Commenter Profile

Total number of comments: 1275 (since 2009-10-01 15:59:16)

seanmcbride

Website: https://friendfeed.com/seanmcbride

Showing comments 1275 - 1201
Page:

  • Philip Roth on the Israel lobby
    • seanmcbride May 23, 2012 at 2:28 pm

      Someone should write a book on Philip Roth and Israel/Zionism -- this is just a tasty tip of the iceberg. He was a prophet and visionary on the subject, I think. He knew the entire psychic landscape of the enterprise from the inside -- every little twist and turn of thought. And he managed to get it on paper.

  • Passive-aggressive George Bush namechecks neocons for getting us into that mess
    • seanmcbride May 26, 2012 at 11:42 am

      To summarize my core argument: Rupert Murdoch, Haim Saban, Sheldon Adelson, Irving Moskowitz, Arnon Milchan and others in their circle are higher on the food chain than Dick Cheney. They are much smarter than Cheney and they control much more wealth. Follow the money always.

      Dick Cheney may have thought he was using the neocons but in fact they had the upper hand all along and still do. George H.W. Bush, James Baker, Zbigniew Brzezinski, Jimmy Carter, Brent Scowcroft, Colin Powell, Lawrence Wilkerson and other high-level players who were impervious to neocon manipulations because of their sharp minds watched this situation unfold in utter amazement. Dick Cheney probably still doesn't understand to what degree he was led up the garden path by his neocon friends and minders. He was a mark.

    • seanmcbride May 26, 2012 at 11:32 am

      More on Dick Cheney and Ken Adelman:

      BEGIN ARTICLE
      AUTHOR Ray McGovern
      TITLE Cheney's Chickens Come Home to Roost
      PUBLICATION Antiwar.com
      DATE October 20, 2005
      URL link to antiwar.com
      BEGIN QUOTE
      Cheney, of course, had been assured by the likes of neoconservative armchair general Kenneth Adelman that the war would be a "cakewalk," that U.S. forces would be greeted as "liberators," and that in the glow of major victory, only the worst kind of spoilsport would complain that the justification was based largely on a forgery. By May 2003, however, it had become clear that the cakewalk was a pipe dream and that no sign of a reconstituted nuclear weapons program was likely to be found. In this context, the information in Kristof's May 6 op-ed was like pouring salt into an open wound.
      END QUOTE
      END ARTICLE

      Who was manipulating whom between Cheney and the neocons? Well, obviously both sides were manipulating one another. But Cheney was greatly outgunned in terms of intellectual, organizational and financial power.

      Have you ever heard Cheney try to debate? He specializes in oracular one-liners delivered portentously. There is no substance to his thinking. That is why he was easily snookered by the neocons in believing that the Iraq War would be a "cakewalk."

    • seanmcbride May 26, 2012 at 11:26 am

      Re: Dick Cheney's social, political and ideological networks:

      BEGIN ARTICLE
      AUTHOR Elizabeth Drew
      TITLE The Neocons in Power
      PUBLICATION The New York Review of Books
      DATE June 12, 2003
      URL link to nybooks.com
      BEGIN QUOTE
      A web of connections binds these people in a formidable alliance. Perle, Wolfowitz, and Woolsey have long been close friends and neighbors in Chevy Chase, Maryland. The three have worked with one another in the Pentagon, served on the same committees and commissions, and participated in the same conferences. Feith is a protégé of Perle, and worked under him during the Reagan administration. Adelman, a friend of Perle, Wolfowitz, and Woolsey, is very close to Cheney and Rumsfeld. The Cheneys and the Adelmans share a wedding anniversary and celebrate it together each year; Adelman worked for Rumsfeld in three government positions, and the Adelmans have visited the Rumsfelds at their various homes around the country. Woolsey and Adelman are members of Perle's Pentagon advisory group. At the outset of this administration Perle made sure that it was composed of people who share his hawkish views. (Perle recently resigned the chairmanship over allegations of conflicts of interest with his private consulting business, but he remains a member of the advisory board, and his power isn't diminished.) Bolton, over the objections of Colin Powell, was appointed to the State Department at the urging of his neocon allies. (A State Department official said to me recently, referring to the Pentagon, "Why don't we have a mole over there?")

      Perle, Woolsey, and Wolfowitz are all disciples of the late Albert Wohlstetter, a University of Chicago professor who had worked for the RAND corporation and later taught at the University of California. Throughout the cold war he argued that nuclear deterrence wasn't sufficient-that the US had to actually plan to fight a nuclear war in order to deter it. He strongly advocated the view that the military power of the USSR was underrated. Wolfowitz earned his Ph.D. under Wohlstetter; Perle met Wohlstetter when he was a high school student in Los Angeles and was invited by Wohlstetter's daughter to swim in their pool. Later, Wohlstetter invited Perle, then a graduate student at Princeton, to Washington to work with Wolfowitz on a paper about the proposed Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, which Wohlstetter opposed and which has been abandoned by the Bush administration. Wohlstetter introduced Perle to Democratic Senator Henry ("Scoop") Jackson of Washington, an aggressive cold warrior and champion of Israel's interests. Woolsey (who calls himself "a Scoop Jackson Democrat") came to know Wohlstetter in 1980, when they both served on a Pentagon panel. Of Wohlstetter Woolsey said in a conversation we had in mid-April, "A key to understanding how Richard and Paul and I think is Albert. He's had a major impact on us."

      And through Wohlstetter, Perle met Ahmed Chalabi, then an Iraqi exile who had founded the Iraqi National Congress, an umbrella organization of Iraqi groups, many of its members in exile.
      END QUOTE
      END ARTICLE

    • seanmcbride May 26, 2012 at 11:22 am

      BEGIN ARTICLE
      TAGS Dick Cheney, Ken Adelman, neoconservatives, Iraq War, Lewis Libby, Paul Wolfowitz, Bob Woodward
      AUTHOR Bob Woodward
      TITLE Cheney Was Unwavering in Desire to Go to War
      PUBLICATION The Washington Post
      DATE April 20, 2004
      URL link to washingtonpost.com
      BEGIN QUOTE
      On April 10, 2003, Ken Adelman, a Reagan administration official and supporter of the Iraq war, published an op-ed article in The Washington Post headlined, " 'Cakewalk' Revisited," more or less gloating over what appeared to be the quick victory there, and reminding readers that 14 months earlier he had written that war would be a "cakewalk." He chastised those who had predicted disaster. "Taking first prize among the many frightful forecasters" was Brent Scowcroft, who served as national security adviser in the first Bush administration. Adelman wrote that his own confidence came from having worked for Donald H. Rumsfeld three times and "from knowing Dick Cheney and Paul Wolfowitz for so many years."

      Vice President Cheney phoned Adelman, who was in Paris with his wife, Carol. What a clever column, the vice president said. You really demolished them. He said he and his wife, Lynne, were having a small private dinner Sunday night, April 13, to talk and celebrate. The only other guests would be his chief adviser, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, and Wolfowitz, now deputy secretary of defense. Adelman realized it was Cheney's way of saying thank you, and he and his wife came back from Paris a day early to attend the dinner.

      When Adelman walked into the vice president's residence that Sunday night, he was so happy he broke into tears. He hugged Cheney for the first time in the 30 years he had known him.
      END QUOTE
      END ARTICLE

    • seanmcbride May 26, 2012 at 10:52 am

      Annie,

      Dick Cheney is a genius at manipulating the federal bureaucracy -- he knows where all the buttons are (especially the secret buttons) and how to push them -- but I have seen no evidence that Cheney is a major strategic thinker like, say, Zbigniew Brzezinski. All his strategic thinking was done for him by neoconservatives in the pages of Commentary for several decades before 9/11 ("the New Pearl Harbor") and the Iraq War. Cheney was putty in their hands -- someone who was highly susceptible to being lured and manipulated by the profit opportunities they promised him.

      Am I wrong on this? Point me to some books or articles written by Dick Cheney that reveal signs of intelligence on strategic affairs. I don't know of any. Cheney, under immense pressure from his neoconservative handlers and string-pullers, came close to driving the United States over the cliff.

    • seanmcbride May 26, 2012 at 10:44 am

      Annie,

      First-rate analysis -- right on the mark.

      But here is the dispiriting thing: after all their colossal and disastrous failures, the neocons are more firmly in control of the Republican Party than ever -- just look at Mitt Romney's list of foreign policy advisers -- a solid wall of pro-Israel militants, Likud Zionists, PNAC alumni, etc. And since the Israel lobby has an iron grip on the Democratic Party, Democrats don't dare to say a word about this state of affairs. This destructive situation goes far beyond the ability of Dick Cheney to engineer. Cheneys come and go; the Israel lobby, fueled by the wealth of dozens of billionaires and manned by a large network of ethnic and religious nationalist true believers, just keeps acquiring more power.

    • seanmcbride May 26, 2012 at 8:53 am

      G. Seauton,

      You wrote:

      “So basically, by equating the ‘JINSA crowd’ with the ‘prime mover,’ [do] you … believe that the ‘JINSA crowd’ pulled the strings and that Bush and Cheney were mere puppets? Or something along those lines that would be consistent with calling them the ‘prime mover’? … The president and vice president were merely doing the bidding of a lobby because that lobby was all-powerful, or at least, in the context of US politics, all-controlling?”

      Regarding this, have you noticed how completely vacuous the statements of Bush and Cheney have been on the Iraq War and foreign policy in general? When they were not reading handouts provided them by neoconservatives from AEI (American Enterprise Institute) and other policymaking arms of the JINSA crowd, they were unable to discuss foreign policy in an informed and analytical way.

      Bush thought the Iraq War was about fighting Gog and Magog at the battle of Armaggedon (according to French PM Jacques Chirac) -- apparently he has been heavily influenced by Christian Zionists. Dick Cheney's former mates from the realist school of foreign policy (like Brent Scowcroft) no longer recognized or understood the man. You know, the term "ziobot" does come to mind when observing their zombie-like demeanor in executing the will and plans of the JINSA crowd. Sleepwalkers or hypnotized subjects. I exaggerate only a bit. We still haven't recovered from the mess they made.

    • seanmcbride May 26, 2012 at 8:40 am

      G. Seauton,

      You have a crisp, clear mind and I appreciate that.

      You are no doubt right that my Roman Catholic upbringing has probably influenced my use of the term "prime mover." Perhaps a better term would be "primary mover," which clearly implies that the neoconservative and Christian Zionist wings of the Israel lobby weren't the only interest group that instigated the Iraq War -- there were also secondary movers, tertiary movers, etc.

      Where we may disagree is that I don't think that Dick Cheney and George W. Bush, or any other mere politician, is very powerful compared to the organized might of the Israel lobby. How much money do they have? How many policy centers and mainstream media companies do they control? A few dozen highly motivated billionaires working in coordination (like Rupert Murdoch, Haim Saban, Sheldon Adelson and Irving Moskowitz) can exert a more formidable impact on American foreign policy than any president or vice president -- look at how easily Benjamin Netanyahu has been able to humiliate Barack Obama by using the Israel lobby to threaten and squeeze him.

      Yes: Bush 43 and Cheney had intentions to invade Iraq before winning the 2000 election. But they had already been subjected to heavy influence to pursue that policy for years by the lobby. The oil interests associated with Bush 41 (along with the Vatican) opposed the war. Israeli interests easily overpowered them.

      I could point you to many hundreds of books and articles to support this argument, but rather than overload you I'll just mention this one item for the moment:

      article; Stephen J. Sniegoski; War on Iraq: Not oil but Israel; October 22, 2004 link to thornwalker.com

      You might also want to check out his book on the subject available at Amazon.com: link to amazon.com

    • seanmcbride May 25, 2012 at 11:37 am

      Annie,

      Comparing "prime mover" to God in the context of this discussion was so off the wall that I couldn't even muster the attention and energy to reply to it. But I am glad you did. :)

      That neocons have been the prime mover behind the entire Global War on Terror and Clash of Civilizations, and all the wars associated with that campaign, can be easily established by browsing back issues of Commentary, the lead journal of neoconservatism, for the last four or five decades. It's a no-brainer. Their fingerprints are all over these policies. And their Israel-centric agenda is completely transparent -- they themselves have shouted it to the skies.

      "Filler crap" describes much of the hasbara of pro-Israel activists. Nearly aways their aim is to obfuscate and deceive, not to enlighten and tell the truth.

    • seanmcbride May 25, 2012 at 11:26 am

      G. Seauton,

      You wrote,

      "Also, I’m not interested in competing on the issue of how many organizations we can each name that belong to JINSA. I’ll give you the advantage on that."

      Identifying which individuals, organizations and groups led the charge to go to war against Iraq is the heart and soul of doing substantive political analyis on the roots of the war. And you would like to brush aside that exercise as a matter of little consequence? It sounds to me like you are acknowledging defeat in this debate before we even begin.

      Let's take a look at some of the organizations which were associated both with pro-Israel activism and the campaign to attack Iraq:

      1. ABC News
      2. ACPR (Ariel Center for Policy Research)
      3. AEI (American Enterprise Institute)
      4. AIPAC (American Israel Public Affairs Commitee)
      5. Benador Associates
      6. CBS News
      7. CNN
      8. Commentary
      9. CSP (Center for Security Policy)
      10. Defense Policy Board
      11. FDD (Foundation for the Defense of Democracies)
      12. Fox News
      13. Frontpage Magazine
      14. Henry Jackson Society
      15. Heritage Foundation
      16. Hoover Institution
      17. Hudson Institute
      18. IASPS (Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies)
      19. Jewish World Review
      20. JINSA (Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs)
      21. Manhattan Institute
      22. Middle East Forum
      23. Middle East Quarterly
      24. MSNBC
      25. National Review
      26. NBC News
      27. New Republic
      28. New York Daily News
      29. New York Post
      30. New York Sun
      31. New York Times
      32. News Corp.
      33. Newsmax
      34. Newsweek
      35. NJDC (National Jewish Democratic Council)
      36. NPR
      37. OSP (Office of Special Plans)
      38. PNAC (Project for the New American Century)
      39. RJC (Republican Jewish Coalition)
      40. U.S. News & World Report
      41. Wall Street Journal
      42. Washington Post
      43. Weekly Standard
      44. WINEP (Washington Institute for Near East Policy)
      45. Worldnetdaily

      Three lobbies have been prominently mentioned with regard to instigating the Iraq War:

      1. the Israel lobby
      2. the oil lobby
      3. the arms lobby

      Perhaps you could provide your lists of pro-Iraq War organizations that were associated with the oil and arms lobbies and compare their relative influence with that of the Israel lobby in driving Americans to attack Iraq.

      What most strikes me is the role of ostensibly "liberal" institutions like the New York Times and Washington Post in supporting the war agenda of neoconservatives and pro-Israel militants associated with the Bush 43 administration. How does one explain their behavior? Very few (or none) of those belligerent journalists and pundits who clamored for the Iraq War were members of the oil or arms lobbies. But many of them have a well-established track record of pro-Israel activism.

      Many of them are now relentlessly agitating for a war against Iran, driven by the same pro-Israel passion that motivated them to push Americans into the Iraq War. We can easily name names.

    • seanmcbride May 25, 2012 at 11:06 am

      G. Seauton,

      Which authors have most influenced your understanding of which interest groups exerted the greatest influence on instigating the Iraq War?

      Here is my list, off the top of my head (there are other names that will come to mind when I find time to review my notes):

      1. Craig Unger
      2. George Packer
      3. Jacob Heilbrunn
      4. James Bamford
      5. James Petras
      6. Jason Vest
      7. Jeff Gates
      8. Jim Lobe
      9. John Mearsheimer
      10. Justin Raimondo
      11. Karen Kwiatkowski
      12. Kathleen Christison
      13. Pat Buchanan
      14. Pat Lang
      15. Paul Craig Roberts
      16. Philip Giraldi
      17. Ray McGovern
      18. Robert Dreyfuss
      19. Stefan Halper
      20. Stephen Sniegoski
      21. Stephen Walt

      All of these authors support Colin Powell's claim about "the JINSA crowd."

      What does your list look like?

    • seanmcbride May 25, 2012 at 11:00 am

      G. Seauton,

      This subject we are discussing -- which special interests played the most influential role in instigating and engineering the Iraq War -- is huge and complex. I could easily overload Mondoweiss with boatloads of documentation, quotes and facts to support my arguments, Robert Werdine-style, but I don't want to be tiresome and do that. So I will try to break up the controversy into small chunks and address various particular issues as I find time over the coming days and weeks if you are interested in pursuing this discussion.

      With regard to Colin Powell: I find his comment on the role of "the JINSA crowd" in promoting and pushing the Iraq War to be highly credible and convincing. Anyone who knows his political profile as it has evolved over several decades knows that he is aligned with the Bush 41/James Baker/Brent Scowcroft/Zbigniew Brzezinski school of foreign policy realism. That faction of the American power elite was either skeptical about the Iraq War or opposed it outright. One gets the impression from available accounts that Powell was dragged against his will into propagandizing for the war by pro-Israel militants (neoconservatives and Christian Zionists) in the Bush 43 administration. That is why they despise him and why they squeezed him out of the adminstration after the first term.

      Powell knows the most intimate details about the inner workings of policymaking regarding the Iraq War -- he was, after all, secretary of state. He knows who said what and with what motives at the highest levels of power. He is a highly reliable source on this controversy. No other Bush 43 administration member has stepped forward to rebut his statement about "the JINSA crowd." I think most of those players are embarrassed and ashamed about their role in promoting the worst foreign policy disaster in American history and now would like to forget about the entire affair. Unfortunately for them, all of their words on the subject can be retrieved in seconds on the Internet.

    • seanmcbride May 24, 2012 at 10:53 am

      G. Seauton,

      Some close synonyms for "the JINSA crowd":

      1. the AEI crowd
      2. the PNAC crowd
      3. the OSP crowd
      4. the neocon crowd
      5. the Commentary crowd
      6. the Likud crowd
      7. the Israel lobby

    • seanmcbride May 24, 2012 at 10:45 am

      G. Seauton,

      Colin Powell's report that "the JINSA crowd" was the prime mover behind the Iraq War is highly credible for two reasons:

      1. Powell was a high level insider in the Bush 43 administration and observed all the proceedings concerning the run-up to the Iraq War close up as secretary of state.

      2. There are literally thousands of highly credible reports, articles, books, facts, datapoints, etc. to support his claim.

      What groups, organizations and individuals do you think Powell had in mind when he referred to "the JINSA crowd"? What players constitute "the JINSA crowd" in your mind?

      I can easily name a few dozen organizations that are members of the JINSA crowd. How many can you name?

      Collectively they comprise a political machine that is much more powerful than any mere individual politician -- and that includes George W. Bush, Dick Cheney and Barack Obama. The JINSA crowd can easily make or break mere politicians. Think of Sheldon Adelson's sponsorhip of Newt Gingrich to the tune of millions of dollars.

    • seanmcbride May 23, 2012 at 9:14 pm

      American,

      Guess which political group played a lead role in pushing the false meme that US oil companies were behind the Iraq War -- you got it: the "liberal" and "progressive" wing of the Israel lobby, which was eager to divert attention away from the JINSA crowd that Colin Powell fingered as the main culprits behind the war. Many Americans on the left were taken in by the propaganda.

    • seanmcbride May 23, 2012 at 1:02 pm with 3 replies

      Jewish nationalists (Jewish Zionists) were the key ringleaders of the Iraq War. This assertion is easy to prove with hard data. I challenge anyone on the planet to dispute and debate this proposition. The plain facts don't lie. They left a vast document trail behind them that is ripe for data mining. They are leaving a similar vast document trail behind them with regard to their agitation for an Iran War.

      Are there any takers of this challenge who have their facts in order?

      The Iraq War was the product of more than three decades of careful planning, propagandizing and political engineering concocted in neoconservative circles. The best index into the entire operation are back issues of Commentary Magazine dating from the mid-1960s. None of these facts are hidden but few Americans are aware of them.

    • seanmcbride May 23, 2012 at 11:10 am

      How large do you think the Mossad file was on George W. Bush long before he won the presidency or even before he entered politics? Mossadniks understood his every psychological vulnerability and weakness and which buttons to push in a calibrated way.

      Bush senior understands the game but Bush junior probably still doesn't understand what hit him. His mind doesn't operate at that level.

    • seanmcbride May 23, 2012 at 9:27 am with 7 replies

      wondering jew,

      You wrote:

      "Blame Wolfowitz and Perle and Krauthammer all you want. But the vice president was the inside man."

      Why do you think that Dick Cheney is as remotely as powerful as the Israel lobby -- and especially its neoconservative wing? He's not. The neocons were easily able to turn Cheney into a front man for their agenda. They have managed to hijack the entire Republican Party. They are much wealthier, much smarter, better organized and command more resources than any other lobby on the American scene. Bush and Cheney basically read the scripts that were handed to them by neocons from policy centers like the AEI (American Enterprise Institute).

    • seanmcbride May 22, 2012 at 2:47 pm with 1 replies

      Colin Powell blamed "the JINSA crowd" for the Iraq War and he was right. Google [colin powell jinsa crowd] for the details.

      JINSA=Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs -- one of dozens of tentacles of the Israel lobby and yet another front group for Likud Zionism. The neocons engineered the entire Global War on Terror and Islamophobic Clash of Civilizations -- a policy that is still wreaking enormous damage on American prosperity and interests.

      Historians haven't even begun to dig fully into this topic. Wait until they really get their teeth into it.

  • Google is partnering with Technion and Cornell in NY
    • seanmcbride May 23, 2012 at 11:20 am

      One of the more interesting quotes from this article:

      "One of his advisers, Rajeev Motwani, recalls, “He was the brash young man. But he was so smart, it just oozed out of him.” His abiding interest was computer science, specifically the field of “data mining,” or how to extract meaningful patterns from mountains of information."

      Data mining. Google is sitting on an immensely valuable pile of raw material for data mining on politics, organizations, people and social networks. Israelis are the world leaders on this research front. So many temptations, opportunities and motives in play in this situation.

    • seanmcbride May 23, 2012 at 9:40 am with 2 replies

      Moment, a Jewish magazine, on the Jewishness of Google's founders. (Per usual, Jewish publications are much more interested in delving into this kind of topic than non-Jewish publications.)

      My takeaway from the article: I'm not sure to what degree Brin and Page are emotionally and politically involved with Israel and Israeli politics. Certainly they are not religious or Likud Zionists. They may be liberal Zionists, but that would be just a speculation based on the information in this article.

      BEGIN ARTICLE
      AUTHOR Mark Malseed
      TITLE The Story of Sergey Brin
      SUBTITLE How the Moscow-born entrepreneur cofounded Google and changed the way the world searches
      MAGAZINE Moment
      DATE February 2007
      URL link to momentmag.com
      BEGIN QUOTES
      The Brins were no different from their fellow immigrants in that being Jewish was an ethnic, not a religious experience. “We felt our Jewishness in different ways, not by keeping kosher or going to synagogue. It is genetic,” explains Michael. “We were not very religious. My wife doesn’t eat on Yom Kippur; I do.” Genia interjects: “We always have a Passover dinner. We have a seder. I have the recipe for gefilte fish from my grandmother.”

      Religious or not, on arriving in the suburbs of Washington, the Brins were adopted by a synagogue, Mishkan Torah of Greenbelt, Maryland, which helped them acquire furnishings for their home. “We didn’t need that much, but we saw how much the community helped other families,” Genia says.

      Sergey attended Hebrew school at Mishkan Torah for the better part of three years but hated the language instruction and everything else, too. “He was teased there by other kids and he begged us not to send him any more,” his mother remembers. “Eventually, it worked.” The Conservative congregation turned out to be too religious for the Brins and they drifted. When a three-week trip to Israel awakened 11-year-old Sergey’s interest in all things Jewish, the family inquired at another synagogue about restarting studies to prepare for a bar mitzvah. But the rabbi said it would take more than a year to catch up and Sergey, who didn’t want to wait past his 13th birthday, abandoned the pursuit.

      ...

      Like Sergey, Larry is the son of high-powered intellects steeped in computer science. His father, Carl Victor Page, a computer science professor at Michigan State University until his death in 1996, received one of the first Ph.D.s awarded in the field. His mother, Gloria, holds a master’s degree in computer science and has taught college programming classes. The two young graduate students also shared a Jewish background. Larry’s maternal grandfather made aliyah and lived in the desert town of Arad near the Dead Sea, working as a tool and die maker, and his mother was raised Jewish. Larry, however, brought up in the mold of his father, whose religion was technology, does not readily identify as a Jew. He, too, never had a bar mitzvah.

      ...

      One malevolent practice, in Google’s view, is tampering with or otherwise censoring the list of results produced by a Google search. An early test of the Google founders’ commitment to providing unfiltered information struck very close to home. The anti-Semitic web site “Jew Watch” appeared prominently in Google results for searches on the term “Jew,” prompting some Jewish groups to demand that Google remove the defamatory site from the top of its listings. Google refused. Sergey said at the time, “I certainly am very offended by the site, but the objectivity of our rankings is one of our very important principles.” As a compromise, Google displays a warning at the top of questionable pages entitled “Offensive Search Results,” which links to a fuller explanation of Google’s policy: “Our search results are generated completely objectively and are independent of the beliefs and preferences of those who work at Google.”

      ...

      Does any company founded by two Jews, no matter how assimilated, necessarily retain some defining Jewish characteristics? The Google masterminds’ penchant for pushing boundaries—without asking permission—might as well be called chutzpah. However you label it, it’s an attitude that runs deeply through Google and may help explain why the company is embroiled in lawsuits over many of its new projects: the aggressive scanning of library books it doesn’t own; display of copyrighted material; and copyright issues connected to its acquisition of YouTube, the online video site whose popularity rests in part on the availability of pirated television and movie clips.

      Google’s first employee and a number of other early hires were Jewish and, when the initial winter holiday season rolled around, a menorah rather than a Christmas tree graced the lobby. (The next year, there was a tree wrapped in Hanukkah lights.) Google’s former chef, Charlie Ayers, cooked up latkes, brisket, tzimmes and matzah ball soup for Hanukkah meals and turned the Passover seder into a Google tradition. To some, Google’s emphasis on academic achievement—hiring only the best and the brightest and employing hundreds of Ph.D.s—could be considered Jewish. So, perhaps, could “Don’t Be Evil.” With its hint of tikkun olam, the Kabbalistic concept of “repairing the world” is evident in the company’s commitment to aggressive philanthropy. Sergey and Larry have pledged $1 billion of Google’s profits to the company’s philanthropic arm, known as Google.org, which will funnel money both to nonprofit charities and companies that deal with global poverty, environmental issues and renewable energy.

      ...

      I’m curious as to whether Sergey has been a target of anti-Semitism since he left the Soviet Union. “I’ve experienced it,” he tells me. “Usually it is fairly subtle. People harp on all media companies being run by Jewish executives, with the implication of a conspiracy.” As an example, he cites the entry about him in Wikipedia, the popular online encyclopedia that famously accepts submissions and edits from anyone. “The Wikipedia page about me will be subtly edited in an anti-Semitic way,” he says.

      He doesn’t elaborate, so I later take a look myself. Wikipedia retains the old versions of each of its pages and in that archive I find a number of occasions where people have added, moved or deleted references to Sergey’s Jewishness. Most seem harmless or ambiguous, but one jumps out. Several months ago, someone anonymously deleted a long-standing reference to the reason his parents had left Russia: “anti-Semitism.”

      “I think I’m fortunate that it doesn’t really affect me personally,” Sergey says of anti-Semitism. “But there are hints of it all around. That’s why I think it is worth noting.”

      ...

      Several years ago, Sergey and Larry visited a high school for gifted math students near Tel Aviv. When they came onto the stage of the darkened auditorium, the audience roared, as if they were rock stars. Every student there, many of them immigrants like Sergey from the former Soviet Union, knew of Google.
      END QUOTES
      END ARTICLE

    • seanmcbride May 22, 2012 at 12:56 pm

      What if one could exhaustively data mine all private Google data (including searches, email, contact lists and calendars) and use it to run ops against political opponents?

      That scenario is what the world needs to be thinking about in terms of worrying about potential abuses by the owners, controllers and employees of leading Internet companies.

      The possibilities for abusing this data are endless. It is a certainty that leading global intel agencies (including Mossad) have been thinking about how to exploit the Internet in sophisticated ways for decades.

    • seanmcbride May 22, 2012 at 12:26 pm with 1 replies

      Are Sergey Brin and Larry Page emotionally involved in Israeli politics at all? It would be interesting and important to know. At the moment, I don't know the answer to that question and am certainly not jumping to any conclusions.

      In some ways, Google could be described as the most powerful surveillance tool yet devised by the human race -- a kind of KGB/Stasi wet dream. The potential for abuse of this instrument is enormous. We need to know a great deal indeed about the people who control leading Internet companies. We need to possess more information on them than they possess on us.

      (Let me add that so far I have been a huge fan of Google -- the company, the culture and its visionary founders.)

  • Biden meets major Israel lobby group at White House
    • seanmcbride May 22, 2012 at 4:00 pm

      This is interesting: I copied these paragraphs on Shmuley Boteach from Wikipedia a few months ago:

      link to en.wikipedia.org

      BEGIN QUOTE
      Boteach received his rabbinic ordination in 1988 from the Chabad-Lubavitch Hasidic movement in New York City, as a disciple of its leader, Rabbi Menachem Mendel Schneerson.... Boteach is strongly supportive of Israel, and critical of American policy towards the country. Boteach has argued that the Obama administration is "bullying" Israel, arguing that US Middle Eastern policy is "scandalous" and "disgusting".

      He is also supportive of Israeli settlements, including the controversial Hebron settlement, the residents of which he characterizes as marked by a particular "warmth, friendliness and hospitality" and views as being "liberated from hatred". The settlements are viewed as illegal by the UN, and most of the world barring Israel. His support for the Hebron settlement caused Israeli journalist Bradley Burston, writing in Ha'aretz, to characterize Boteach as a "pro-occupation flack".
      END QUOTE

      I rechecked the page today and the paragraphs seem to have disappeared. As far as I know they contained nothing but accurate and factual statements. Orwellian goings-on at Wikipedia? The Hasbara Squad in action?

  • Bill Kristol celebrates Republican Party purge of 'oldfashioned Arabists' Scowcroft, Baker and Bush I
    • seanmcbride May 24, 2012 at 2:43 pm

      Dan,

      I understand your overall position much better now -- and I find much in it that makes sense. Thanks for hanging in there and getting these issues clarified.

    • seanmcbride May 23, 2012 at 11:27 pm

      "Islamist" is now in common usage as well as "Christianist" (see Andrew Sullivan). "Jewist" would be no more intrinsically offensive than "Islamist" or "Christianist."

    • seanmcbride May 23, 2012 at 11:10 pm

      A bit more on this topic:

      BEGIN ARTICLE
      AUTHOR Robert D. Kaplan
      TITLE Tales from the Bazaar
      MAGAZINE The Atantic
      DATE August 1992
      URL link to theatlantic.com
      BEGIN QUOTE
      The more it gained ascendancy as a term of political abuse, the more indiscriminately "Arabist" came to be applied. During the Gulf crisis the New York Times columnist William Safire and the Washington Post columnist Jim Hoagland frequently described John Kelly, who was then the assistant secretary of state for Near Eastern and South Asian affairs, as an Arabist, even though Kelly, with his limited Middle East experience, was distrusted by real Arabists as a politically imposed outsider. By war's end anyone who was vaguely sympathetic toward Arabs was being called an Arabist, even if he or she didn't speak the language and had never lived in the Arab world. I asked a senior Arabic-speaking diplomat at the State Department about the word "Arabist," and he frowned, his chin slumping to his chest, as he muttered, "The word has become poison; nobody uses it around here anymore."
      END QUOTE
      END ARTICLE

    • seanmcbride May 23, 2012 at 10:26 pm

      Annie,

      I just Googled [site:israpundit.com arabist] and these choice phrases appeared at the top of the search results:

      1. "Paul's an Arabist idiot, which is probably why he's allowed anywhere near the political process. The stupidity of these types"

      2. "Arabist pompous ass. Giscard D' Estaing – Anti-Semite and Soviet arse licker, not to mention Arabist who along with Chirac gave Iraq"

      3. "Obama is a pro-Palestinian/Arabist bully."

      And so on. You catch the drift. It took less than a minute to turn up these statements. There are many thousands more like them out there on the Internet.

      The hate behind the word is palpable when used by people with this agenda, as is the spittle that accompanies its utterance.

    • seanmcbride May 23, 2012 at 10:18 pm

      Annie,

      As you noted, "Arabist" was originally an objective, neutral and respectable term to describe foreign policy experts who specialized in Arab affairs, but in the overheated rhetoric of neoconservatives in recent decades it has acquired a very nasty intonation and become a term of abuse.

      Look up the word as used in context by pro-Israel activists and militants and you will see what I am talking about. Many of them are as viciously racist in their views towards Arabs as an ethnic group as they are towards Muslims as a religious group. In private, terms like "camel jockeys,'' "ragheads" and "sand niggers" will roll trippingly off their tongues.

      When neocons use that term, we know full well what they mean.

    • seanmcbride May 23, 2012 at 10:00 pm

      Dan,

      I apologize for snapping at you in an earlier comment. I found your brief bio to be interesting and enlightening and thank you for your service in the Marines on behalf of our country.

      Phil in his critiques of the Israel lobby has been focusing on the most powerful players in the lobby, which seems sensible to me. This is precisely the territory that conventional leftists like Noam Chomsky refuse to investigate or discuss.

      We all know that there are many Jews out there who are not members of the lobby, but they are irrelevant. They have permitted pro-Israel activists and militants within the Jewish community, like those associated with AIPAC and the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations, to seize control of the Jewish establishment. They have no voice in defining Jewish or Israeli issues.

      Of course there are other important issues out there besides Israel and the Israel lobby and there are appropriate forums to discuss those issues. But many important issues these days intersect with and are greatly impacted by Mideast politics. American foreign *and* domestic policy these days is largely being driven by "Global War on Terror" neoconservatives and neoliberals in both the Republican and Democratic Parties for whom Israeli interests outrank all other interests in importance.

      Regarding class interests and the trend towards increasingly radical wealth inequality, pro-Israel activists and Israel lobby leaders loom large on the annual Forbes billionaires list. I don't think this pattern is the product of coincidence. A few dozen pro-Israel billionaires (like Haim Saban, Sheldon Adelson and Rupert Murdoch) seem to have acquired dominating influence over both major political parties and the mainstream media. No matter how much wealth and power they acquire, they want more and more. Compared to these oligarchs and plutocrats, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld and George W. Bush are really not a big deal.

    • seanmcbride May 23, 2012 at 3:53 pm

      The Israel lobby is much more powerful than the oil lobby in American politics -- that fact of life has been demontrated many times.

      The oil industry overall was highly skeptical about the Iraq War, and some oil industry leaders predicted that the war would be a disaster from the standpoint of the American interest -- they were right.

    • seanmcbride May 23, 2012 at 3:49 pm

      Dan,

      I would be more confident that you could read English if you gave evidence that you could write it.

      If you want to apply classical Marxist class analysis to world affairs in general, be my guest. But any discussion about Israel and the Israel lobby has to take into account that ethnic nationalism, religious nationalism and ethno-religious nationalism are self-generating syndromes and often trump financial, economic and class factors in motivating human behavior -- they emerge from the deepest and most primal wellspring of human psychology.

      If we are discussing the policies of the Israeli government and the Israel lobby here -- and I think we are -- the ethnic and religious nationalist motive in driving the thinking and behavior of neoconservatives like William Kristol, Richard Perle, Douglas Feith and Michael Ledeen should be front and center. Their privileged class background does not provide the best explanation for their behavior and ideological agenda. With regard to ethnic and religious nationalism, they are true believers -- their zealous Zionism is not a cover for some other motive or agenda -- it's the main show.

      With regard to Noam Chomsky: when the subject of the Israel lobby comes up, his brain shuts down and he starts doddering on in a vague and abstract way about tangential issues. One runs into that kind of diversion quite often in discussions about the Israel lobby.

    • seanmcbride May 23, 2012 at 11:01 am with 6 replies

      American,

      You wrote:

      "Dan, I think you are mixing apples and oranges again. There is financial elitism and then there are Israel firsters......not all financial elites support Israel and one doesn't have to be a financial elite to support Israel."

      When it comes to analyzing the operations of the Israel lobby, Dan is still very much a novice.

      Whenever Phil takes his best shot at prodding the Jewish community to challenge the Jewish establishment on its Likud Zionist ways, Dan often tries to defuse and undermine the effort with generalized Chomskyian platitudes.

      Actually, Noam Chomsky perfected the technique of distracting attention from the Israel lobby (and its dominant Jewish establishment component) by diverting attention to a vague and misty corporate/financial elite whose members are rarely named and whose particular activities are never described.

      Yes, we all know that many Jews are not strident Zionists. Many of them are non-Zionists or anti-Zionists. But they have had zero impact on the Jewish establishment, the Israel lobby and the Israeli government. They might just as well not exist when it comes to understanding Israeli politics.

      And many Fortune 500 CEOs couldn't care less about Israel -- they are not Jewish nationalists or ethnic nationalists of any kind.

      American policy towards Israel and Mideast politics is being driven predominately by Jewish nationalists within the Israel lobby -- NOT by the corporatocracy. Large American corporations have important financial interests all around the world and in many cases with Israel's adversaries. Probably quite a few members of the American financial elite are tired of hearing about Israel -- they do not live in an Israel-centric world.

      Ethnic, religious and national communities get the establishments they deserve.

    • seanmcbride May 22, 2012 at 2:53 pm

      Actually, "Israel Firster" is a much milder and less controversial term -- it carries no racist baggage.

      Not all pro-Israel activists are Israel Firsters, but some are -- and they are easy to spot: they have only one issue: Israel. Jeffrey Goldberg is a perfect example. It's all Israel all the time for obsessive-compulsive ethnic nationalists like Jeffrey. The rest of the world doesn't exist.

    • seanmcbride May 21, 2012 at 5:06 pm with 1 replies

      Here is FailedMessiah.com on this story:

      BEGIN ARTICLE
      TITLE Haredi Leader Calls Non-Jews “Murderers, Thieves [and] Brainless People”
      AUTHOR Shmarya Rosenberg
      PUBLICATION FailedMessiah.com
      DATE May 21, 2012
      URL link to failedmessiah.typepad.com
      BEGIN QUOTE
      Defacto haredi leader Rabbi Aharon Leib Steinman told haredim in Beit Shemesh that non-Jews are “murderers,” “thieves,” and “brainless people.”

      The city, which serves as a bedroom community for both Tel Aviv and Jerusalem, has been the site of conflict between extreme haredim on one hand and Modern Orthodox and secular Jews on the other.

      "There are eight billion people in the world. And what are they? Murderers, thieves, brainless people…” Steinman said. “But who is the essence of this world? Has God created the world for these murderers? For these evil-doers?…The nations of the world have no redeeming qualities." ...

      In January, Steinman said secular Jews are the "erev rav," the "mixed multitude" of non-Jews who escaped Egypt with the Israelites and according to rabbinic thought, caused trouble thereafter for the Israelites.

      "…[T]heir ways are not like our ways," Steinman said then, "and we certainly must distance ourselves from them, for their inside is not like their outside [i.e. their internal state is not like the appearance they put on]. They are a mixed multitude who hate the Jews."
      END QUOTE
      END ARTICLE

      First reaction: recoil in disgust at the over-the-top racism.

      Second reaction: where do these ideas, beliefs and attitudes come from?

      Third reaction: how deeply does this mentality permeate religious Zionist culture?

      Fourth reaction: might these beliefs have the potential to provoke antisemitism?

      A new term for the religious Zionist lexicon: "erev rav". You learn something new every day.

      Will we see Sacha Baron Cohen do a parody of Rabbi Aharon Leib Steinman? Probably not.

    • seanmcbride May 21, 2012 at 3:46 pm

      William Kristol is far more emotional about Jewish nationalism than American nationalism. In fact, I don't think he has the slightest idea of what Americanism is all about. Americanism at its best is rising above narrow ethnic and religious tribalism and building a culture based on universal excellence and trans-ethnic and trans-denominational integration..

      Kristol wallows in ethnic and religious tribalism. He is a neurotic xenophobe who sees ethnic and religious enemies everywhere. One is even tempted to describe him as un-American. He and his fellow true believers have pushed America in a very dangerous and self-destructive direction.

    • seanmcbride May 21, 2012 at 3:17 pm with 8 replies

      Annie,

      Here is the rhetorical logic:

      Calling someone an Arabist is like calling someone an Arab lover.

      Calling someone a Jewist would be like calling them a Jew lover.

      Similar language was used with regard to African-Americans to attack white supporters of the civil rights movement in the 1960s -- except they used a much nastier word than "African-American." You know the word.

      The language is disgusting.

      These foreign policy leaders that Kristol attacks from the standpoint of Jewish nationalism were Americanists -- they were making their best effort to calculate and pursue the American interest -- a matter about which William Kristol cares not a whit.

    • seanmcbride May 21, 2012 at 3:07 pm with 2 replies

      1. Kristol sniggers a lot. Many neocons do. It's what passes for argument for them. And most of them are petulant, often in an infantile way.

      2. Isn't there the appearance here that William Kristol, as a Jewish nationalist, is gloating about the triumph of Jewish nationalists in American politics over Old Guard WASPs (Scowcroft, Baker and Bush 41)? He's promoting a Kulturkampf in American politics between Jews and the dwindling WASP establishment. Is he certain that this is a war that he can successfully finish once that establishment begins to take stock of the situation and pushes back hard?

      3. Re: Kristol complaining about the "lack of closeness and warmth for Israel" -- this kind of sentiment that one often hears expressed by pro-Israel activists always strikes me as crazy and self-destructive.

      How many Italian, Irish, French or German nationalists does one see on the American political scene demanding perpetual assurances of "love" and "warmth" for Italy, Ireland, France or Germany? It doesn't happen.

      Most human beings (and certainly most Americans) understand that you don't crowd and harangue ethnic outsiders with emotional demands for emotional expressions of devotion for your ethnic nationalist cause. It's a huge turnoff. Most Americans are not emotional about their *own* ethnic nationalist identity and interests, not to mention William Kristol's. But ethno-religious nationalists like Kristol (the meeting occurred at a synagogue) simply can't help themselves. They demand, with an obsessive-compulsive urgency, total and unstinting loyalty to their narrow cause, which has all the trappings of a tribal cult.

      4. Phil wrote:

      "Deep down, despite all the happy talk about the ‘pro-Israel American public’ they don’t trust the gentiles at all. They probably know that the pro-Israel polling is what it is because these people work day and night to keep them there via political and media pressure."

      Kristol has good reason to be worried. Every move he makes couldn't be better calculated to turn most Americans against him and his fellow zealots. One might remember the barrage of hostility that greeted him in online comments at the New York Times during his brief stint there as an op-ed columnist. It is certain that he remembers.

  • The Messiah's Donkey: Settlers fire on Palestinian villagers as the Israeli military watches
    • seanmcbride May 23, 2012 at 1:30 pm

      OlegR is a member of a messianic ethnic cult. Members of messianic ethnic cults tend to be extremely self-involved and lack perspective on how cult outsiders view them. And this is why messianic ethnic cults always self-destruct: they systematically misread the world around them.

      OlegR needs to deprogram himself. But the indoctrination to which he has been subjected may be too much for him to overcome.

    • seanmcbride May 22, 2012 at 11:45 am

      OlegR,

      Haven't you figured out yet that the more that pro-Israel activists argue about Israeli politics with the world at large -- and especially with Americans and Europeans -- the more they turn the world off Israel? Stand back and look at the big picture.

      If Israel had developed into a normal nation, as Theodor Herzl envisioned, you wouldn't be bogged down in these self-defeating arguments. But Israel is a highly abnormal nation, by choice, and becomes increasingly more abnormal every day.

      What political issues do you care about more than or as much as your narrow ethnic nationalism?

      What ethnic nationalist movements around the world do you support other than your own?

  • Joe Pitts and ‘The Family’
    • seanmcbride May 22, 2012 at 12:17 pm

      It's a safe bet that at some point Jewish Zionists and Christian Zionists will want to utterly annihilate one another. Ditto for Jewish nationalists and white nationalists. Who can't see it coming? Their respective agendas are perfectly transparent.

    • seanmcbride May 21, 2012 at 4:46 pm with 3 replies

      The relatively high level of intelligence of the Israel lobby (lots of Ivy League doctorates there) compared to the relatively low intelligence of the Fellowship means that in any interactions and cooperative projects between the two groups, the Fellowship will be taken to the cleaners.

      The lsraeli government has already succeeded in turning leading Christian Zionists into trained circus animals who jump through hoops on command. Perhaps there is something to the belief that at least some goyim aren't very bright and are easy marks.

    • seanmcbride May 21, 2012 at 12:07 pm

      More thoughts:

      I would add these criminal secret societies to the list:

      1. Chinese Mafia
      2. Italian Mafia
      3. Japanese Mafia
      4. Jewish Mafia
      5. Russian Mafia

      With regard to the relative power of the Fellowship and the Israel lobby: no contest whatever. The Israel lobby is much wealthier, much smarter, much more talented and much better organized than the Fellowship. And I doubt that the Fellowship commands an intelligence service as formidable and ruthless as Mossad.

      The Israel lobby would enjoy greater success in turning the Fellowship into an appendage and tool than vice-versa. Perhaps it has already done so, especially through its Christian Zionist allies and affiliates.

    • seanmcbride May 21, 2012 at 11:49 am with 1 replies

      If you want to enjoy a mind-boggling experience today take the trouble to read the Wikipedia entry on the Fellowship (the Family) carefully and in full:

      link to en.wikipedia.org

      I was vaguely aware of them and of Jeff Sharlet's book, and knew they were a major power behind the scenes, but I didn't remotely realize just how powerful.

      One notices that some of their members are leading Christian Zionists.

      For students of deep politics, graphing all the links among secret societies (or societies with secretive modes of operation) is the main project. I count at least eight formal organizations on that grid:

      1. B'nai B'rith International
      2. Bilderberg Group
      3. Freemasons
      4. Knights of Malta
      5. Mormons
      6. Opus Dei
      7. Skull and Bones
      8. The Fellowship

      They seem to overlap and connect in important ways. Probably each group is trying use the others for its own ends. They are masters of the technology of social networking and social engineering. In terms of global power politics, mere individuals are gnats against them, easily brushed off. They are able to bring enormous force to bear on any project they undertake, and many of those projects operate in secret.

      How powerful is the Fellowship compared to the network of billionaire oligarchs who own and control the mainstream media and Wall Street? Perhaps not so powerful. In the end it all comes down to money and how much of it you control.

  • Neocons in Washington Post: Military strike on Iran would 'calm nerves in the region'
    • seanmcbride May 21, 2012 at 2:05 pm

      It's all about Israel and the Israel lobby -- the relentless agitation for war never stops.

      # Jamie Fly; categories
      1. AEI member (American Enterprise Institute)
      2. American University B.A.
      3. biological weapons expert
      4. Bush 43 administration member
      5. CFR member (Council on Foreign Relations)
      6. chemical weapons expert
      7. Claremont Institute member
      8. Commentary writer
      9. Common Sense Society board member
      10. Foreign Affairs writer
      11. Foreign Policy writer
      12. FPI executive director (Foreign Policy Initiative)
      13. FPI member (Foreign Policy Initiative)
      14. Georgetown University M.A.
      15. Hamilton Society board member
      16. IISS member (International Institute for Strategic Studies)
      17. Iran War ringleader
      18. Marco Rubio supporter
      19. National Review writer
      20. neoconservative
      21. NSC member (National Security Council)
      22. nuclear weapons expert
      23. pro-Israel activist
      24. RNC member (Republican National Committee)
      25. Ron Paul opponent
      26. Washington Post writer
      27. Weekly Standard writer
      28. WINEP member (Washington Institute for Near East Policy)
      29. World Bank member

      # Jamie Fly; neoconservative affiliations
      1. AEI (American Enterprise Institute)
      2. Commentary
      3. FPI (Foreign Policy Initiative)
      4. Iran War ringleaders
      5. National Review
      6. Washington Post
      7. Weekly Standard
      8. WINEP (Washington Institute for Near East Policy)

      Re: Jamie Fly's pro-Israel political agenda:

      BEGIN ARTICLE
      TITLE It's time for President Obama to stop pressuring Israel and instead, pressure Tehran, says FPI Executive Director Jamie Fly
      AUTHOR Jamie Fly
      ORGANIZATION Foreign Policy Initiative
      DATE March 5, 2012
      URL link to foreignpolicyi.org
      BEGIN QUOTE
      Speaking to The Washington Post in advance of Prime Minister Netanyahu's visit to Washington this week, an unnamed senior Obama administration official said, "We're trying to make the decision to attack as hard as possible for Israel."

      This encapsulates the president's dangerously misguided policy toward one of America's closest allies. Rather than reassuring Israel in a time of growing uncertainty, the Obama administration is attempting to make life difficult for Israel's government.
      END QUOTE
      END ARTICLE

      There is never any rational discussion among neocons like Jamie Fly, William Kristol and Robert Kagan of the financial and political costs for Americans of their never-ending wars for Israel -- no reasonable cost/benefit analysis whatever. The more mistakes they make, the more frenetic they become in doubling down on their bad and failed policies. They are messianic ideologues, not pragmatic foreign policy analysts. So where does it all end?

    • seanmcbride May 21, 2012 at 1:02 pm with 1 replies

      I think a major turning point in the editorial policy of the New York Times towards Zionism and Israel came when Arthur Ochs "Punch" Sulzberger appointed two militant pro-Israel activists to the op-ed page of the New York Times during the same era -- A.M. Rosenthal and William Safire. Ever since that editorial decision, the New York Times has been predominately a neoconservative publication and still is -- not quite as nakedly so as the Washington Post, which is basically a propaganda arm of Likud, but the overall bias is unmistakable. That is why the New York Times played a lead role in spearheading the Iraq War.

      Overall the fortunes and reputations of both newspapers have plummeted during recent decades. One can easily envision a future in which they disappear entirely. They have fallen behind the curve of history in several important ways.

    • seanmcbride May 21, 2012 at 10:57 am with 3 replies

      At some point doesn't it become essential to point out that Robert Kagan, William Kristol, Dan Senor and Eric Edelman are all Jewish Likud Zionists? And that the FPI (Foreign Policy Initiative) is one of dozens of Israeli and Likud Zionist front groups that work in coordination to manipulate American foreign policy on behalf of the Israeli government?

      I count at least four Israeli front groups founded by William Kristol:

      1. ECI (Emergency Committee for Israel)
      2. FPI (Foreign Policy Initiative)
      3. Keep America Safe
      4. PNAC (Project for the New American Century)

      And the Washington Post, which was once a mainstream liberal American newspaper, has itself morphed into an Israeli and Likud Zionist front group. It's core agenda: all war all the time on behalf of Greater Israel. The Washington Post, along with the New York Times and Fox News, was one of the key ringleaders of the Iraq War.

      William Kristol's full list of affiliations:

      1. ABC News
      2. AEI (American Enterprise Institute)
      3. Bilderberg Group
      4. CLI (Committee for the Liberation of Iraq)
      5. Commentary
      6. ECI (Emergency Committee for Israel)
      7. FDD (Foundation for the Defense of Democracies)
      8. Federalist Society
      9. Fox News
      10. Keep America Safe
      11. Manhattan Institute
      12. Middle East Forum
      13. New York Times
      14. PNAC
      15. Shalem Center
      16. Washington Post
      17. Weekly Standard

      And I am sure there are other important affiliations I've overlooked. All of these organizations are coordinated components of the Israel lobby.

      I am betting that the role of Israeli influence in American politics is going to develop into one of the biggest controversies in American history. Does anyone care to bet against me? John Mearsheimer's and Stephen Walt's book on the subject is just a small taste of what is to come on this front, especially when all the costs of neoconservative policies have been tabulated and understood by Americans. Relentless neocon warmongering and agitation for a domestic police state regime may well succeed in taking down America.

      Keep in mind that Mitt Romney has surrounded himself with the same neoconservative ideologues who drove the Bush/Cheney administration into the ditch.

  • New US demographics make Israel's demographic fears seem all the more prehistoric
    • seanmcbride May 22, 2012 at 5:45 pm

      hophmi,

      Which ethnic groups around the world get to worry about demographic threats to their ethnic interests -- all of them, or only yours?

      How do you feel about white nationalists in Europe and the United States?

  • Danish right-wing: ‘Made in settlement’ labels preempt Israel’s expanding borders
    • seanmcbride May 23, 2012 at 11:45 am

      Annie,

      If Mondoweiss was able to determine definitively that Terryscott was operating behind a false biography, and that he was lying shamelessly about his Irish background, it would be enlightening to know the details (without revealing his personal identity) so that we can detect the signs of similar ops in the future.

      You know, I think many pro-Israel militants are addicted to this kind of dishonest and deceitful behavior -- and they think they are being clever. I have seen a number of instances of it in the past. But in fact they are being quite stupid and self-destructive -- they are helping to destroy good relations between Israel and the rest of the world.

      There is a term to describe people and personalities who engage in habitual deception and malicious manipulation in their dealings with the world: sociopaths.

      Mossad motto: By way of deception, thou shalt wage war.

      The huge downside for Israel: the entire world is now quick to look for deception, dirty tricks and false flag ops with regard to everything associated with pro-Israel activism. Honest pro-Israel activists are being tainted and discredited by the multitude of these nasty ops.

      There has been a great deal of speculation on the Internet about a possible Israeli role in 9/11 precisely because Israel over the years has accumulated a well-documented track record in conducting false flag ops. Why Israel ever chose to go down this path, starting at least as early in 1954 with Operation Susannah (the Lavon Affair) is a great mystery -- Israelis are supposed to be smarter than other people. (9/11 and the 9/11 anthrax attacks fit the Operation Susannah and USS Liberty templates to a tee.)

      (Terry: if you want to tell your side of the story, drop me a private message at Friendfeed link to
      And Mondoweiss on Friendfeed link to friendfeed.com
      is always open for nearly all discussion.)

    • seanmcbride May 20, 2012 at 3:40 pm

      To add to the list of important differences between Irish and Jewish nationalism: Irish nationalists:

      8. are not engaging in espionage against America on behalf of the Irish government.

      9. are not promoting the propaganda theme that "the Irish people" worldwide comprise a mystical and messianic ethnic collective.

      10. are not operating under the belief that "the Irish people" are on a holy mission to redeem the world.

      11. are not fusing aggressive Irish ethnic nationalism with aggressive Christian nationalism.

      12. do not define themselves in radical contradistinction to "the nations" (all nations and peoples except Ireland -- all non-Irish).

      13. do not dominate the op-ed pages of leading American newspapers.

      14. have not threatened to take down the entire world with them if their political enterprise fails (the Samson Option).

      15. are not developing a large arsenal of nuclear weapons.

      16. were not ringleaders of the Iraq War.

      17. are not ringleaders of the campaign to attack Iran.

      18. are not torture enthusiasts.

      19. are not conducting assassinations all around the world.

    • seanmcbride May 20, 2012 at 3:31 pm

      Annie,

      If would be a great disappointment to discover that Terryscott has misrepresented himself. But I know that kind of thing goes on quite often in Israeli hasbara circles. I don't make accusations on these matters until I have firm proof. Let's see how this plays out.

    • seanmcbride May 20, 2012 at 3:06 pm

      Terryscott,

      In skimming a few articles about Fine Gael I didn't detect a whiff of strident or messianic Irish ethnic nationalism (not to mention strident or messianic Zionism) in their agenda.

      If you want to flesh out this profile of Fine Gael, please do:

      BEGIN PROFILE
      # Fine Gael profile
      1. anti-?
      2. pro-Christian democracy
      3. pro-civil unions
      4. pro-EPP (European People's Party)
      5. pro-equal opportunity
      6. pro-EU (European Union)
      7. pro-European Constitution
      8. pro-European integration
      9. pro-fiscal conservatism
      10. pro-free enterprise
      11. pro-individual rights
      12. pro-Labour Party (Ireland)
      13. pro-law and order
      14. pro-Lisbon Treaty
      15. pro-Michael Collins
      16. pro-small business
      17. pro-social democracy
      END PROFILE

    • seanmcbride May 20, 2012 at 2:43 pm

      Terryscott,

      There are significant differences between Irish nationalism and Jewish nationalism. Irish nationalists

      1. are not bogged down in embittered arguments and conflicts with non-Irish nationalists all around the world.

      2. are not demanding enormous sums of American financial and military aid.

      3. are not trying to stir up major wars between "the West" and more than a billion Muslims worldwide.

      4. are not oppressing other ethnic groups or trying to steal their land.

      5. are not trying to justify aggressive behavior in the name of biblical myths.

      6. are not trying to establish an official Irish ethnic nationalist state in Ireland which provides special privileges to the Irish.

      7. are not launching an assault on the US Constitution and Bill of Rights.

      As for me, I am an Americanist, not an ethnic nationalist of any kind. I identify with all my fellow Americans, who come from many ethnic and religious backgrounds. I love American cultural diversity.

    • seanmcbride May 20, 2012 at 2:34 pm

      libra,

      You wrote:

      "Great research Sean but I’m not convinced this is where Zionism is putting its main bets in Europe. I think similar research would show Zionist influence networks across the whole political spectrum in Europe. Call it what you want. Covering all bases. Divide and conquer. Having it both (all?) ways. That’s the key pattern."

      Oh, I fully agree. The Israel lobby tries to control all sides of political debates not just in Europe and America but *worldwide*. The Israel lobby is an integrated global network that cuts across the political spectrum from the far right to the far left.

      Consider the role of the RJC (Republican Jewish Coalition) and NJDC (National Jewish Democratic Council) in the United States: their agenda revolves much more around the Israeli interest than the Republican or Democratic interest. They are in fact two arms of a single lobby.

      But I *do* think that the Israeli government and the Israel lobby have placed an enormous bet on stirring up a holy war between "the West" and Islam worldwide, which they hope to use as a diversion and distraction from Israel's continuing project to construct Greater Israel and gobble up the occupied territories. In this game Republicans dish out an endless torrent of anti-Muslim hate speech while most "progressive" and "liberal" Democrats stand quietly on the sidelines and offer no effective opposition, just as they offered no significant opposition to the Iraq War. Pretty slick. And they are succeeding in achieving their objectives.

      You wrote:

      "And don’t look for any ideological consistency within the neocon ranks except the pursuit of power and support for Israel. They are at one with neo-liberalism and that is very pro-immigration into the West unlike these fringe-right parties."

      Indeed. By asking the right surgical questions one can expose this absurd hypocrisy and uncover their real agenda.

    • seanmcbride May 20, 2012 at 2:17 pm

      Terryscott,

      Is this about right?

      BEGIN PROFILE
      # Terryscott profile
      1. nation of citizenship: Ireland
      2. ethnicity: Irish
      3. religion: atheist
      4. religion of family: Roman Catholic
      5. political affiliation: Fine Gael
      6. anti-Abrahamic monotheism
      7. anti-Christian
      8. anti-fascism
      9. anti-Islam
      10. anti-Judaism
      11. anti-Russian nationalism
      12. anti-Serb nationalism
      13. anti-theocracy
      14. pro-Basque nationalism
      15. pro-Breton nationalism
      16. pro-Irish nationalism
      17. pro-Jewish nationalism
      END PROFILE

      What about your pros and cons for:

      1. Arab nationalism
      2. black nationalism
      3. Christian Zionism
      4. Dutch PVV
      5. EDL (English Defence League)
      6. Geert Wilders
      7. Iran War
      8. Iraq War
      9. Islamophobia
      10. Israeli settlements
      11. neoconservatism
      12. Palestinian nationalism
      13. religious Zionism
      14. white nationalism

      If you or anyone else is wondering what all these questions are about:

      After observing many messy and flailing online debates, I am beginning to develop the seed of an insight: before beginning a discussion, online debaters should make an effort to exhaustively understand one another's ideological views and overall political agenda. After working through that process, then begin a discussion of particular issues. I suspect that such a protocol would significantly improve the clarity and usefulness of debates -- more light, less noise.

      Playforpalestine didn't seem to appreciate the value of working through this process and declaring his basic views and beliefs. In fact, I think he is interested in concealing his basic views and beliefs.

    • seanmcbride May 20, 2012 at 2:15 pm

      Terryscott,

      Thanks for your self-profile.

      Can you point us to any of your Internet posts on Irish nationalism for the last few years?

    • seanmcbride May 19, 2012 at 3:26 pm

      Edit:

      GLORIA (Gloria Research in International Affairs Center) should read GLORIA (Global Research in International Affairs Center)

      You know, I would be surprised if anyone (including individual lobby leaders themselves) is capable of grasping the full operations of the Israel lobby -- the list of organizations and front groups seems to be endless. Gatestone Institute and New English Review are components of the network (as I learned today).

      But: a few dozen people -- probably fewer than one hundred -- apparently pull all the strings of the web. So I guess they know what is going on. It's their op. The vast majority of Jews are not in the loop.

    • seanmcbride May 19, 2012 at 3:06 pm

      It gets better:

      # New English Review links (selected)
      // link to newenglishreview.org
      1. American Thinker
      2. CSP (Center for Security Policy)
      3. EDL (English Defence League)
      4. FDD (Foundation for the Defense of Democracies)
      5. Gates of Vienna
      6. John Derbyshire
      7. Lucianne
      8. Mark Steyn
      9. Martin Kramer
      10. Melanie Phillips
      11. MEMRI (Middle East Media Research Institute)
      12. National Review

      What we are witnessing is an amazing merger of Zionism (Jewish nationalism) with European nationalism (white nationalism, neo-Nazism). The Derbyshire and EDL links give the game away. They are not even bothering to try to hide their racist agenda at this point -- it's out in the open. They are convinced that they can drag Americans and Europeans along with them. Who knows -- another 9/11 would probably do the trick.

    • seanmcbride May 19, 2012 at 2:46 pm

      Re: the political matrix and agenda of New English Review:

      # New English Review organizational links by editorial staff
      // link to newenglishreview.org
      1. American Thinker
      2. Commentary
      3. Frontpage Magazine
      4. Iconoclast
      5. Israpundit
      6. Jerusalem Post
      7. Jihad Watch
      8. Middle East Forum
      9. National Review
      10. New York Sun
      11. Pajamas Media
      12. Wall Street Journal
      13. Washington Times
      14. World Encounter Institute
      15. Worldnetdaily

      We've got the picture.

      Mondoweiss readers: this neocon political movement is far more extensive, powerful and energetic than you might realize. There are many influential people out there who are eager to get the United States and Europe involved in a global holy war against more than a billion Muslims on behalf of Likud Zionism and Greater Israel. The multi-trillion dollar failures of the Iraq and Afghanistan Wars, which have come close to destroying the American economy, have deterred them not in the least. They are ideological fanatics.

    • seanmcbride May 19, 2012 at 2:29 pm

      Digging even deeper into Gatestone Institute by way of the affiliations of its columnists, one finds almost a solid wall of Likud Zionist front groups:

      # Gatestone organizational links by columnists
      1. Academic Friends of Israel
      2. ACPR (Ariel Center for Policy Research)
      3. Adelson Institute for Strategic Studies
      4. AEI (American Enteprise Institute)
      5. Bar-Ilan University
      6. Commentary
      7. FDD (Foundation for the Defense of Democracies)
      8. GLORIA (Gloria Research in International Affairs Center)
      9. Henry Jackson Society
      10. Hoover Institution
      11. Hudson Institute
      12. Investigative Project on Terrorism
      13. Israel National News
      14. Israpundit
      15. JCPA (Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs)
      16. JINSA (Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs)
      17. Maariv
      18. MEMRI (Middle East Media Research Institute)
      19. Middle East Forum
      20. NGO Monitor
      21. Stonegate Institute
      22. Vidal Sassoon International Center for the Study of Antisemitism
      23. WINEP (Washington Institute for Near East Policy)

      Quite simply, Geert Wilders is largely an Israeli op. The Israel lobby is pushing him forward on the world political stage as an agitator for the neocon Clash of Civilizations of behalf of Greater Israel.

      In order to survive and to justify its own racist policies, Israel needs to turn Europeans and Americans into fanatical racists and xenophobes. That's how the game is being played. The psychological ops and propaganda to produce this massive culture shift to the dark side are relentless. This is the political machine that has engineered the takeover of the Republican Party and the US Congress by Christian Zionists and Islamophobes.

    • seanmcbride May 19, 2012 at 2:11 pm

      Tzombo,

      That is what I immediately assumed: they are using gay rights and feminism as a fig leaf for their hate-filled racism. I'll wager they never discuss the virulently anti-gay and anti-feminist attitudes espoused by their Christian and Jewish fundamentalist Zionist allies. It's a scam.

    • seanmcbride May 19, 2012 at 2:07 pm

      Wow -- we've hit the mother lode. Gatestone Institute appears to be dominated by the same neoconservatives and Likud Zionists who are responsible for the worst foreign policy disaster in American history -- the Iraq War:

      # Gatestone Institute columnists
      // link to gatestoneinstitute.org
      1. Alan Dershowitz
      2. Amir Taheri
      3. Andrew Bostom
      4. Andrew McCarthy
      5. Anne Bayefsky
      6. Barry Rubin
      7. Bat Ye'or
      8. Benny Avni
      9. Dan Aridor
      10. Daniel Pipes
      11. David Horowitz
      12. Diana West
      13. Dore Gold
      14. Douglas Feith
      15. Efraim Karsh
      16. Fjordman
      17. Geert Wilders
      18. Gerald Steinberg
      19. Harold Rhode
      20. Herbert London
      21. Irwin Cotler
      22. Jeremy Slater
      23. John Bolton
      24. Jonathan Kay
      25. Jonathan Schanzer
      26. Lawrence Franklin
      27. Lee Smith
      28. Mark Silverberg
      29. Martin Kramer
      30. Michael Rubin
      31. Natan Sharansky
      32. Noah Pollak
      33. Robert Spencer
      34. Shoshana Bryen
      35. Steven Emerson
      36. Steven Rosen
      37. Ted Belman
      38. Yigal Carmon

      Jeremy Slater? Really?

    • seanmcbride May 19, 2012 at 1:49 pm

      Terryscott,

      Catching up on Geert Wilders:

      BEGIN ARTICLE
      TITLE Geert Wilders' Speech at Gatestone Luncheon in Manhattan today
      PUBLICATION Colony Rabble
      DATE May 1, 2012
      URL link to redcounty.com
      BEGIN QUOTE
      The Hon. Geert Wilders, leader of the Freedom Party (PPV in the Netherlands, kicked off promotion of his new book, Marked for Death: Islam's War Against the West and Me with a luncheon address at the Four Seasons Restaurant sponsored by the Gatestone Institutte, hosted by Nina Rosenwald. Among others In the audience were Andy Bostom and Ibn Warriq. What follows is the text of Wilders' address. Our review of Wilders' book was published in the May edition of the NER, "Geert Wilders, Defender of the West Against Grand Jihad". He is scheduled to be interviewd on "Hannity's America" on Fox News during the 9:00PM EDT program.
      END QUOTE
      END ARTICLE

      Love the title of his new book: "Marked for Death: Islam's War Against the West and Me"

      Some key Wilders' links:

      1. Andrew Bostom
      2. Fox News
      3. Gatestone Institute
      4. Ibn Warraq
      5. New English Review
      6. Nina Rosenwald
      7. Sean Hannity

      (Who funds the Gatestone Institute? What is the editorial agenda of New English Review? We are all familiar with the editorial agenda of Rupert Murdoch and Fox News.)

      A few Wilders quotes:

      1. "Islam is the largest threat to freedom which the world is currently facing."

      2. "This violent ideology wants to impose Islamic sharia law on the whole world, including us the Kafirs, the non-Muslims."

      3. "Our Judeo-Christian and humanist civilization is far superior to any other civilizations like the barbaric Islamic civilization."

      4. "We must reassert our national identities. The nation-state enables self-government and self-determination. This insight led the Zionists to establish Israel as the homeland of the Jews."

      5. "Zionism teaches us one of the most important lessons which the modern world needs today. Theodor Herzl argued that a Jewish state would facilitate “a new blossoming of the Jewish spirit.” Today, we need our own respective nation-states to preside over a new blossoming of our own Western spirit."

      6. "Israel is, indeed, a vital outpost of Western civilization. That is why Islam conditions the faithful to hate the Jewish state and to view its destruction as an imperative. It is our duty to stand with Israel."

      This is classical Nazi rhetoric, with Muslims substituted for Jews. Wilders hits all the main supremacist and xenophobic themes that Anders Breivik (the Norwegian mass murderer, neo-Nazi and pro-Israel militant) developed in his deranged manifesto.

    • seanmcbride May 19, 2012 at 11:51 am with 3 replies

      Terryscott,

      You wrote:

      "These parties are all vastly different–the Dutch and Danish parties cannot even be called right-wing, much less extreme right on any issue other than immigration. With any luck the Dutch may actually put the PVV in power."

      So: you are pro-PVV?

      I quickly Googled around on PVV and put together these facts:

      # Dutch PVV profile
      1. anti-climate change activism
      2. anti-dual citizenship
      3. anti-immigration
      4. anti-Muslim
      5. pro-gay rights
      6. pro-Geert Wilders
      7. pro-gender equality
      8. pro-Jewish nationalism (Zionism)
      9. pro-Judeo-Christian
      10. pro-nuclear power
      11. pro-white nationalism

      From Wikipedia:

      "The political position and the ideology of the party are hotly debated. In December 2008, the eighth study "Monitor Racism and Extremism", conducted by the Anne Frank Foundation and the University of Leiden, has found that the Party for Freedom can be considered extreme right-wing, although "with ifs and buts". Peter Rodrigues and Jaap van Donselaar, who have academically guided the study, explain this classification with the islamophobia, nationalism, and "sharp aversion to the strange", subsumed as racism, which they have observed within the party."

      link to en.wikipedia.org

    • seanmcbride May 19, 2012 at 11:14 am with 13 replies

      Terryscott,

      Where are you coming from on these issues?

      1. nation of citizenship:
      2. religion of upbringing:
      3. current religion:
      4. ethnicity:
      5. political affiliation:

      Are you sympathetic to these neo-fascist movements in European politics? Are you pro or anti ethnic nationalism in general?

      (I am not assuming anything about your political agenda so far -- I don't know what it is.)

    • seanmcbride May 19, 2012 at 11:08 am

      The main conclusion to draw from this article is that Zionism (Jewish ethnic nationalism) and Nazism (European ethnic nationalism) are natural allies -- up to a point. (At some point it is a safe bet that white nationalist Judeophobia will spill over into militant anti-Zionism -- just wait and see. At the moment European neo-Nazis are making some elementary chess moves on the board, forming temporary alliances to move their agenda forward.)

      All ethnic nationalist movements share a common enemy -- modern Western democratic values -- and they often cooperate with one another to wage war against that enemy and to justify their ethnic nationalist approach to politics.

      There are many data points to support this thesis from examining the history of Zionist relations with Nazi Germany and apartheid white South Africa. Many of Israel's strongest boosters in contemporary America (especially Christian Zionists) are grounded in the Bible-based racist culture of the Southern Confederacy. Ethnic nationalists of all varieties tend to flock together and they all tend to be extremely violent and hostile to the rule of law.

      It would be a huge mistake to underestimate how great a threat this movement represents for Europe and the United States. Neocons (mostly militant Jewish ethnic and religious nationalists) and Christian Zionists have already seized control of the US Congress and many other strategic institutions in American life. They are systematically undoing the US Constitution and Bill of Rights and destroying core American values.

      The problem is much worse than I suspect even most Mondoweiss readers realize.

      These are the topics to look into in depth with the objective of connecting all the dots:

      1. Zionism+British imperialism
      2. Zionism+German Nazism
      3. Zionism+Afrikaner South Africa
      4. Zionism+American neo- and crypto-Confederates
      5. Zionism+European neo-Nazis

      Allison Deger's article provides a few important facts about topic 5.

      Charles Johnson of Little Green Footballs has been doing a first-rate job of exploring the same topic during the last year or two.

  • Walzer says Jews were on the left because the left supported Jews
    • seanmcbride May 19, 2012 at 12:15 pm

      MHughes976,

      Ancient Judaism is messianic ethnic nationalist at its root and source -- the core meme is the perpetual struggle of a chosen nation (a people, an ethnic group) against all the other peoples, ethnic groups and nations -- "the nations." Zionism is the latest logical iteration of this ideology.

      Christianity at its core is a trans-national and trans-ethnic ideology. Many Christians do not understand that Judaism is steeped in militant ethnocentrism and ethnic nationalism.

      Thoughts?

  • 'New York Review of Books' calls it 'apartheid' and prepares Americans for the end of the Jewish state
    • seanmcbride May 16, 2012 at 2:29 pm

      seafoid,

      You wrote:

      "I would love to see what sort of support Israel registers in Oxford, Bologna, Heidelberg, Edinburgh, Kyoto... i guess not much"

      Zing! But they are mere members of "the nations" -- and Hashem and Moshiach are going to teach them a lesson in correct thinking. (Possibly using WMDs down the line.) They'll learn the error of their ways.

  • American's cartoon on Israeli site shows Netanyahu cannibalizing Obama and compelling him to service him sexually
    • seanmcbride May 16, 2012 at 1:05 pm

      Terryscott,

      You wrote:

      "Grow up, Philip."

      This is the level of thinking, analysis and argument that one sees from far too many pro-Israel activists. And this is why the smart money is betting against the success of the enterprise they represent. They are unable to account for their beliefs and policies.

      Would you invest in a company which presented this kind of face to the world?

      If pro-Israel activists stood on firm ground they would be able to rip through forums like Mondoweiss with the greatest of ease, based on their superior understanding of how the world works. They would make a persuasive case that wins reasonable people to their side. But it's not happening.

  • Green Party candidate for President calls for end to Israeli apartheid
    • seanmcbride May 16, 2012 at 2:48 pm

      I know why I like Roseanne Barr: she keeps it real about everything, she's smart, and she's got guts and a big heart. What's not to like?

      We've really got to get behind Jill Stein with as much support and enthusiasm as possible. Push her forward.

    • seanmcbride May 16, 2012 at 1:10 pm

      Jill Stein presents for many people a more palatable alternative for expressing disagreements with American Mideast policy than Ron Paul. (I myself am a progressive libertarian and like many of Jill Stein's progressive policies on non-Mideast issues.)

    • seanmcbride May 16, 2012 at 11:20 am

      A few of the topics (among many) which such a commission would need to address in detail:

      1. 9/11 anthrax attacks
      2. AEI (American Enterprise Institute)
      3. Afghanistan War
      4. Alberto Gonzales
      5. all substantive open questions about 9/11
      6. assassinations
      7. CIA
      8. Curveball
      9. Defense Policy Board
      10. DHS
      11. Dick Cheney
      12. Donald Rumsfeld
      13. Douglas Feith
      14. George Tenet
      15. George W. Bush
      16. Global War on Terror
      17. Iraq War
      18. Joe Lieberman
      19. Judith Miller
      20. Military Commissions Act
      21. neoconservatives
      22. New York Times
      23. NORAD behavior on 9/11
      24. OSP (Office of Special Plans)
      25. Patriot Act
      26. Paul Wolfowitz
      27. PNAC (Project for the New American Century)
      28. Richard Perle
      29. torture and waterboarding
      30. TSA

    • seanmcbride May 16, 2012 at 10:54 am with 1 replies

      Lysias,

      Everything that has gone off the rails in American politics since 9/11 needs to be subject to an official commission that greatly exceeds in importance and scope the Watergate and Iran-Contra official investigations. And wrongdoers need to be held fully to account.

    • seanmcbride May 16, 2012 at 10:19 am with 3 replies

      FINALLY -- An American politician with some backbone.

      Every policy she advocates would be good for Israel and for American and other Diaspora Jews -- not to mention good for the American interest and meritorious from the standpoint of the enlightened values and opinion of mankind.

      Which means that one can expect the Israeli government, the Israel lobby, Mossad, neoconservatives, Christian Zionists and the usual gang to work for the destruction of her political career with full force.

Showing comments 1275 - 1201
Page:

Comments are closed.