Trending Topics:

Romney promises to abdicate American foreign policy towards Israel . . . to Israel

on 50 Comments

Can it even get worse than this in the GOP Primary? Think Progress reports Romney stated he would abdicate American foreign policy towards Israel . . . to Israel:

Now it seems that a President Romney will allow the Israeli government to decide American policy toward that country. The free daily newspaper Israel Hayom — a media outlet closely associated with right-wing Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu — asked Romney if, as president, he would ever consider moving the American Embassy in Israel from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. In his answer, Romney made some astonishing claims. First, that his policy toward Israel will be guided by Israeli leaders; second, on the Jerusalem issue, he’d do whatever Israel tells him to do; and third, he does not think the United States should take a leadership role in resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict:

ROMNEY: The actions that I will take will be actions recommended and supported by Israeli leaders. I don’t seek to take actions independent of what our allies think is best, and if Israel’s leaders thought that a move of that nature would be helpful to their efforts, then that’s something I’ll be inclined to do. But again, that’s a decision which I would look to the Israeli leadership to help guide. I don’t think America should play the role of the leader of the peace process, instead we should stand by our ally. Again, my inclination is to follow the guidance of our ally Israel, as to where our facilities and embassies would exist.

Yowza. TP flushes it out in their must read post but there’s even more frightening quotes in the interview at Israel Hayom. Asked how he would change Obama’s policy if he were in the White House:

By being silent as protesters took to the streets in Iran, by not establishing crippling sanctions against Iran for their nuclear program, and by not mouthing a credible military threat to their ongoing nuclear program. The right course is for the president to declare that a nuclear Iran is unacceptable to America, and to punctuate that commitment. I have called for us to deploy two aircraft carrier task forces, one to the gulf, one to the Mediterranean to communicate our resolve in that regard.

Sounds like war drums for Iran.

About Annie Robbins

Annie Robbins is Editor at Large for Mondoweiss, a human rights activist and a ceramic artist. She lives in the SF bay area. Follow her on Twitter @anniefofani

Other posts by .

Posted In:

50 Responses

  1. Avi_G.
    Avi_G. on October 29, 2011, 12:45 am

    This won’t be a major policy change in the way the US government treats the Israeli government. After all, US politicians have been deferring to the Israel lobby and to the Israeli government on matters related to Israel.

    The difference here is that there is no shame left. It’s out in the open. It is the same with the New York Times. One used to have to dig up information about the ideological affiliations and the donors of that newspaper, or analyze over a period of several months the paper’s coverage in order to draw conclusions from such analysis. Not anymore. The paper’s Jerusalem reporter can have a son in the Israeli army, and the newspaper doesn’t care about the public relations repercussions, or its professional or ethical standing.

    Throughout history, this kind of chutzpah was the hallmark of corrupt empires and corrupt regimes that were on the verge of collapsing from within.

    Forgive this disturbing metaphor, but it’s like an infection where the wound can no longer contain the pus, and so it bursts and starts to leak out.

    No one in power bothers to hide his or her perverted agenda, anymore. The king is naked and he doesn’t care anymore.

    • annie
      annie on October 29, 2011, 2:03 am

      No one in power bothers to hide his or her perverted agenda, anymore. The king is naked

      there is definitely no pretense of hiding here. we’re more than a year from the election and candidates are groveling on the ground to play israel’s patsy. so how is perry or any of the others going to top that? i’m sure they will try..a wild ride ahead folks. hold onto your hats.

      • edwin
        edwin on October 29, 2011, 11:28 am

        I don’t think that there is much argument over whether the dog wags the tail or the tail wags the dog anymore.

        This obsequious behavour is actually embarrassing to watch.

        I would still be interested in if Noam Chompsky believes that the the dog wags the tail, why.

      • Opti
        Opti on October 29, 2011, 3:16 pm

        as long as the US funds Israel’s war-machine, one can always argue (and I still do) that the US still “wags” Israel.

        Change USA and Israel will be forced to change or face the actual facts on the ground. ;)

      • pabelmont
        pabelmont on November 2, 2011, 11:13 am

        I think the M-I-C (esp. arms makers and sellers) control 1/2 the USA’s budget (think armed forces, intelligence, anti-terrorism, homeland defense [recall when that was the sole province of the armed forces?] They WANT to sell expensive toys to Israel and the Arab countries. And they DO. (Israel buys its with USA’s money sometimes.)

        So it is not only BIG ZION but also BIG ARMS that provide the oligarchic momentum for the USA’s pro-Israel (pro-conflict) stance. Chomsky might well believe that BIG ARMS is the bigger of these.

        Watch the attempts to solve the USA’s debt without reducing the ridiculously too large military budget. It is to laugh. Taxing the very rich will be EASY compared to really reducing the military budget.

    • James
      James on October 29, 2011, 2:17 am

      avi – i concur…

  2. Frankie P
    Frankie P on October 29, 2011, 1:10 am

    Tar and feathers for the traitor.

  3. Real Jew
    Real Jew on October 29, 2011, 1:48 am

    Are you f***ing kidding me?! In addition to the most blatant public display of submission (and ass kissing) to Israel, these are probably the most irresponsible and reprehensible comments I have ever heard from a US official let alone a presidential candidate. How absolutely disgraceful. It seems like this election will be determined by which candidate can promise the greatest amount of blind support to our “best friend”.

    Americans, get ready for the worst 4 years of this country’s history if ANYBODY in the GOP gets elected. War with Iran will be inevitable. God help us

    • Kris
      Kris on October 29, 2011, 1:53 pm

      I think we can look forward to “the worse 4 years of this country’s history” no matter who is elected, Republican or Obama (who is a Republican, too, as we have seen). Obama and the other Republicans are all determined to destroy the regulations and social programs that most of us depend on.

      Ron Paul is the only one of them who opposes and would end our wars, opposes attacking Iran, opposes our “special relationship” with Israel, and opposes the Patriot Act.

      The misery that you see ahead for this country is misery that we have brought upon ourselves; at least we could stop inflicting death and terror on millions of people overseas. The only choice we seem to have in the upcoming elections is whether we will choose misery for ourselves and everyone else, or misery for only ourselves.

  4. ToivoS
    ToivoS on October 29, 2011, 1:48 am

    Does Romney have any idea what it means to permanently place an aircraft carrier task force in the Gulf (presumably the Persian Gulf). Is he at all aware that the Iranians have the capacity to sink an aircraft carrier in the Persian Gulf? That is one ship with thousands of US sailors on board, not to mention the multiple cruisers and destroyers associated with such a task force. Is he totally insane? The US Navy is fully aware of Iran’s capability in this regard and that is why Admiral Fallon was so adamant in 2006 to avoid war with Iran.

    • Avi_G.
      Avi_G. on October 29, 2011, 2:15 am

      In tonight’s Ha-Aretz, an Israeli reporter writes about Ehud Barak’s and Netanyahu’s adamant insistence to attack Iran.

      Other reports in the Arabic press indicate that the US has in recent weeks sent representatives to Egypt to appeal to Moslem movements there and get their commitment to remain neutral on Israel in the event of an attack on Iran.

      Also on board for the attack on Iran are the Sunni states of Saudi Arabia and the Gulf region.

      Political analysts in several Arabic language newspapers have also pointed to US troop withdrawal from Iraq, stating that Maliki’s rejection of amnesty was merely a political stunt.

      So there you have it, a mess in the making.

      • NorthOfFortyNine
        NorthOfFortyNine on October 29, 2011, 2:36 am

        What are your odds of an “incident” in Iran that compels the two US candidates to “take a position” mid-election? You know, put the tip of the sword to their tender parts when they are least able to empoy their better instincts?

        Agitation seems to have picked up of late. Election related? -N49.

      • Avi_G.
        Avi_G. on October 29, 2011, 6:05 pm

        I’m not sure there will be an incident, a casus belli, if you will.

        I think just like in 1981, when Israel attacked the Iraq nuclear reactor in Osirak and just like the attack on a Syrian building in 2007 — alleged by Israel and the US to be a nuclear facility — an attack on Iran will be a surprise attack.

        Any incident instigated by either Israel or the US would signal to Iran that an attack is imminent. So the two are more likely to avoid utilizing such a tactic.

      • NorthOfFortyNine
        NorthOfFortyNine on October 29, 2011, 9:54 pm

        Any incident instigated by either Israel or the US would signal to Iran that an attack is imminent.

        What does the purported plot by Iran to kill the Saudi ambassador mean then? I see more provocation ahead. -N49.

  5. Chaos4700
    Chaos4700 on October 29, 2011, 2:08 am

    Well, I suppose he had to say something that would outmatch Perry. I take back what I said before about him — Romney just made himself the topmost candidate for the Republican Party.

    Obama? Pretty much screwed. (Well, so are the rest of us but then, the Wall Street and Oakland protests have shown us that, right?)

    • edwin
      edwin on October 29, 2011, 11:38 am

      Obama has screwed himself. He needed to provide an alternative to the Republican vision. Instead he pushed compromise. He needed to stand up for civil liberties and justice. Instead he counselled “look forward” and don’t look back.

  6. Walid
    Walid on October 29, 2011, 2:10 am

    At least the guy is being honest, which is more than can be said about Obama. He’s promising to do what Obama is actually now doing with maybe exception to the embassy move and the only reason Obama hasn’t already was to avoid embarrassing the kings of Saudia and Jordan.

  7. James
    James on October 29, 2011, 2:16 am

    i think the usa reached this point quite a while ago.. he is just stating it publicly..

    “Romney stated he would abdicate American foreign policy towards Israel . . . to Israel”

    this is the kind of shit that has passed for ‘leadership’ in the usa for quite a while now…

    • Sumud
      Sumud on October 29, 2011, 4:48 am

      One word: treason.

      I used to doubt when psychopathicgod said he thought there could be a large and catastrophic outbreak of violent anti-semitism in the US when the general population came to understand the true nature of the relationship between Israel and the US. I’m not so sure these day, sadly.

      If there is, it won’t come from the left.

      • lobewyper
        lobewyper on October 29, 2011, 7:42 am


        are you suggesting that it would come from the right? If so, I don’t see much evidence of that possibility. Could you explain more fully, please?

      • Sumud
        Sumud on October 31, 2011, 5:02 am

        lobewyper ~ I don’t necessarily think that it will happen but when you have a presidential candidate openly declaring (in effect) he is more interested in serving a foreign nation than his own, that’s extremely dangerous, to say the least.

        To make a broad generalisation, I think people on the right are more easily led by such ‘news’ sources as Fox News.

        Think of the islamophobia current in many western countries underpinning the ‘war on terror’. It’s coming from the right, not the left.

        Now picture a scenario where Romney is elected and Israel then attacks Iran, drawing the US into war with Iran. It ain’t going to be pretty, and I think will impact average Americans a *lot* more than invading Iraq and Afghanistan has. If things get bad enough (ie. really high unemployment) I can see much unrest in the right and some scapegoating of American jews as a proxy for anger that will develop about Israel exerting too much control over US politics.

        Let’s hope it never gets to that. There are some very smart & moral people on the right such as Ron Paul and libertarians. They’re not inclined to racism but unfortunately on the right they’re only a minority.

      • James
        James on October 29, 2011, 12:39 pm

        treason is a good word to describe this..

        sumud – i’d be more worried about anti-muslim/arab sentiment given how the mainstream media is always force feeding folks the same regurgitated crap about antisemitism.. when they have you looking over in one direction, look over in the other direction for what is going on…

  8. American
    American on October 29, 2011, 2:34 am

    What an opening!
    Obama or any candidate would be a fool not to take Romney’s abdication and do a smash up campaign on the words Chuck Hagel once uttered (to a Jewish group yet)…”I AM A US SENATOR, I REPRESENT AMERICA’S INTEREST, NOT ISRAEL’S.

    It’s good Romney said this. I hope it goes to the MSM. I would like to see all the candidates kissing the Israelis ass loud and clear in public till their lips are chapped and Americans are nausated. I think we are on the launching pad waiting for the lift off of Americans vr Israel and their US politicians.

    Faster please.

    • yourstruly
      yourstruly on October 29, 2011, 12:16 pm

      the tale wagging the dog right out in public?

      doomsday just around the corner?

      will occupy america be on to this, and assuming so, what then?

      it finds candidates who’ll campaign for troops out now, cutting the defense budget by 50% and against an iran war?

      along with a stimulus to the economy to restore jobs, medicare for all, free public education, pre-school through graduate school + taxing the super-rich to the max

      the class war by peaceful means?

      why now?

      because time’s running out (perpetual war + global warming = doomsday), and if there’s an iran war, who knows if there’ll be a next time?

      • yourstruly
        yourstruly on October 29, 2011, 3:05 pm

        but would the public go for a candidate that actually proposed an even-handed approach to the i/p conflict?


        based on?

        twenty years ago when president george bush the elder threated to withhold a ten billion dollar loan in an effort to limit israeli settlement building. coupled the threat by insinuating that maybe israel-firsters were disloyal

        and public polls at the time?

        surprise of surproses, overwhelmingly supportive of the president

        sure scared the bejesus out of the israel-firsters

        alas, the president eventually caved to the israel lobby, but had he persevered, who knows what the u.s.-israel relationship would be like today, or whether there’d even be an israel?

      • American
        American on October 29, 2011, 11:36 pm


  9. homingpigeon
    homingpigeon on October 29, 2011, 4:08 am

    I accept and understand that the campaign between the Republican and Democratic candidates will be to see who can be most subservient to the most extreme tendencies in Israel. What disturbs me more though every election is that so many of my friends who have a more sophisticated understanding of the issue, be they liberal Zionists with a pretense of a guilty conscience about the Palestinians, be they anti-Zionist Jews, be they “pro-Palestinian” Americans, or even be they Palestinian-Americans, will vote for the lesser of two evils on other issues, and thus enable the perverse process.

    Meanwhile the American Likudniks will care only about a commitment to increasing the size of the welfare check to Israel and increasing the level of diplomatic and military support to Zionism. All other issues are irrelevant.

    An American politician will have nothing to fear from people of conscience on this subject as long as this process continues. Only when we have the courage to reject the candidates from both major parties, and make them aware of our rejection, will there be a chance of a shift.

    I vote Libertarian, but hope that good people will choose any third party or an independent candidate.

  10. Sin Nombre
    Sin Nombre on October 29, 2011, 5:31 am

    Now if only Ron Paul wasn’t so genial and decent a guy he’d take these comments of Romney’s and stick them so bluntly and vigorously and repeatedly up Romney’s fundamental aperture that not only would Romney be instant toast but it would scare the living hell out of every other candidate and politician out there.

    Or maybe it would take Ron Paul doing so *and* the media to faithfully report on same, so meaning it’s almost certainly hopeless, but, anyway, one can dream, no?

    Better than living with the reality of an American President openly boasting about abdicating his duty to serve the interests of the American people.

  11. Shingo
    Shingo on October 29, 2011, 7:04 am

    I wonder if this also includes allowing the Israelis to decide how much money the US gives them.

  12. Nevada Ned
    Nevada Ned on October 29, 2011, 7:27 am

    The newspaper, Israel HaYom, is owned by right-wing billionaire (and casino owner) Sheldon Adelson. The newspaper has a large circulation in Israel because it is given away for free. (See
    Unfortunately Romney is not the only US politician to grovel in public before the Israel Lobby. For a couple of decades, US politicians have vowed to move the US embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. After the election, they forget all about it, unil the next election cycle.
    Surveys indicate that Israel is the top issue for 1% of American Jews.

  13. sajepress
    sajepress on October 29, 2011, 8:23 am

    Walid, I was about to write the exact same comment. Romney has stated clearly what Obama has been doing quietly. Israel policy does not change with the changing of the presidency in the U.S. The two party system has one heart and that heart is Israel.

    • on October 29, 2011, 9:17 am

      This “heart” is kept alive and beating loudly due to a massive amount of silver shekels that get lost in the pockets of “our” ,( what a joke), politicians.
      Pecunia never non olet. Even if it has a smell of murdered people, destroyed land and buildings.
      For those psychopaths life of an average person , in any country, just DOES NOT MATTER. They do not care. Psychopath does not care.

  14. pabelmont
    pabelmont on October 29, 2011, 8:57 am

    So Romney would take orders from the leaders of Israel, not from (or in the interest of) the American people. GOOD WY TO RAISE MONEY. Just what the entire Congress did a short time ago, with 584736 instances of applause when Bibi spoke to them in the USA Knesset, I mean the USA Congress.

    It is possible that some (few, to be sure) Republican (primary) voters would take affront at this IF IT WERE KNOWN, but it is probably not widely known. Giving direction of US foreign policy to furr’ners doesn’t sound like a good move for a Mur’kin politician. BUT THE VOTERS HAVE BEEN TAUGHT THAT ISRAEL KNOWS BEST. No-one at this point is telling them anything different.

    Better would be a stand-up Obama speaking in, say mid October 2012, pointing the this OPEN obsequiousness as disloyal and possibly pointing, as well, to the horror that had ALREADY IN FACT OCCURRED (say in oil prices) AFTER ISRAEL DID ATTACK IRAN. suggesting Israeli interests and USA’s interests are NOT the same.

    Hard to judge the future.

  15. on October 29, 2011, 9:54 am

    I have long voiced the opinion that Iran’s leaders would be derelict in protecting the interests of the Iranians if they did not seek a nuclear weapons capability.

    Israel and the United States, with their constant stream of provocations, threats, and military aggressions make an Iranian nuclear weapons program inevitable and prudent.

    With the “fall” of the Soviet Union, I once held the optimism that my children and grandchildren would not know the fear we baby boomers experienced in the fifties, when our teacher would yell “DROP!!!”, and we’d all scurry to get under our desks, fed the ridiculous notion that our desks would protect us from nuclear calamity.

    Apparently, these TRAITOROUS BASTARDS in DC learned NOTHING, and the pursuit of wealth and power has once again superceded their concern for the welfare of their constituency. These fools are marching us headlong into catastrophe. OWS isn’t enough to stop them, for since 9/11 they have implemented laws and policies designed to put down our inevitable and overdue rebellion against tyranny.

    When Obama refused to apply the letter of the law and the exercise of justice, the handwriting was on the wall. We The People are no more.

  16. eljay
    eljay on October 29, 2011, 10:14 am

    Iran faces existential threats from Israel and the U.S. It is as entitled as any nation on Earth to defend itself by developing nuclear weapons and engaging in “pre-emptive self-defense” strikes on nations that represent potential threats.

    Or are some nations “more entitled” than others when it comes to nukes and “pre-emptive” warfare? Say it ain’t so! :-(

  17. Potsherd2
    Potsherd2 on October 29, 2011, 10:20 am

    So Romney is a neocon. This is supposed to be a surprise?

    99.9% of Americans who read Romney’s words would not blink, would not perceive anything the slightest bit remarkable. Isn’t that what all US politicans say?

  18. Dan Crowther
    Dan Crowther on October 29, 2011, 10:24 am

    Before we get overly worked up about Mitten’s latest, I think it is worth nothing that he is still in PRIMARY mode – Mitt wants to be the Republican nominee, so he is going to dog whistle his way there, this message was a christian zionist message, designed to curry favor with the whacko “christians” in America. And we all know that in American political discourse, what you say in a campaign one day, is forgotten the next.

    There have been far many more, and far many more egregious examples of outright fealty from political leaders – on both sides of the aisle- for these statements from Romney to get me riled up. “bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran” and ” We’ll obliterate Iran” come to mind. (McCain and Hillary respectively)

    We shall see……..

    • pabelmont
      pabelmont on October 29, 2011, 12:27 pm

      Agreed, appeal to Christian Zionists. But after the primary, and after they ALL start beating the same drum, will the Republican primary winner PULL BACK from Israel? Not if Obama is any measure. Not if they want to win CZ votes (as well as money and primary votes).

      The timing of this (let’s move the embassy to EJ) adnm of the threats about Iran seem designed to influence the 2012 USA election by tying-up ALL USA pols to Israel’s apron-string (as if it hadn’t alrady happened).

      Interesting question is whether such overreaching can backfire. Hasn’t yet. One can always hope. especially as to war with Iran. I’d kinda like (well, I hate war, but yo know what I mean) Israel to attack Iran and horrible blow-back against Israel and USA which CANNOT BUT BE ATTRIBUTED TO ISRAEL.

  19. on October 29, 2011, 10:30 am

    Heres an interesting development in my neck of the woods. The opinion page of the Bakersfield Californian opened the debate on the Isr/Pal issue on Friday. This may not seem earthshaking, but one must bear in mind Bakersfield is an enclave of an EXTREMELY conservative and right wing public sector. Oil and agriculture produces great wealth here, and Fox News is treated as a purveyor of the Gospel.

    Read the two pieces. What I found remarkable is the hypocricy of the pro-zionist commentary. His piece reeks of the very bloodlust that he accuses the Palestinans of. Yet the rebuttal, by a local college proffessor, is measured and reasonable in tone. Its a shame that the average Californian reader will miss the irony, and will undoubtedly be drawn to the pro-zionist drool.

    One wonders, how does a “metal fabrication estimator”, in Bakersfield California, manage to so perfectly adhere to the Hasbara script???? If there are any doubts about the managed, structured, and scripted narrative being carefully fed to the American public, one only need read Miller’s essay. Its impossible to believe he was not coached and advised what message he was to feed to the Californian’s readership.

    • James
      James on October 30, 2011, 1:24 am

      the fact a conversation is happening is a good thing… the metal fabrication estimator said this at the end of his letter which basically nailed his own letter to the wall as i read it – “When people speak with animosity and hostility, their words say a lot more about them than they do about their opponent, don’t they?”
      yes, they do and indeed his words or animosity and hostility towards arabs in general were very easy to read from the get go of his letter…
      interesting how some folks are in such a lather over Susan Abulhawa lecture on Oct. 18th.. obviously more lectures like hers are needed…

  20. dahoit
    dahoit on October 29, 2011, 11:32 am

    This stuff is getting tiresome.Is there a witches coven at every ivy league poison factory to make these idiots such traitors? I thought we weren’t allowed to reach ludicrous speed anymore,but I guessed wrong.

  21. on October 29, 2011, 12:40 pm

    I see Cain is the latest to bend over. Apparently, he’s of the mind that Obama hasn’t maintained the staus quo with Israel.

    And uh, did you know, according to Cain, that the Palestinians are “so-called Palestinians”???? One wonders what Cain would like to see them called??? “Sand niggers”??? I doubt that’ll fly, eh? But why not? Plenty of his zionist and neocon compatriots would be comfortable with the term.

    Well, how about we call Cain a “so-called American”??? Kinda fits, with him deciding to whore himself to the Israelis, doesn’t it?

    Who is he supposed to represent? Us, or that little racist sand pit? You know, that so-called democracy in the middle east?

  22. yourstruly
    yourstruly on October 29, 2011, 2:00 pm

    revolution is like starting up an old model T: crank, crank, crank – nothing, crank, crank, crank – nothing, but then crank – yes, finally, the engine turns on

  23. Potsherd2
    Potsherd2 on October 29, 2011, 6:00 pm

    Cain? Cain came out of the gate declaring himself a Zionist.

    Apparently Romney just did a town hall meeting in NH where he said something about the buddy relationship between his father and Netanyahu. I haven’t been able to find the exact quote.

  24. DICKERSON3870
    DICKERSON3870 on October 29, 2011, 8:01 pm

    RE: “Romney promises to abdicate American foreign policy towards Israel . . . to Israel” ~ Cap’n Weiss

    MY COMMENT: Shh! Mum’s the word, “Comrades”, but don’t miss the crescendo(s).
    Man with the Movie Camera (Chelovek s Kinoapparatom / Man With a Camera), 1929, NR, 68 minutes
    Cinema pioneer Dziga Vertov’s controversial 1929 film still pulses with energy, innovation and genius. This landmark silent masterpiece from the Soviet avant-garde director stylishly highlights the buzz of everyday city life (shops, traffic, children, coal miners, nature) as seen through the eyes of a roving cameraman. Many filmic devices are used to comment on vision, life, Marxism and modernity in the Soviet Union.
    Netfix availability: Streaming and DVD (Streaming until 11/1/11)
    ALSO ON YouTube (1:06:49) –

    • DICKERSON3870
      DICKERSON3870 on October 29, 2011, 8:38 pm

      P.S. Unfortunately, the version on YouTube lacks the outstanding musical score on the Netflix version!

    • annie
      annie on October 30, 2011, 2:22 am

      RE: “Romney promises to abdicate American foreign policy towards Israel . . . to Israel” ~ Cap’n Weiss

      hey! don’t i get any credit? my byline.

      • DICKERSON3870
        DICKERSON3870 on October 31, 2011, 2:51 am

        OMG, my bad!

        CORRECTION: “Romney promises to abdicate American foreign policy towards Israel . . . to Israel” ~ First Mate Annie of the blockade runner, S.S. Mondoweiss!

  25. hophmi
    hophmi on October 31, 2011, 12:27 pm

    “Sounds like war drums for Iran.”

    Sure, you people have only been predicting the same thing for what – 7 years?

    • annie
      annie on October 31, 2011, 1:05 pm

      hops, check the front page..paul’s post..”Avigdor Lieberman’s PowerPoint for Diplomatic Success”3rd link.

Leave a Reply