary of Kristallnacht, a precursor of the Holocaust. Beck chose that day to launch a three-night series attacking Soros as "the puppet master."

      "The prime minister of Malaysia called Soros an 'unscrupulous profiteer,'" Beck reported. "In Thailand, he was branded the 'economic war criminal.' They also said that he sucks the blood from people."

      Puppet master. Unscrupulous banker. Bloodsucker. These are hoary anti-Semitic stereotypes. The Malaysian leader's words cited by Beck came from remarks describing a Jewish conspiracy against Muslims.

      And Beck wasn't done. He called Soros "a collaborator" with Nazis who "saw people into the gas chambers," and "a Jewish boy helping send the Jews to the death camps." In fact, Soros's father had hidden the boy from the Nazis by placing him with a Hungarian man assigned to record belongings of Jewish families that had fled.

      "It is not appropriate to accuse a 14-year-old Jew hiding with a Christian family in Nazi-occupied Hungary of sending his people to death camps," the 400 rabbis wrote in their ad on Thursday.

      Beck responded on his radio show by joking with his sidekicks that "attacks are coming out at me now that I'm anti-Semitic." Beck employed a variation of a defense he has used before: that he's not anti-Semitic because he's pro-Israel and is a fierce critic of Iran.

      That's true, but irrelevant: Many conservative Christians support Israel out of a belief that it will help to bring about the Second Coming. Being pro-Israel and pro-Jew aren't the same.

      Beck's warm thoughts about Israel, for example, don't excuse what he did two weeks ago on Fox News, when he identified nine men responsible for the "era of the big lie." He spoke of them as propagandists who saw themselves as an "intelligent minority" manipulating the masses. Of the nine men Beck attacked, eight were Jews. "A classic case of anti-Semitic dog-whistling," alleged Jeff Goldberg of the Atlantic.

      Seventy-five years ago, Father Charles Coughlin, the celebrated "radio priest" of the Great Depression, lost his mass-media platform as he moved from veiled references to "driving the money changers from the temple" to overt anti-Semitism. Now, Beck clings to Fox News's support as evidence that he has not crossed this line.

      "Could I put on three hours of television with nothing but lies and smear and keep my job against the most powerful man [Soros] and the most powerful groups in the world?" he asked one night.

      It's a question Rupert Murdoch has to confront.

      Rupert Murdoch doesn't stand for that.

      Rupert Murdoch on Anti-Semitism and Israel

      Media hostility has anti-Semitic roots, says Rupert Murdoch

      I know "Jewish Funds for Justice, a social advocacy nonprofit, has taken credit for the polarizing personality's pending exit from Fox News," but Rupert Murdoch is totally against this POV from Beck as well.

  • 'Geronimo EKIA'-- as Indian wars continue in Palestine
    • bob May 10, 2011 at 7:17 am

      Donald

      To put it another way, we here know that it is important that we all recognize racism and ethnocentrism in ourselves and try to root it out. None of us are truly free of it. Its exactly why I agree with the sentiment to add a caveat of the brutal and egregious treatment of the native populations when talking about disease. This is why I think this academic consensus on egregious treatment of the Native Americans needs to be mentioned when talking about the virgin field epidemic.

      Its also exactly why people need to talk about this epidemic nightmare when trying to wrap their heads around how this continent was depopulated so quickly, or how such a tiny band of Spaniards could manage victory over people like the Inca or the Aztecs. Otherwise, its easy to slip into discussions of inferiority/superiority without mentioning this important bit of context. This is part of the discussion that was absent here.

    • bob May 10, 2011 at 4:08 am

      This is what I get for trying to be fairminded

      Yes you were being fairminded. That should be noted first and foremost.

      And I also think it’s rather sad that anyone would think that a claim that the armies in Mexico in 1520 were militarily inferior to the Spanish is “racism”.

      I got a long description of that by a few guys in the Plains.
      Everytime they heard something like dismissing massive imbalances to numbers, they mentioned why did people forget to mention how smallpox and disease has passed through.
      Desoto. Cortes. Pizarro. etc. Disease was there.
      Disease hit communities in the Americas in successive waves as well.

      This thread is getting increasingly ridiculous. Currently people who agree on 90 percent of the facts are at each other’s throats and I fully expect it to get worse.

      I completely agree. I never wanted this on here, and I'm wondering why the conversation is still here. That guy VR below is claiming I'm "accusing the indigenous of cannibalism when there is none to be had" when in the thread this and I think this and this? to show standard archaeological and anthropological studies that show osteological evidence for cannabalism and large scale violence. In sum, we are the same and one group doesnt have a license on evil or strength, or power. The myth of the "noble savage" is related issue of soft racism.

      When it comes to accounts of early conquest, you were (and we all are) left wondering how such a small group could overtake so many with 16th century weapons. This is normal. However, look at these events and you'll find disease playing its destructive role. I know you've mentioned it. Think about the correlary impact that this disease would have on complex societies. Think about the devastation you would have as an American if your society was wiped out by 40%. Is getting Milk, Gas, Eggs, Water, going to be a problem? Its not just the numbers, its also the societal collapse from a breakdown in production from a labor specialized workforce.

    • bob May 9, 2011 at 7:26 pm with 6 replies

      I took your email public because I wanted others to have a chance to dissect it. I’m glad I did, I stand by it, and I consider this conversation with you, in all aspects, to be complete.

      I do to. You dodged and failed to respond to a glaring omission on your part. Just above, you can see an example of someone failing to note the effect of disease and attributing it to the ineffectiveness of Native American armies. I've had a few Native Americans express their outrage to me over this issue, and how they're disgusted of the soft racism that attributes inferiority to NA's when the virgin soil epidemic is ignored. You can see it here and elsewhere.

      You presented the discussion against my will, despite hypocritically railing against how "you cannot force someone to have a private conversation when they do not want to." You presented it poorly in a strawman fashion, then when it appeared here, you could only try to shift the discussion to a spectre - and one that I anticipated. You were wrong again in your assumption where you overlooked how I mentioned that I replied in the thread already. These are numerous examples of your inability to read text, lack of understanding on the topic, and your gross rudeness in publishing private correspondence is deeply offensive.

    • bob May 9, 2011 at 4:09 pm

      No, you’d have to be assuming something which wasn’t said, to take your stance. Which is what my argument has been all along. I think a large part of this thread has been people jumping to the conclusion that if someone points out that most Native Americans died from an unintended introduction of disease that they are somehow denying the ethnic cleansing and genocide also involved. Jumping to false conclusions is not “processing information in context”; its an error in listening.

      I’ve respected and enjoyed reading most of your posts on Mondo, but in this instance I think you are jumping to conclusions that aren’t warranted about what bob is saying, and I suspect you are letting your emotions get the better of your logic.

      Thanks, tree. That sums it up.

    • bob May 9, 2011 at 1:06 pm

      I never agreed to have a private conversation with you, period.

      And I never agreed for you to make it public.

      I asked you to take it public. You refused. I took it public. Now there’s a public debate.

      Again, you are wrong. I answered your point in my first email by saying that I had replied in the thread. This was before I sent you anything.

      If you want to have a private conversation with someone, ask them first if they agree to have it private. You cannot force someone to have a private conversation when they do not want to.

      No. If you didn't want to continue the conversation privately, the proper recourse was to cease communication, since I didn't want it public. Read your argument against forcing someone very slowly and note the glaring inconsistency within it.

    • bob May 9, 2011 at 11:43 am

      Donald Bob, thanks for the links about the effectiveness of Aztec weapons.

      No problem.

      Donald I’ve been perplexed by this (not terribly important) question ever since I was a child when I first read about the conquest of the Aztec Empire. I never quite understood why, through sheer force of numbers, a bunch of guys with the equivalent of baseball bats lined with broken glass couldn’t prevail against guys with swords

      Think about your life. What do you actually produce to what you use. Now think what would happen to what you could use if 40% of the US were to die off in a year. Food. Water.
      Now, think about the state level complexity and specialized production of the Aztecs. There is quite a bit written about the cumulative effects of this disease on state-level societies. In other words, the diseases effects on the Aztec mentioned above have a profound effect.

      One factor working in Cortes’s favor was disease. A member of Narvaez’s party who reached Mexico was infected with small-pox, and the disease swept into the Valley of Mexico, touching off an epidemic such as the Aztecs had never seen before. Some 40 percent of the population died within a year.

      This is one of the dangers I mention on forgetting this large scale epidemic. When this major factor is forgotten, you simply have a tiny group of Spaniards, roughly estimated as outnumbered 1,000 to 1, and taking over a group of people with early 16th century weaponry. Without this important factor, its easy make a mistake assuming the Spanish were simply just superior enough to sort out 1,000 to 1 odds with inferior Aztecs.

    • bob May 9, 2011 at 5:48 am

      Matthew ... I’ve learned enough to know that all of the factors that resulted in their decimation –
      ......
      I’m not interested in doing a literature review on the topic.
      As I said previously, I am not an expert on this topic, so therefore, I will not engage with you in an in-depth debate on this topic

      You're avoiding the topic while claiming you know all the factors but staying willfully ignorant of the literature. Why would you insist on doing this? Why rudely move a private conversation here if this was the result?

      tree
      Matthew, if you claimed that 60 million Jews died in the Holocaust would someone be “denying the Holocaust” if they rightly pointed out that number accepted by most reputable historians is more in line with 6 million instead?

      You don’t seem to be listening to what bob actually said, but rather to what you assumed he must have said but didn't.

      Thanks. Thats an issue with "VR" too, who just ignored the Amherst 1763 reference where the pox infected blankets story comes from.

      Its curious to me why bringing up this major epidemiological epidemic to this discussion can cause such a reaction. Theres whole paragraphs of speculation and poor/no citations in some posts above, yet the topic that garners attention is one that is widely accepted within the academic mainstream.

    • bob May 8, 2011 at 9:13 pm

      Thanks. Its a misreading of my post above. I made this clear, here, in bold

      As I said: “Now, when this particular topic is raised, it is often commented that a caveat noting the brutal and egregious treatment of the native populations should be listed. This is true and also an academic consensus. “

      To sum up, I agreed with what you consider a rebuttal, and you failed to answer my point.

      He, again, failed to respond to his oversight. I expect this to happen again.
      I am also, still, extremely unhappy with his move to publish a private conversation.

      Now, you have a number of separate points. I've (as mentioned before) come off a serious event and am rather tired, so this will be brief.

      Donald: Cortes consistently beat much larger...
      Mexico and the Spanish conquest p124

      One factor working in Cortes's favor was disease. A member of Narvaez's party who reached Mexico was infected with small-pox, and the disease swept into the Valley of Mexico, touching off an epidemic such as the Aztecs had never seen before. Some 40 percent of the population died within a year.
      (Theres also wikipedia if a basic page is required)

      I agree with your point on 'steel' (metals) as an important factor, and this with shifting alliances, the Aztec unpopularity relating to human sacrifice, and others are an issue. However, these guys were grossly and obscenely outnumbered, and if healthy, would have had a much different result. Obsidian was extremely problematic for chain mail, as it would shatter and its extremely sharp fragments would pepper the flesh of the Spaniards with razor sharp volcanic glass. These arrows could shoot through double quilting of cotton armor. "The fact is that the Spaniards owed their succeed not so much to superior arms, training, and leadership as to Aztec political factionalism and disease."

      More reading
      Born to die: disease and New World conquest, 1492-1650

      We are talking about a population of million people and roughly a thousand with Cortes with 1500 level weaponry.

      Koshiro utterly irrelevant
      If talking about a subject, and an issue of this magnitude is ignored, there is a significant problem.

      Matthew Taylor
      I am extremely disappointed with you moving a private conversation public. I also would like you to actually address the point. Posting for a third time

      As I said: “Now, when this particular topic is raised, it is often commented that a caveat noting the brutal and egregious treatment of the native populations should be listed. This is true and also an academic consensus. “

      To sum up, I agreed with what you consider a rebuttal, and you failed to answer my point.

      What you fail to do is to address your skipping over of this very significant event of virgin soil epidemic and the Americas. You skip addressing my point to you and try to move it elsewhere. Please address the point I made to you in private, you brought out in public, and completely avoid to address. Address the previous and current academic consensus on the unintentional virgin field epidemic of disease that you omit from your article.

    • bob May 8, 2011 at 3:33 pm with 33 replies

      I don't have a lot of time to deal with this as theres a regional incident here.

      Quickly
      He disputes my assertion that most Native Americans were wiped out in a a massive campaign of genocide and ethnic cleansing.

      Strawman. I had a problem with what I said was a "previous and current academic consensus that you completely omit from your article."

      What was said:

      You can imagine my disappointment when I had some time to check your site to see Matthew Taylor's article that attributes the annihilation of "most Native Americans" from a "a massive campaign of genocide and ethnic cleansing."

      In fact, the the corpus of accepted and mainstream work here is in agreement on how the continents were wiped out by an unintentional virgin field epidemic. This is not simply information distributed among academic circles. More popular books, like Guns, Germs, and Steel, and 1491 cover this information quite readily.

      But weapons alone can't account for the breathtaking speed with which the indigenous population of the New World were completely wiped out.

      Within just a few generations, the continents of the Americas were virtually emptied of their native inhabitants – some academics estimate that approximately 20 million people may have died in the years following the European invasion – up to 95% of the population of the Americas.

      No medieval force, no matter how bloodthirsty, could have achieved such enormous levels of genocide. Instead, Europeans were aided by a deadly secret weapon they weren't even aware they were carrying: Smallpox.
      link to pbs.org

      His argument was simple but horrific. It is well known that Native Americans had no experience with many European diseases and were therefore immunologically unprepared—"virgin soil," in the metaphor of epidemiologists. What Dobyns realized was that such diseases could have swept from the coastlines initially visited by Europeans to inland areas controlled by Indians who had never seen a white person. The first whites to explore many parts of the Americas may therefore have encountered places that were already depopulated. Indeed, Dobyns argued, they must have done so.
      link to theatlantic.com
      course, there is an academic debate over the amount killed during this virgin field epidemic. However, there is a consensus that a very large scale depopulation took place. Attributing a large scale depopulation like this to a group of people without mentioning this biological event is ignorant and racist. The ignorance comes from a lack of understanding from long held research in the subject from Amherst's argued first use of Smallpox as a biological weapon in 1763, centuries after the depopulation occurred, and the mountain of research from Dobyns 1995 onward. The racism comes from both sides of attributing a widespread depopulation of both continents to small bands of 16th century Europeans. European firearms of this era were very crude and designed in large part to reduce the training necessary vis-a-vis archers. In fact, Spanish chroniclers often remark on the penetrating power and accuracy of Native American archers. Estimates of the population of both North and South America range in the tens of millions, and to attribute this to a small band of Europeans with crude weapons attributes a racist "Übermensch" conception to Europeans and a "Untermenschen" slur to the millions who were somehow unable to defend themselves. At large specialized societies like the Inca and the Aztecs, even a 30-50 percent depopulation rate would have devastating effects on the ability of that society to function and wage war from the high degree of specialization in their labor distribution.

      Now, when this particular topic is raised, it is often commented that a caveat noting the brutal and egregious treatment of the native populations should be listed. This is true and also an academic consensus.
      xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

      He rebuts that with a lengthy remark on the importance of “an unintentional virgin field epidemic.”

      The first argued recorded use of Smallpox as an intentional biological weapon was with Amherst 1763- centuries after this depopulation occurred.

      Many reputable scholars argue and document, with facts, that the Natives wiped out in a a massive campaign of genocide and ethnic cleansing;

      As I said: "Now, when this particular topic is raised, it is often commented that a caveat noting the brutal and egregious treatment of the native populations should be listed. This is true and also an academic consensus. "

      To sum up, I agreed with what you consider a rebuttal, and you failed to answer my point.

      Worse, you made private correspondence public through a bad strawman, and a terrible reading of what was said. I am very offended by that.

    • bob May 8, 2011 at 12:09 pm with 4 replies

      The US Cavalry carried out genocide, as the Conquistadors and their followers did too, for example, but many natives in the Americas died simply as they had no immunity to, e.g., smallpox.

      Virgin Field Epidemic. 90% of North and South America depopulated from this. The disease depopulated both continents at an alarming rate.

      I can't believe this is the only mention of smallpox in this entire discussion.

  • Bronfman's Passover questions come 10 years too late
    • bob April 18, 2011 at 7:13 pm with 3 replies

      Bronfman leads lobby against Conoco deal with Iran
      Jewish Telegraphic Agency Publish date:March 13, 1995

      Clinton Bars U.S. Oil Pacts With Iran;Executive Order Blocks Conoco Production Deal
      Washington Post Mar 15, 1995 pg. A.01

      President Clinton yesterday decided to ban American companies from producing oil in Iran, thus blocking Houston-based Conoco Inc.'s deal to develop two of that country's Persian Gulf oil fields.

      The White House and Conoco said the company agreed to terminate its contract with Iran if an executive order was issued. Edgar Bronfman Sr., a key member of the board of directors of DuPont Co., Conoco's parent company, also had lobbied vigorously on Capitol Hill against the deal.
      ...snip...

      American companies are permitted to purchase Iranian oil -- indeed, they are believed to be the world's biggest purchasers of Iranian crude -- although they are forbidden by law to import it into the United States.

      The Conoco deal would have been the first production agreement between a U.S. oil company and Iran since the fall of the shah in 1979. Oil industry analysts said Conoco's investment in the two Iranian oil and gas fields might have totaled as much as $1 billion.

      Bronfman, his brother, Charles, and son, Edgar Jr., are top officers of Seagram Co., which owns 24.2 percent of DuPont. They met last week with half a dozen Capitol Hill leaders, according to Israel Singer, secretary general of the World Jewish Congress, who was present at the meetings.

      Bronfman encouraged them to oppose the deal, telling Senate Majority Leader Robert J. Dole (R-Kan.), House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.), House Minority Leader Richard A. Gephardt (D-Mo.) and others that Iran is a "terrorist state."
      ...snip..

      The collapse of the Conoco deal was bad news for other American oil firms, which have been eager to increase their business dealings with Iran. They were watching for the Clinton administration's reaction to the deal to see whether it would adhere to the hard line in force during the Republican White House years.

  • Racist protest in Tel Aviv targets refugees and migrants
    • bob April 11, 2011 at 8:36 am

      Coming break between US and Israeli Jewish people as Israeli goes harder line?

      Graham
      ... the driving force at the core of the movement, reaching back to the 1920s, were Jewish organizations long active in opposing racial and ethnic quotas. These included the American Jewish Congress, the American Jewish Committee, the Anti-Defamation League of B’nai B’rith, and the American Federation of Jews from Eastern Europe. Jewish members of the Congress, particularly representatives from New York and Chicago, had maintained steady but largely ineffective pressure against the national origins quotas since the 1920s…. Following the shock of the Holocaust, Jewish leaders had been especially active in Washington in furthering immigration reform. To the public, the most visible evidence of the immigration reform drive was played by Jewish legislative leaders, such as Representative Celler and Senator Jacob Javits of New York. Less visible, but equally important, were the efforts of key advisers on presidential and agency staffs. These included senior policy advisers such as Julius Edelson and Harry Rosenfield in the Truman administration, Maxwell Rabb in the Eisenhower White House, and presidential aide Myer Feldman, assistant secretary of state Abba Schwartz, and deputy attorney general Norbert Schlei in the Kennedy-Johnson administration.

  • 'Foreign Policy' runs piece describing Israel's 'carnival of hate' toward Palestinians
  • 'This should only happen in response to genocide' (two leftwingers argue over Libya)
    • bob March 21, 2011 at 7:44 pm with 1 replies

      This get the oil stuff again?

      That would take us to Saudi Arabia and their protests, not Libya.

      The West has wanted Kadafi for decades. This isn't new information. Ratner tries too hard.

  • 'NYT' commenters rationalize attacks on Rabbi Lerner for backing Goldstone
    • bob March 17, 2011 at 6:14 pm with 1 replies

      I just checked. The writer says it means “an embarrassment”. But what does it mean literally and what is the word “goyim” doing in there?

      Its a shame before the goyim. The author left out that part - the one that denotes the ingroup/outgroup collective linkage.

  • Dept of Education opens investigation into anti-Semitism at UC Santa Cruz following events protesting the occupation
    • bob March 17, 2011 at 9:35 pm

      You're more positive than I am. I like the perspective adjustment you bring.

    • bob March 17, 2011 at 10:22 am with 2 replies

      “an extreme and disreputable fringe of American Jewry.”

      Comments like this are always annoying to me. Sometimes I have to assert that there is no "collective hivemind" of Jews. Yet, when I run into these terms, it makes it much harder for me to make this argument. How do I assert to people there is no lockstep when this concept of lockstep us used as an argumentative bludgeon to silence dissent?

  • In Palestine, Everything is Relative: The settler violence you won't hear about
    • bob March 14, 2011 at 7:47 pm

      We need more quality posts like this that debunk these memes that rely on ignoring palestinian casualties while emphasizing israeli ones e.g. "Palestine attacks, Israeli responds."

      Allison Wier, Peace, Propaganda & The Promised Land, and others cover this. Unfortunately, this meme is the norm in US television media.

  • Brandeis is turning in his (liberal Zionist) grave
    • bob March 14, 2011 at 7:29 pm

      speaking of iraq have you been following the news around kirkuk? i guess now that we’re not so concerned about our relationship w/turkey

      Post up!

    • bob March 14, 2011 at 6:02 pm

      i’m having a deja vu. i think it was just last week i linked to the clean break paper and recalled how it was first prepared by the same team for netanyahu during his earlier term as PM. or was that sharon? oh well.

      Benjamin Netanyahu’s government
      "This effort can focus on removing Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq — an important Israeli strategic objective in its own right "

      People often forget how Good 'ol Cheney was saying this circa the same time. Iraq as a quagmire.

    • bob March 14, 2011 at 5:44 pm

      No problem, annie. I'm afraid that this forced, feigned, or deliberate blindness of ethnic and ideological attachments and the Iraq debacle will continue. It is a painful subject for some, yes. However, I am not willing to throw this down the memory hole to satisfy the emotional fears within those who are frightened of this information, then do nothing to see the continued effect of AIPAC, JINSA, or the neoconservative dominance on the GOP on our broken foreign policy.

      At some point, these points have to be addressed head on so we can avoid similar disasters in the future. Otherwise we leave this narrative out of "polite discourse," and ignore a force pushing for a conflict in Iran, proping up the albatross in the occupied territories, Mubarak, etc.

    • bob March 14, 2011 at 5:38 pm

      But overall, you’re still missing the larger point.

      Thats the usual refrain from someone who runs up to hard information. Neoconservatives were pushing for this war since the nineties, when people like Cheney were arguing against sanctions and calling a proposed Iraq invasion a "quagmire." During this time, neoconservatives were pressuring Clinton to pass the ILA, and got him to do it when he was pressed with a sex scandal with Lewinsky. Clinton was mocked by people like Brownback for not doing anything with it. Neocons explicitly called a "focus on removing Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq — an important Israeli strategic objective in its own right".

      Right above you have how Bush the moron and others were talked into this strategy. This strategy was conceived by people sometimes derided as "card carrying likudniks" and people who explicitly stated it was an important objective for Israel. These are all facts, and they are buried in common television discourse.

    • bob March 14, 2011 at 5:16 pm

      bob, I’m pretty well-versed in that stuff……..

      Oh, good. Then you should be able to be familiar with the following. Maybe you've read Heilbrun, where Bush's ideological attachments are laid out? Perhaps you had read 2002 Bush at War, which helped lay out the desperate fights going on behind the scenes from The realists and the neoconservatives - with Rumsfeld going along because it suited his concept of a small, focused, muscular and technical war. lay out
      Woodward goes on about

      His deputy, Paul D. Wolfowitz, was committed to a policy that would make Iraq a principal target of the first round in the war on terrorism.
      Wolfowitz often voiced the views of an outspoken group of national security conservatives in Washington, many of them veterans of the Reagan and senior Bush administrations. These were men who believed that there was no greater menace in the world than Iraqi President Saddam Hussein, and they argued that if the president was serious about going after those who harbor terrorists, he had to put Hussein at the top of that list.
      ...
      Rumsfeld’s second theme was surprise. He routinely handed out or recommended a book called Pearl Harbor: Warning and Decision by Roberta Wohlstetter. (Neocon)
      Before the attacks, the Pentagon had been working for months on developing a military option for Iraq. (Where Feith, Shulsky, Wolfowitz etc was brewing up the bullshit in the Office of Special Plans).
      Wolfowitz seized the opportunity. Attacking Afghanistan would be uncertain. He worried about 100,000 American troops bogged down in mountain fighting in Afghanistan six months from then. In contrast, Iraq was a brittle, oppressive regime that might break easily. It was doable. He estimated that there was a 10 to 50 percent chance Saddam was involved in the September 11 terrorist attacks. The U.S. would haveto go after Saddam at some time if the war on terrorism was to be taken seriously.
      Andy Card thought Wolfowitz was just banging a drum, not providing additional information or new arguments.
      During a break, Bush joined a side discussion that included Cheney, Cheney’s chief of staff, I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby, and Wolfowitz. He told them that he had found some of Shelton’s military options unimaginative.
      Wolfowitz expanded on his arguments about how war against Iraq might be easier than against Afghanistan.
      The president asked why he didn’t present more of this at the meeting.
      “It is not my place to contradict the chairman of the Joint Chiefs unless the secretary of defense says to,” said Wolfowitz, knowing Shelton was opposed to an attack on Iraq.
      When the group reconvened, Rumsfeld asked, Is this the time to attack Iraq? He noted that there would be a big build up of forces in the region and he was still deeply worried about the availability of good targets in Afghanistan.
      Powell objected. You’re going to hear from your coalition partners, he told the president. They’re all with you, everyone, but they will go away if you hit Iraq. If you get something pinning September 11 on Iraq, great -let’s put it out and kick them at the right time. But let’s get Afghanistan now. If we do that, we will have increased our ability to go after Iraq -if we can prove Iraq had a role.
      Bush had strong reservations about attacking Iraq, but he let the discussion continue. He was concerned about two things, he said later. “My theory is you’ve got to do something and do it well and that... ifwe could prove that we could be successful in [theAfghanistan] theater, then the rest of the task would be easier. If we tried to do too many things- two things, for example, or three things- militarily, then... the lack of focus would have been a huge risk.”
      Bush's other concern was one that he did not express to his war cabinet but that he would say later was part of his thinking. He knew that around the table were advisers - Powell, Cheney, Wolfowitz - who had been with his father during the GulfWar deliberations. "And one of the things I wasn't going to allow to happen is, that we weren't going to let their previous experience in this theater dictate a rational course for the new war." In other words, he didn't want them to use the war on terror as an excuse to settle an old score.
      At another point during the morning, Wolfowitz interrupted his boss, Rumsfeld, and expanded on a point he had made earlier about Iraq. He may have taken the president's remark during the break as encouragement.
      There was an awkward silence. Rumsfeld seemed to ignore the interruption but his eyes narrowed. Some thought he might be annoyed; others thought he was just listening.
      Bush flashed a pointed look in Card's direction. During another break in the meeting, the chief of staff took Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz aside. "The president will expect one person to speak for the Department of Defense," Card told them.
      Sometime before lunch, Bush sent a message to the group that he had heard enough debate over Iraq. "There wasn't a lot of talk about Iraq in the second [afternoon] round," he later recalled. "The second round of discussion was focused only on Afghanistan, let me put it to you that way."

      I can go on for other books. This is easy to verify and a simple matter of public record. Its a desperate tactic to cut out the ethnic and ideological attachment of this disastrous war.

    • bob March 14, 2011 at 4:49 pm

      Annie: Judts comment is in here
      link to video.google.com

      Weiss talked about it here
      link to mondoweiss.net

    • bob March 14, 2011 at 4:39 pm

      fuster: The US government made the choice, and not anyone else.

      The fight between neoconservatives and realists like Scowcroft and Powell within the administration is verywell documented. Neocons pushed them out and dominated the structure, much to the surprise of many Washington insiders. The ideological attachments to Israel by neoconservatives is also well documented.

    • bob March 14, 2011 at 3:45 pm

      Thats right, annie. There was much work in defining specific people within their specific contexts. hophmi represents the standard strawman approach that serves to illuminate my point. For that, I should thank him or her.

    • bob March 14, 2011 at 3:32 pm

      That was Judt talking about his own article. He was making that reference on how he (Judt) could get something critical published if he was Jewish, and how Mearsheimer and Walt couldn't get published in the US. They are not Jewish.

    • bob March 14, 2011 at 9:42 am with 34 replies

      I distinctly remember not being able to detect a trace of hostility in any of the questions.

      How much of that warmth was a result of his ethnic background? How are gentiles like Mearsheimer and Walt received with critical words?

  • Ironically, only a Jewish filmmaker is allowed to tell Palestinian story in US, say Schnabel and Weinstein
  • Return To Sender: Israeli activists say, 'we won’t be 'the US aircraft carrier in the Middle East''
    • bob March 3, 2011 at 4:55 pm with 2 replies

      with Israel, seeing Israel as “The US aircraft carrier in the Middle East”.

      When has Israel attacked anyone for the US?

      Does just looking at items like "Israel" and the "US" allow space for systemic policy disagreements between people within these discrete countries or for people with emotional and ideological feelings for one nation that reside in the other? In other words, when you look at just "Israel" or the "US," have you left space for people like Wolfowitz, Feith, Perle, Pipes, the Kagans, the Kristols, Podhoretz, the Wohlstetters, etc?

  • The Phantom Menace: Fantasies, falsehoods, and fear-mongering about Iran's nuclear program
    • bob December 31, 2010 at 5:55 am

      You are missing the important portion where the neocons and Israel were pushing Reagan (much to his later chagrin) to help Iran against Iraq. Then they turned in the early 1990's.

      1987 ISRAEL REPORTEDLY PERSUADED U.S. TO RESUME IRAN ARMS SHIPMENTS
      ——
      1992 Israeli Warns of Iran
      1992 Israeli major urges strike against Iran
      1993 ISRAEL WORKS TO STOP IRAN’S NUCLEAR PLANS

      1995 Netanyahu: Iran is real nuclear threat

      “Within three to five years, we can assume that Iran will become autonomous in its ability to develop and produce a nuclear bomb, without having to import either the technology or the material,” Netanyahu said. “[The nuclear threat] must be uprooted by an international front headed by the US. It necessitates economic sanctions on Iran.”
      Again

      http://mondoweiss.net/2010/11/3-billion-in-fighter-jets-to-israel-reward-or-bribe.html#comment-249460

      Neoconservatives loomed large in the covert dealings with Iran, which involved such fgures as Michael Ledeen, who served as an agent for National Security Advisor Robert C. McFarlane. Ledeen initially arranged the secret initiative by meeting with then-Israeli Prime Minister Shimon Peres in May 1985.16
      Robert Dreyfuss has noted, in his Devil’s Game: How the
      United States Helped Unleash Fundamentalist Islam, that “[w]ithin the Reagan administration, a small clique of conservatives, and neoconservatives, were most intimately involved in the Iran-contra initiative, especially those U.S. officials and consultants who were closest to the Israeli military and intelligence establishment.”17
      As Trita Parsi puts it in Treacherous Alliance:

      The Secret Dealings of Israel, Iran, and the United States, “neoconservatives were masterminding a rapprochement with Khomeini’s government.”18
      Secretary of State George Shultz expressed concern about the Israeli-orientation of that policy. In a letter to McFarlane, he noted that Israel’s position on Iran “is not the same as ours” and that American intelligence collaboration with Israel regarding Iran “could seriously skew our own perception and analysis of the Iranian scene.”19
      The latter, as Dreyfuss points out, was the actual aim of the neoconservatives and CIA director William Casey, “who sought to reengage with Iran, in direct opposition to the official U.S. policy of supporting Iraq in its resistance to Iranian expansionism.”20
      The neocons and Israel were unsuccessful in altering American foreign policy away from Iraq and toward Iran. The exposé of the Iran/Contra affair certainly sounded the death knell to this diplomacy. Some neoconservatives, however, continued to seek this change. Michael Ledeen would write in a New York Times opinion piece on July 19, 1988, that it was essential for the United States to begin talking with Iran. He wrote that the “The United States, which should have been exploring improved relations with Iran before . . . should now seize the opportunity to do so.”21
      (When Israel later perceived Iran to be a crucial threat, Ledeen would become a leading proponent of the view that Iran was the center of world terror and that regime change was the only solution.)

  • The smoking cable: Israel said it had 'secret accord' with U.S. over expanding settlements even as Obama said in Cairo they must stop!
  • Forging the bonds of a juster world, Helena Cobban is third in our panel of Judges!
  • 'Washington Post''s new blogger promptly calls for supporting human rights in Iran-- and killing Iranian scientists
    • bob December 13, 2010 at 8:24 am

      I particularly loved neocon wihout portfolio. Of course, that one may be esoterically applicable to a board that looks at US/Israeli politics and exposing ethnocentric sympathies.
      Still, I love it.

  • Hamas aims to kill 'all Jews worldwide,' Oren says (after laying wreath on King's grave)
  • Attention progressives for Palestine: Rep. Alan Grayson wants to hear from you
  • Abunimah: The Native American analogy doesn't work
  • Jeffrey Goldberg doesn't work for 'The Forward' any more-- and that's appropriate
    • bob December 6, 2010 at 11:34 am

      ...which was formed in response to the...

      I wonder what its like to have a whole array of situations thats explained by "in response/forced to."

  • Notes on Hanukkah: The Maccabees and Zionism's 'invented traditions'
    • bob December 1, 2010 at 3:43 pm

      Damnit, that was funny.

    • bob December 1, 2010 at 10:32 am with 5 replies

      link to slate.com
      in its historical context, however, the Hanukkah story is really about a revolt against the Hellenized Jews who had fallen madly in love with the sophisticated, globalizing superculture of their day. The Apocrypha's texts make it clear that the battle against Hellenization was in fact a kulturkampf among the Jews themselves. Here is how the first Book of the Maccabees describes Jerusalem on the eve of civil war and revolt in the time of Antiochus (translation by Nicholas de Lange):

      At that time there were some evil-doers in Israel who tried to win popularity for a policy of integration with the surrounding nations. It was because the Jews had kept themselves aloof for so long, they claimed, that so many hardships had befallen them. They acquired a following and applied to Antiochus, who authorized them to introduce the Greek way of life. They built a Greek gymnasium in Jerusalem and even had themselves uncircumcised.

      Uncircumcision as the price of admission to the Jerusalem gym! When they were eight days old, the "sign of the covenant" had been carved in their flesh; now as young men, these Jews risked health and sacrificed sexual pleasure to "become one flesh" with the regnant beauty culture. In Judea, then, there were Jews choosing to die rather than publicly profane Jewish law—and there were Jews risking death to free themselves from the parochial constraints of that law. The historic Jewish passion to merge and disappear confronted the attested Jewish will to stand apart and persist.

      That's the clash of Hanukkah. Armed Hasmonean priests and their comrades from the rural town of Modi'in attacked urban Jews, priests and laity alike, who supported Greek reform, like the gymnasium and new rules for governing commerce. The Hasmoneans imposed, at sword's edge, traditional observance. After years of protracted warfare, the priests established a Hasmonean state that never ceased fighting Jews who disagreed with its rule.

      So the miracle-of-the-oil celebration of Hanukkah that the rabbis later invented covers up a blood-soaked struggle that pitted Jew against Jew. The rabbis drummed out this history with a fairy tale about a light that did not go out. But really, who can blame them—after all, what nation creates a living monument to a civil war?

      Bah, Hanukkah
      The holiday celebrates the triumph of tribal Jewish backwardness.
      link to slate.com

  • Wait, why is a Republican in Treasury making a policy pledge to a foreign country on behalf of Obama 11 days after the 2008 election?
    • bob November 29, 2010 at 9:33 am

      More Stuart Levey

      A certain type of namedropping
      As my [Dennid Ross] colleague Stuart Levey from the Treasury Department circles the globe explaining sanctions measures to governments and companies, and highlighting the risks of doing business with Iran, we expect that more banks and more industries will continue to cut ties with Iran.

      Israel lobby’s man on Iran keeps his job from Bush to Obama, no problem Aug 3, 2010
      President Obama's decision to keep Levey and his office in place has less to do with ideology and more with how Levey has made the office into a tool that has effectively squeezed Iran ...
      Note that Levey is a longtime admirer of AIPAC and attended Hebrew University in Jerusalem as an undergraduate: "I have been an admirer of the great work this organization does since my days on the one-year program at Hebrew University in 1983 and 1984."

      Obama’s philosemitic network reflects the new establishment OCTOBER 29, 2010

      Bush-Obama neocon at Treasury is lobby’s hope re Iran MAY 18, 2010

      Treasury officials are sure cozy with Israel lobby April 21, 2010
      The next step in this pressure campaign is the sanctions regime being crafted by Stuart Levey, undersecretary of the Treasury for terrorism and financial intelligence. This will have several interlocking components: The showpiece will be a new U.N. Security Council resolution to add sanctions against the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps and its affiliated companies, along with other Iranian firms involved in manufacturing, transporting and financing weapons shipments and other illicit activities. But that's just the beginning.

      Oh and here is Levey's number two, David Cohen, at a recent appearance at Israel lobby group Washington Institute for Near East Policy. According to his WINEP intro, "David Cohen is the assistant treasury secretary for terrorist financing. In this role, he is responsible for formulating and coordinating the Treasury Department's counterterrorism financing and anti-money-laundering efforts."

  • Emily Henochowicz lost an eye? No harm, no foul
    • bob November 28, 2010 at 1:14 pm

      trained Contras

      One of my favorites is how the neocons and the Israeli government was all over that fiasco. Somehow , when the name came around, one of the three foreign countries Israel/Iran/Contra missed the name cut despite its comparatively large role.

    • bob November 28, 2010 at 1:08 pm with 2 replies

      Victim trope. Siege mentality.

  • Americans are catching a clue, I tell you
  • NPR's Holocaust obsession
  • Bronner: 'There aren’t many other places in the world where white people with guns tell brown people what to do'
  • Unfair to Chomsky
    • bob November 24, 2010 at 6:39 am

      I have been there and done that already, so has Max

      Max one time brought one source. Of course, that was a big failure as it showed zero, none, nada direct connections to people pushing for and getting war in Iraq or arguing for one in Iran.

      It would be terrific if you brought some kind of argument with context, but all I get from you is some sort of insult. Tells me all I need to know.

    • bob November 24, 2010 at 12:29 am

      @Bob:
      I wrote, “Corporate interests as large as the oil sector do not have to lobby to have their interests taken into account. There are many ways of influencing policy.” You wrote, “Actually they did,” showing you’re just mis-reading my comment.

      Yep, they did have to lobby. They lost. Twice.

      I did not say they don’t lobby. I said there are other ways of influencing policy.

      Be specific or its speculative.

      You wrote, “”The Israeli Lobby beat oil on both counts.” Except I wrote, “No one is denying the role of the Lobby.”

      People are trying to make it "less important," and beneath another speculative paradigm. See confirmation bias.

      You don’t seem to understand that these are two components of the same system, usually working on concert, sometimes adversarial.

      Define or its speculative.

      I’m actually not interested in trying to explain this to you any longer, either.

      Define it. Otherwise, meh.

    • bob November 23, 2010 at 11:13 pm

      I am curious as to whether there is anybody here on Mondoweiss, in particular Philip Weiss, who considers that to be a rational explanation for Chomsky’s views and actions.

      This is a red herring as Chomsky needs to address his own gaps. My problem is going to be how Chomsky fails to provide direct and contextual support for his argument. Direct people doing direct actions. The problem is Chomskys for not providing this support or for relying on a speculative paradigm that he superimposes as a overarching metatheory. Chomsky cant refute with the direct information showing the noeoconservatives defeating Powell, Armitage, Baker, various oil interests etc. He cant refute JINSA, AIPAC, et. al. Instead, its treated with a heavy dose of confirmation bias and placed as "less important." How does Chomsky accurately this gradation of importance? Meh, he doesnt day. Does Chomsky come close to creating the thick context that comes even close to equaling the work done on "the lobby?" Hardly.

      Do the work and make the connections and don't get mad that people don't accept a speculative paradigm that tries to claim a position as a metatheory without a contextual foundation with specific people and agency on specific events. Otherwise, we might as well be throwing around the protocols of the elders of zion and touting speculative paradigms on "the jooz."

    • bob November 23, 2010 at 10:12 pm

      Max Corporate interests as large as the oil sector do not have to lobby to have their interests taken into account.

      Actually they did. In the late 1990's, when Iraq was begging to sell their oil, companies like Exxon, Mobil (and the American Petroleum Institute) were lobbying to ease the sanctions.

      Companies Used to Getting Their Way
      By LESLIE WAYNE
      Published: December 4, 1998

      Such is the power of Big Oil in Washington, and two of the biggest players in this monolithic and highly effective industry lobby are the Exxon Corporation and the Mobil Corporation. Rich in cash, aggressive in style, with issues ranging from foreign policy to taxes and the environment, they have been effective in pushing their agenda through behind-the-scenes contacts at the highest level of Government and through arm-twisting in Congress.
      ...
      With the oil and gas industry generally marching, and lobbying, in lockstep, it is often hard to separate Exxon and Mobil from their rivals. While somewhat different in their approaches, both companies are big supporters of the American Petroleum Institute, an industry trade association that spent $3.7 million on lobbying in 1997. They often join industry coalitions created to lobby about a specific topic -- the lifting of sanctions to oil-producing nations like Iraq, for example, or the ability of American oil companies to swap oil with Iran.

      By themselves, Exxon and Mobil have a combined total of 15 full-time lobbyists on their payrolls in Washington, and employ other Washington lawyers and lobbying firms as well. Last year, Mobil spent $5.3 million on Federal lobbying and Exxon spent $5.2 million, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. Combined, this would make them the fifth-largest entity in spending on lobbying the Federal Government.

      Of course, AIPAC, Bronfman and others killed oil companies from trading with Iran, and we all know how effective this lobbying effort was on Iraq. Instead, over objections from Philip Carrol from Shell, James Baker, Lobbying from Exxon and Mobil and others, the neocons got their regime change invasion. Oil companies also never got their status back on Iran.

      The Israeli Lobby beat oil on both counts.

    • bob November 21, 2010 at 7:48 am

      Html error. theres a break and a missing segment before

      “Imperial system” that makes a “client state” puts Israel as someone...

    • bob November 21, 2010 at 7:47 am

      Printe, its covered here quite a bit. We were just looking at it in yesterday's thread. This is brought up, too.

      Question: Do you think it's is a good idea to push the idea of divestment from Israel the same way that we used to push it for white South Africa? Answer: I regard the United States as the primary guilty party here, for the past 30 years. And for us to push for divestment from the United States doesn't really mean anything. What we ought to do is push for changes in US policy.

      "Imperial system" that makes a "client state" puts Israel as someone within a system that makes the US ultimately to blame. Israel in Chomsky's model is thus doing these bad things "in response" or "forced to" as a result of some larger (and unsupported/undefined) system. Of course, this "forced to" and "in response to" trope is quite familiar.

    • bob November 20, 2010 at 11:16 pm

      See above
      November 20, 2010 at 11:15 pm

    • bob November 20, 2010 at 11:15 pm with 21 replies

      This was in the last thread. In the paradigm Chomsky assigns ultimate blame to the US.

Showing comments 495 - 401
Page:

Comments are closed.