Chemtrail Central
Register
Login
Member's Area
Member List
Who's Linking
What's Popular
Image Database
Search Images
New Images
Gallery
Link Database
Search Links
New Links
Chemtrail Forum
Active Topics
Who's Online
Polls
Search
Research
Flight Explorer
Unidentifiable
FAQs
Phenomena
Disinformation
Silver Orbs
Transcripts
News Archive
Top Websites
Channelings
Etcetera
PSAs
Media
Vote

  Chemtrail Central Forum
  Other Trails
  Gulf War II (Page 40)

Post New Topic  Post A Reply
profile | register | preferences | faq | search

UBBFriend: Email This Page to Someone!
This topic is 45 pages long:  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40  41 42 43 44 45
next newest topic | next oldest topic
Author
Topic:   Gulf War II

Topic page views:

Mech
Resisting the NWO


Northeast USA
3907 posts, Sep 2002

posted 04-21-2003 12:44 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Mech   Visit Mech's Homepage!   Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Alive or dead? Hussein is the new Bin Laden

Arab TV shows footage of alleged Saddam

http://abcnews.go.com/wire/US/reuters20030418_189.html




[Edited 1 times, lastly by Mech on 04-21-2003]

IP Logged

Mech
Resisting the NWO


Northeast USA
3907 posts, Sep 2002

posted 04-21-2003 12:48 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Mech   Visit Mech's Homepage!   Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Apr. 20, 2003. 09:00 AM

Iraqi anger boils over
An awful prediction: War of liberation from U.S. occupation is about to begin

ROBERT FISK
SPECIAL TO THE STAR
http://www.thestar.ca/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1035781079509&call_pageid=1045739058633&col=1045739057805


The army of "liberation" has already turned into the army of occupation. The Shiites are threatening to fight the Americans, to create their own war of liberation.

At night on every one of the Shiite Muslim barricades in Sadr City — formerly known as Saddam City — there are 14 men with automatic rifles.

Even individual U.S. Marines in Baghdad are talking of the insults being flung at them.

"Go away! Get out of my face!" an American soldier screamed at an Iraqi trying to push toward the wire surrounding an infantry unit in the capital.

I watched the man's face suffuse with rage.

"God is Great! God is Great!" the Iraqi retorted. "F--- you!"

The Americans have issued a "Message to the Citizens of Baghdad," a document that is as colonial in spirit as it is insensitive in tone.

"Please avoid leaving your homes during the night hours after evening prayers and before the call to morning prayers," it tells the people of the city.

"During all hours, please approach Coalition military positions with extreme caution."

So now — with neither electricity nor running water — the millions of Iraqis here are ordered to stay in their homes from dusk to dawn. Lockdown.

Written by the command of the U.S. Marines 1st Division, it's a curfew in all but name.

"If I were an Iraqi and I read that," an Arab woman shouted at me, "I would become a suicide bomber."

And all across Baghdad, you hear the same thing, from Shiite Muslim clerics to Sunni businessmen, that the Americans have come only for oil, and that soon — very soon — a guerrilla resistance must start.

No doubt the Americans will claim that these attacks are "remnants' of Saddam's regime or "criminal elements." But that will not be the case.

Marine officers in Baghdad held desperate talks with a Shiite militant cleric from Najaf to avert an outbreak of fighting around the holy city and I met the prelate just before the negotiations began.

He told me that "history is being repeated."

He was talking about the British invasion of Iraq in 1917, which ended in disaster for the British.

To gain entrance to the desert town of al-Ambar, U.S. intelligence officers had to negotiate with tribal leaders in the best restaurant in Baghdad.

Everywhere are the signs of collapse. And everywhere the signs that America's promises of "freedom" and "democracy" are not to be honoured.

Why, Iraqis are asking, did the United States allow so many of Saddam's top leaders to escape?

It's not just the Beast of Baghdad and his two sons, Qusay and Uday, who've escaped but also vice-president Taha Yassin Ramadan, deputy prime minister Tariq Aziz, Saddam's personal adviser Dr. Abdul Al-Hashimi, the ministers of defence and health, even Mohammed Saeed al-Sahhaf, the minister of information.

Long before journalists cozied up to him, al-Sahhaf was the official who read out the list of executed "brothers" in the purge that followed Saddam's revolution — relatives of prisoners would dose themselves on Valium before each al-Sahhaf appearance.

Consider the vast security apparatus with which Saddam surrounded himself, the torture chambers and the huge bureaucracy that was its foundation.

President George W. Bush promised that America was campaigning for human rights in Iraq, that war criminals would be tracked down and brought to trial.

Now, the 60 secret police headquarters in Baghdad are empty; even the eight-square-kilometre headquarters of the Iraqi Intelligence Service.

I have been to many of these sites. But not a single British or American officer has visited them to sift through the wealth of documents lying there or talk to the ex-prisoners who are themselves visiting their former places of torment.

Is this through idleness? Or is this wilful?

Take the Qasimiyeh security station beside the Tigris River. It's a pleasant villa — once owned by an Iranian-born Iraqi who was deported to Iran in the 1980s — and there's a little lawn outside and at first you don't notice the three big hooks in the ceiling of each room or the fact that big sheets of red paper, decorated with footballers, have been pasted over the windows to conceal the rooms from outsiders. But across the floors, in the garden, on the roof, are the files on all this suffering.

They show, for example, that the head of the torture centre was Hashem al-Tikrit and his deputy was Rashid al-Nakib.

Ex-prisoner Mohamed Aish Jassem showed me how he was suspended from the ceiling by his torturer, Capt. Amar al-Isawi, who believed Jassem was a member of the religious Dawa party.

"They put my hands behind my back like this and tied them and then pulled me into the air by my tied wrists," Jassem told me. "They used a little generator to lift me up, right up to the ceiling. Then, they'd release the rope in the hope of breaking my shoulder when I fell."

The hooks in the ceiling are just in front of Capt. al-Isawi's desk. I understood what this meant: There wasn't a separate torture chamber and elsewhere an office for documentation; the torture chamber was the office.

While the man or woman shrieked in agony above him, Capt. al-Isawi would sign papers, take phone calls and — given the contents of his rubbish bin — smoke many cigarettes while he waited for the information he sought from his prisoners.

Were they monsters, these men? Yes. Do the Americans seek them? No. Are they now working for the Americans? Quite possibly.

Indeed, some of them may well be in the long line of ex-security thugs who queue every morning outside the Palestine Hotel in the hope of being re-hired by the U.S. Marines' civil affairs unit.

The names of the guards at the Qasimiyeh torture centre in Baghdad — pedestrians were forbidden to walk down the road outside lest they'd hear the screams — are all named on the documents lying on the floor.

They were Ahmed Hassan Alawi, Akil Shaheed, Noaman Abbas and Mohamed Fayad.

But the Americans haven't bothered to find this out. So Messrs Alawair, Shaheed, Abbas and Fayad are welcome to apply for work from the Americans.

There are prisoner identification papers on the desks and in the cupboards. What happened to Wahid Mohamed, Majid Taha, Saddam Ali or Lazim Hamoud? We shall not know.

Ex-prisoners told me there is a mass grave in the Al-Khedeer desert, but no one — least of all Baghdad's new occupiers — are interested in finding it.

"We committed no sin," said a 40-year-old ex-inmate whose prison duties included the cleaning of the hangman's trap of blood and feces after each execution.

"We are not guilty of anything. Why did they do this to us? America, yes, it got rid of Saddam. But Iraq belongs to us. Our oil belongs to us. We will keep our nationality. It will stay Iraq. The Americans must go."

If the Americans and the British want to understand the nature of the religious opposition here, they need only consult the files of Saddam's secret service archives.

I found one, Report No. 7481, dated Feb. 24 — when the Iraqi muhabarrat security men were still working hard on their Shiite enemies less than a month before the U.S.-led invasion.

But of course, no one has bothered to read this material or even look for it.

There's an even more terrible place for the Americans to visit in Baghdad — the headquarters of the whole intelligence apparatus, a massive gray-painted block that was bombed by the Americans and a series of villas and office buildings that are stashed with files, papers and card indexes.

It was here that Saddam's special political prisoners were brought for vicious interrogation — electricity being an essential part of this — and it was here that Farzad Bazoft, the Observer correspondent, was brought for questioning before his dispatch to the hangman.

It's also graced with delicately shaded laneways, a children's area for the families of the torturers and a school in which one pupil had written an essay in English on (suitably perhaps) Beckett's Waiting For Godot.

There's also a miniature hospital, flowerbeds and a road named "Freedom St."

It's the creepiest place in all of Iraq. I met, extraordinarily, an Iraqi nuclear scientist walking in fear around the compound, a colleague of the former head of Iraqi nuclear physics. "This is the last place I ever wanted to see and I will never return to it," the scientist said.

"This was the place of greatest evil in all the world."

But the Americans should pay a visit. The top security men in Saddam's regime were busy in the last hours of their rule, shredding millions of documents. I found a great pile of black plastic rubbish bags at the back of one villa, each stuffed with the shreds of thousands of papers.

Shouldn't they be taken to Washington or London and re-constituted to learn their secrets? That's what the Iranians did with shredded U.S. embassy files in Tehran in 1980.

Files that were left unshredded contain a wealth of information about this place.

There's a substantial pile of papers, for example, recording the existence of a new super-drug for cancer that a number of Arab doctors wanted to manufacture in Iraq and — according to one file — "test on Iraqis."

But again, the Americans have not bothered — or do not want — to search through these papers.

If they did, they would also find the names of dozens of senior Iraqi intelligence men, many of them identified by the files of congratulatory letters that Saddam's secret policemen insisted on sending each other every time they were promoted.

Where now, for example, is Col. Abdulaziz Saadi, Capt. Abdulsalam Salawi, Capt. Saad Ahmed al-Ayash, Col. Saad Mohamed, Capt. Majid Ahmed and scores of others?

We may never know. Or perhaps we are not supposed to know.

Iraqis are right to ask why the Americans don't search for this information, just as they are right to demand to know why so many of Saddam's top lieutenants got away.

Here's another question the Iraqis are asking.

On the last weekend of the invasion, the Americans dropped four 900-kilogram bombs on the Baghdad residential area of Mansour.

They claimed they thought Saddam was hiding there. They knew they would kill civilians because it was not, as one of the Centcom mandarins said, a "risk-free venture."

So, they dropped their bombs and killed 14 civilians in Mansour, most of them members of a Christian family.

The Americans announced that they couldn't be sure they had killed Saddam until they could carry out forensic tests at the site.

But this turns out to have been a lie. I went to the site on Tuesday. Not a single American or British official — forensic or military — had bothered to visit the bomb craters. No Western forensic experts have examined the mass of debris.

When I arrived, there was a putrefying smell and families pulled the remains of a tiny baby from the rubble. No American officers have apologized for this appalling killing.

It's easy for a reporter to predict doom, especially after a brutal war that lacked all international legitimacy.

But catastrophe usually waits for optimists in the Middle East, especially for those who are false optimists and invade oil-rich nations with ideological excuses and high-flown moral claims and accusations like weapons of mass destruction that are still unproved.

So, I'll make an awful prediction. That America's war of "liberation" is over. Iraq's war of liberation from the Americans is about to begin.

In other words, the real and frightening story starts now.

IP Logged

theseeker
One moon circles


Damnit...I'm a doctor jim
3297 posts, Jul 2000

posted 04-21-2003 01:07 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for theseeker   Visit theseeker's Homepage!   Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
I will say this "steaming pile" certainly relfects form and function with mechster and his domestic agenda....

alot can be said with alittle...

"talbot" wasn't there a clinton dude talbot that was preachin' one world government...wonder if they are related...

dennis miller was on bill mah..mahh...maherrr...maherrr what ever...dennis on a taxcut, quote "the left spends all year telling me how bad I suck...and then on april the 15th, wants 48% of my suckyness"

a Q from the audience,

"why did you (miller) leave the liberals and join the conservatives"

miller

"my friends in new york kept saying guilianni was hilter...and I go to new york and it was cleaner...safer....and then they started saying, ashcroft is hitler...and cheney and bush is hitler...everyone that didn't fit their perspective is hitler...there was only one hitler..."

right on !

I never watch bill maher...I think he's a dick...just caught it on the fly between jim rome and the cartoon network...oh yeah Ann C was on !

IP Logged

Mech
Resisting the NWO


Northeast USA
3907 posts, Sep 2002

posted 04-21-2003 01:19 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Mech   Visit Mech's Homepage!   Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
I'll be willing to bet Ann Coulter, Seeker, or Fastwalker could not name any of these awards...

Vets March and Teach in Washington
News A report on America and on "Operation Dire Distress," the Veterans Against Iraq War march and rally, teach-in, and lobbying campaign.

By William Marvel
http://www.vaiw.org/vet/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=71


As soon as George Bush launched his invasion of Iraq, I started for our nation's capital. I drove over roads that were crumbling because the various states lacked money to repair them, and I visited municipal libraries and manuscript repositories that had all cut back on services because their funding had been reduced. When I arrived in Washington, however, I discovered that there was plenty of money for police. The city is an armed camp, with concrete barriers and hordes of cops blocking every intersection within detonation distance of our privileged and protected representatives.

Baltimore and the District of Columbia are encircled with electronic signs inviting reports of "suspicious activity" and offering the number of the federal snitch hotline. The swarms of police therefore amuse themselves by badgering the targets of paranoid informants. While I was there, a Washington Post reporter was detained for inquiring about the function of an environmental monitoring device near the Mall: someone had reported him for his "suspicious questions." Now, thanks to the "Patriot" Act, the only probable cause police need to accost a citizen is an anonymous tip from some nitwit.

My destination in Washington was a weekend veterans’ demonstration against Bush's war. On Saturday afternoon I arrived at American University just in time to hear Daniel Ellsberg the man who leaked the Pentagon Papers to the New York Times, thereby revealing how Lyndon Johnson lied to the American people to win their support for the Vietnam War. Other virulent critics of the Bush war were John Brown, who recently resigned from the State Department over Bush's Iraq policies, retired admiral Gene Laroque, and Bobby Muller, president of the Vietnam Veterans of America Foundation. Ray McGovern, a former CIA analyst, outlined just how badly Bush and the gremlins of his inner circle have deceived us: McGovern recounted a litany of CIA intelligence that contradicts every element of Bush’s inflammatory rhetoric, and he wondered out loud "Who is giving Mr. Bush his 'intelligence?'"

At noon on Sunday hundreds of veterans from all eras gathered with family members on the Mall. Joining them were the parents and children of soldiers currently deployed in Iraq. Some came from as far away as Maine and Minnesota, but most hailed from New York City. A squadron of mounted National Park police confronted us like so many Cossacks, refusing to let us come within 1000 feet of the Vietnam Memorial on the grounds that no political demonstrations were allowed there. Meanwhile, Republican Party organizers had staged a rival rally "for the troops" on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial, attracting perhaps 3000 tourists. This political demonstration spilled over into the Vietnam Memorial, but no one objected to that.

From there the procession marched to the Veterans Administration, the budget of which was just slashed by the same government that now spawns a new generation of veterans. The empty building was surrounded by scores of steroid-bloated, smirking young cops in flak jackets, many carrying automatic rifles or three-foot billy clubs that they seemed anxious to use. The driver of a passing car tried to grab the flag I carried, and another man charged into the column to assail a veteran wearing the medal-encrusted dress coat of a Marine sergeant. The heckler called the grey-haired Marine a "faggot" and a traitor as police moved him back to the sidewalk, but as far as I could see he was not arrested, as any protestor would have been.

Volunteer drill sergeants counted cadence for us, and everyone responded instinctively. As we approached the Ellipse, opposite the White House, that cadence changed to the simple chant "Bush went AWOL; you go, too." Bush was AWOL this time, as well: he had gone off to relax at Camp David after a busy week of warmongering. Stewart Nusbaumer and Jan Barry with Daniel Ellsberg and a few other veterans tried to deliver a petition bearing the names of thousands of veterans who oppose this war, but the Praetorian Guard at the White House refused to accept it.

Some of us stayed over until Monday to lobby our congressmen, but they demonstrate the same obstinate indifference to their constituents. Having written to Judd Gregg and John Sununu of New Hampshire last winter without so much as a reply, I chose to drop in on my new congressman, Jeb Bradley. Jeb was not going to be in all day, though ("Most congressmen go home for the weekend," said his young receptionist), so I left him a handwritten note with my concerns and my addresses, none of which he has yet used.

I don’t think anyone was surprised by the refusal to listen. In fact, by now most of us are not surprised at the failure to even pretend to listen. Just as it relies on brute force to impose its will internationally, the Bush League has clearly given up the democratic charade at home, too, falling back on propaganda and police power to keep the people in line.

Note: William Marvel is a freelance writer from South Conway, NH., who served in the U.S. Army from 1968 until 1971. He is the is the recipient of a 1995 Lincoln Prize for his history of Andersonville prison.

[Edited 1 times, lastly by Mech on 04-21-2003]

IP Logged

Fastwalker
Senior Member


832 posts, Mar 2003

posted 04-22-2003 04:53 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Fastwalker     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote

Off the top of my head, I can name some of them…First one, I believe is the Vietnam service medal…but I havent seen it with the stars…Second one from left; Republic of Vietnam Campaign Medal…I believe that third one is the same as the last one (Southwest Asia service medal) … Fourth one from left is Kuwait liberation Medal (Kingdom of Saudi Arabia) Fifth one is Kuwait liberation medal, (government of Kuwait). 6th one over is armed forces expeditionary medal. That blue one with the white stripe is the Korean Service Medal.Third one from right is the Republic of Korea Presidential unit ciatation. Second one from last, I believe, is the stinkin United Nations Service Medal Last one is the southwest Asia service medal ….How’d I do?

Now answer my questions, Mech....




[Edited 1 times, lastly by Fastwalker on 04-22-2003]

IP Logged

Mech
Resisting the NWO


Northeast USA
3907 posts, Sep 2002

posted 04-22-2003 05:47 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Mech   Visit Mech's Homepage!   Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Almost all correct...although second to last is actually considered a Joint NATO ribbon that looks like a United Nations ribbon.

Did you serve in the Military Fastwalker? What was your MOS?

Or did you just find that information on the internet?

[Edited 1 times, lastly by Mech on 04-22-2003]

IP Logged

Mech
Resisting the NWO


Northeast USA
3907 posts, Sep 2002

posted 04-22-2003 08:23 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Mech   Visit Mech's Homepage!   Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote


WHAT'S A "CHICKENHAWK"?

Definition

A chickenhawk is a term often applied to public persons - generally male - who (1) tend to advocate, or are fervent supporters of those who advocate, military solutions to political problems, and who have personally (2) declined to take advantage of a significant opportunity to serve in uniform during wartime.

Some individuals may qualify more for their political associations than for any demonstrated personal tendency towards bellicosity. Some women may be included for exceptional bellicosity.

FULL LIST
http://www.nhgazette.com/chickenhawks.html

[Edited 1 times, lastly by Mech on 04-22-2003]

IP Logged

theseeker
One moon circles


Damnit...I'm a doctor jim
3297 posts, Jul 2000

posted 04-23-2003 01:17 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for theseeker   Visit theseeker's Homepage!   Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
As John Wayne, a phony name for a phony man, he played a lot of war heroes, while he ran away from anything resembling patriotism, except the pose. - Ray Duray

I hate people who don't like john wayne...it's un-American to not like john wayne...

o'dude would not say that to J/W's face...

easy to pick on the dead...

asserting that the televangelist had consorted with prostitutes and had sexually harassed a Korean cleaning girl who worked in the barracks." --Rob Boston, The Most Dangerous Man in America, Prometheus Books, 1996.

guess that Jesus quote "go forth and sin no more...and dwell in the house of the Lord" never made it rob's way...

easy to pick on the Christians...

bellicose

I'd like a dollar for everytime some yoink stubbled on to a new word...or got their first thesaurus !

that site went out of the way to show lack of military service by those in power...republican conservatives basically...and paul harvey ! my gosh what has he done to deserve such an attack !

obviously hate America first heathen slackers behind this paper...

anyway...not one of the liberal left-wing maggots mentioned the fact that most of the population didn't go to nam either !

very easy to pick on the source of mech's links...commie's....

enough fun...I have to say thanks to my pasty...or is that "patsy" friend mech (clears throat) for the link...this is some of the funniest shit I've read since gasbag banned himself !
http://www.nhgazette.com/MAR28-03letters.html


Dear Mr. Fowl [sic]:

We are still waiting for the "Chickendove" database. The definition of a "Chickendove" would be: a supposed pacifist, leftist, liberal, possibly socialist, possibly fifth columnist, antiwar protesting, antigovernment, anti-American, cowering behind the 1rst amendment to trash their country, "never met a war we felt was moral or honorable enough to participate in" coward. A "Chickendove" is the cowardly parallel of the "chickenhawk." It is bizarre to watch the two groups fight it out, while the brave men and women of our country go to war. It is interesting to note that the Vietnam veteran editor of the oldest newspaper in American does not wish to print this list. Also does not wish to describe his "service" in Vietnam. Very interesting.

IP Logged

Fastwalker
Senior Member


832 posts, Mar 2003

posted 04-23-2003 01:30 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Fastwalker     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
quote:
Almost all correct...although second to last is actually considered a Joint NATO ribbon that looks like a United Nations ribbon.

Actually, I think the NATO ribbon is a bit darker, (it depends on the medium whether looking at it in print or in thread)…

quote:
Did you serve in the Military Fastwalker? What was your MOS?
Or did you just find that information on the internet?

I could say MOS 7591 but

Then I’d have to shoot you….

The chicken hawk argument is absolutely foolish. A civilian commander in chief controls the armed services….and the military does not control policy. In fact, the military is the last resort when political solutions have broken down. It is non-sensical then to suggest that the public does not have a say as to when and how that military is used in defense of the United States. In fact, public policy is what determines it’s use. The military does not make that policy. The military enacts policy through force by following orders dictated by policy makers. Diplomacy was shown to be ineffective over 12 years when dealing with evil men like Saddam Hussein, leaving only one solution which was military. Diplomacy failed, because corrupt people did not enforce the rule of law. The US just enforced that rule of law through the military solution. Those who advocated the military solution did not do so out of first choice…they did so as a last resort after 12 years of failed diplomacy with an evil individual. Only the military solution could have freed Iraq and those 150 kids in prison. Those who sought more diplomacy after 12 years of abject failure corruption and incompetence are deluding themselves that a diplomatic solution could work.

IP Logged

theseeker
One moon circles


Damnit...I'm a doctor jim
3297 posts, Jul 2000

posted 04-23-2003 01:58 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for theseeker   Visit theseeker's Homepage!   Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
btw...off the top of my head...I have no idea what those "medals" are...and won't google search it to show I do...my father convinced me early on that "if you don't want to be a soldier...don't enlist"....and I took to pursuing the American dream...I grew up during a period of incredible prosperity...if you had a skill you were employed...military service was a possible career choice for some college folk...a life long dream for some special individuals and a last resort for others...

eh mech ?

btw my father was in korea, 101st airborne for about a year...transfered to the 3rd infantry division and was a medic on the frontline....when he talked about being a soldier mech...he KNEW what he was talking about...

IP Logged

shatoga
Agent Provocateur


588 posts, Nov 2002

posted 04-23-2003 02:00 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for shatoga     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
>Another Fake Shot of Jubilant Iraqis
http://uk.indymedia.org/front.php3?article_id=63011

Simone Moore would like to report a massive display in propaganda that appeared in the evening edition of the Evening Standard, Wednesday the 9th April.

The front page has a massive photo on it with the heading 'Jubilation on the streets of Baghdad FREEDOM'
http://uk.indymedia.org/local/webcast/uploads/metafiles/evening_standard_propaganda_3.jpg

The photo is a still taken from BBC News 24. This massive image has been very obviously doctored in a programme such as Photoshop. The image features a massive crowd of Iraqi's celebrating in the streets, HOWEVER in the mid and background it is possible to see how numerous photo's have been cut and pasted together to create the illusion of there being a massive crowd present.

In the background there is a white object (very possibly a turban) that appears three times. In the background exactly the same bent tubular object (possibly an arm in a white shirt) appears twice. In the mid to background section (to the right hand side) a man in a white shirt appears facing the camera, further on to the left the man appears with his head facing the left. This man has been photographed twice, one shortly after the other.

In the background it is possible to see a 'blurring tool' has been used to blur the cut and pastes used to doctor the photograph. It is also possible to see the usage of numerous photographs (as least 2) as they have been taken at slightly different angles and strange lines of sight appear in the image.

Although we have seen jubilation crowds celebrating in Baghdad, none of them have been of this quantity and when the head title reads 'FREEDOM' I wonder when the press will just report the news instead of manipulating it to suit their image.
www.redmagic.co.uk/stopwar/

In the background there is a white object (very possibly a turban) that appears three times. In the background exactly the same bent tubular object (possibly an arm in a white shirt) appears twice. In the mid to background section (to the right hand side) a man in a white shirt appears facing the camera, further on to the left the man appears with his head facing the left. This man has been photographed twice, one shortly after the other. <

Not a word of it mine/ just passing on what other observant individuals have noticed:
FAUXnews(propaganda)
The truth:
>http://www.aeronautics.ru/news/news002/news083.htm
US Army Psychological Operations command decided ....A more active use of the Iraqi opposition was suggested for propaganda work in the occupied villages. The same opposition members will be used to create video footage of the "repented" Iraqi POWs and footage of the local [Iraqi] population "opposing Saddam."
<
My words: "video stills created with photoshop" are 'FAUXnews'
How many Americans would cheer wildly if a foriegn army overthrew our government?

We patriots on both the left and the right would be in the trenches side by side;
or in front of the firing squads side by side.


IP Logged

Mech
Resisting the NWO


Northeast USA
3907 posts, Sep 2002

posted 04-23-2003 02:02 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Mech   Visit Mech's Homepage!   Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
No Seek..i'm definately not a commie. It's Bu$h and his creepy crew that are bringing in Commie
EX-KGB Police cheifs to work on Homeland security and turn my America
into the next USSR...not me.You wanted it..you got it.


http://www.chemtrailcentral.com/ubb/Forum6/HTML/001109.html

********************************************************************************************

"------You could call this the "Sovietization of America." Primakov said he can't wait to get on the payroll
(he called it the "pay corps," referring to the Heritage Foundation, the PNAC and all the other
right wing foundations in the United States) He cant get over how many ex-KGB generals
and colonels still want to come over to the United States
and become consultants to get on the pay corps.

It has been reported that Nikita Krushchev Jr works for
the Heritage Foundation. Another right wing foundation has Elena Stalin. The Old Soviet
Brand names are all coming to Washington to get on the gravy train and
teach the Bush administration how to further restrict the rights of the American people.

And Primakov is waiting for the USSA,
The United Soviet States of America. It'll probably make him feel right at home.-----"

******************************************************************************************


I was more than happy to do my tour of duty with Zest...how about you?

Oh I forgot..you never did.

REAL patriots QUESTION their "leaders"...especially when the break their CONSTITUTIONAL OATHS. Like Bu$h.

So FW..is that a YES or NO?

[Edited 3 times, lastly by Mech on 04-23-2003]

IP Logged

shatoga
Agent Provocateur


588 posts, Nov 2002

posted 04-23-2003 02:23 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for shatoga     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Sat once in the midst of a group of second amendment supporters during a congressman's 'town hall meeting'

the most vocal veteran there was asked by the Congressamn (who had quit his job in the state legislature to serve in the first Gulf War) what was your MOS?
"011-Bravo" replied the guy in Marine fatigues.
Several of us (Congressman Paul McHale, Major US Army/ Reserve included) laughed.

This 'tough RW 'ex Marine' gave an Army infantry trainee MOS)

I was 052-B, & don't wanta kill nobody.

BTW/Isn't "Military Intelligence" an oxymoron.




[Edited 1 times, lastly by shatoga on 04-23-2003]

IP Logged

Fastwalker
Senior Member


832 posts, Mar 2003

posted 04-23-2003 02:38 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Fastwalker     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Seeker, I showed what those medals are not because I wanted to impress anyone with military knowledge or demonstrate I could do a "Google" search, but because I wanted to make a point...

That point is, I actually respond to Mech's comments and answer Mech's questions, but he has yet to show me the same courtesy.

Admit that you were wrong about this war being for oil Mech (as I've already made that so obvious). Answer my questions, Mech....Save your self respect (if that's possible) …


[Edited 1 times, lastly by Fastwalker on 04-23-2003]

IP Logged

theseeker
One moon circles


Damnit...I'm a doctor jim
3297 posts, Jul 2000

posted 04-23-2003 02:42 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for theseeker   Visit theseeker's Homepage!   Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
you must have missed gulf war II shitoga...

I'd say there's a lot of military intelligence...collapsed, occupy and control a very hoslite country in a month...

I'd also say it would sicken me to see the world through your glasses shitoga...

which I'm sure the military paid for...



[Edited 1 times, lastly by theseeker on 04-23-2003]

IP Logged

Mech
Resisting the NWO


Northeast USA
3907 posts, Sep 2002

posted 04-23-2003 02:43 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Mech   Visit Mech's Homepage!   Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Nah..it's still about Oil and Control of the Region.

The oil pipeline to Haifa, Israel is already being proposed.

That's just one example.

I oppose attacking nations that never attacked us. That's not the America I remember.

Nothing will change my mind about that.

I refuse to be a tool for the globalists.

But American liberty? !00% Absolutely.

IP Logged

theseeker
One moon circles


Damnit...I'm a doctor jim
3297 posts, Jul 2000

posted 04-23-2003 02:50 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for theseeker   Visit theseeker's Homepage!   Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
wan't insinuating nuthin fastwalker...a little guarded aren't we ?

but he has yet to show me the same courtesy.

and he won't either...there's only one response to the truth...mech shitoga and all the other U.S hating compadres ain't any where near it...

COMMUNIST PATSIES

IP Logged

Mech
Resisting the NWO


Northeast USA
3907 posts, Sep 2002

posted 04-23-2003 03:00 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Mech   Visit Mech's Homepage!   Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
No...Bu$h and his minions..are the Commies.


Advisors of Influence: Nine Members of the Defense Policy Board Have Ties to Defense Contractors

http://www.public-i.org/dtaweb/report.asp?ReportID=513&L1=10&L2=10&L3=0&L4=0&L5=0

By André Verlöy and Daniel Politi
Data by Aron Pilhofer

Of the 30 members of the Defense Policy Board, the government-appointed group that advises the Pentagon, at least nine have ties to companies that have won more than $76 billion in defense contracts in 2001 and 2002. Four members are registered lobbyists, one of whom represents two of the three largest defense contractors.


The board’s chairman, Richard Perle, resigned on March 27, 2003, amid allegations of conflicts of interest for his representation of companies with business before the Defense Department, although he will remain a member of the board. Eight of Perle’s colleagues on the board have ties to companies with significant contracts from the Pentagon.

Members of the board disclose their business interests annually to the Pentagon, but the disclosures are not available to the public. “The forms are filed with the Standards of Conduct Office which review the filings to make sure they are in compliance with government ethics,” Pentagon spokesman Maj. Ted Wadsworth told the Center for Public Integrity.

The companies with ties to Defense Policy Board members include prominent firms like Boeing, TRW, Northrop Grumman, Lockheed Martin and Booz Allen Hamilton and smaller players like Symantec Corp., Technology Strategies and Alliance Corp., and Polycom Inc.

Defense companies are awarded contracts for numerous reasons; there is nothing to indicate that serving on the Defense Policy Board confers a decisive advantage to firms with which a member is associated.

According to its charter, the board was set up in 1985 to provide the Secretary of Defense “with independent, informed advice and opinion concerning major matters of defense policy.” The members are selected by and report to the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy—currently Douglas Feith, a former Reagan administration official. All members are approved by the Secretary of Defense. The board’s quarterly meetings—normally held over a two-day period—are classified, and each session’s proceedings are summarized for the Defense Secretary. The board does not write reports or vote on issues. Feith, according to the charter, can call additional meetings if required. Notices of the meetings are filed at least 15 days before they are held in the Federal Register.

The board, whose list of members reads like a who’s who of former high-level government and military officials, focuses on long-term policy issues such as the strategic implications of defense policies and tactical considerations, including what types of weapons the military should develop.

Michael O’Hanlon, a military expert at The Brookings Institution, told Time magazine in November 2002 that the board “is just another [public relations] PR shop for Rumsfeld.” Former members said that the character of the board changed under Rumsfeld. Previously the board was more bi-partisan; under Rumsfeld, it has become more interested in policy changes. The board has no official role in policy decisions.

The agendas for the last three meetings, which were obtained by the Center, show a variety of issues were discussed. The Oct. 10-11, 2002 meeting was devoted to intelligence briefings from the Defense Intelligence Agency and other administration officials. One of the first items on the agenda was an ethics brief by the Office of the General Counsel.

In December 2002, a two-hour intelligence briefing, strategy, North Korea, and DARPA, Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency were on the agenda. In February 2003, the topics discussed on the first day included North Korea, Iran and TIA, Total Information Awareness, the controversial Pentagon research program that aims to gather and analyze a vast array of information on Americans. As the Center previously reported, research for the program is being conducted by private contractors.

Richard Perle, who has been a very public advocate of the war in Iraq, resigned the chairmanship of the Defense Policy Board after being criticized in recent weeks because of his involvement in companies that have significant business before the Defense Department. He did not return the Center’s phone calls.

In a March 24 letter, Rep. John Conyers, the ranking Democrat on the House of Representatives Judiciary Committee, asked the Pentagon’s inspector general to investigate Perle’s role as a paid adviser to the bankrupt telecommunications company Global Crossing Ltd. The Hamilton, Bermuda-based company sought approval of its sale of overseas subsidiaries from the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, a government panel that can block sales or mergers that conflict with U.S. national security interests. Rumsfeld is a member of the Committee.

Perle reportedly advised clients of Goldman Sachs on investment opportunities in post-war Iraq, and is a director with stock options of the U.K.-based Autonomy Corp., whose customers include the Defense Department.

“Mr. Perle is considered a ‘special government employee’ and is subject to government ethics prohibition—both regulatory and criminal—on using public office for private gain,” Rep. Conyers wrote in the letter obtained by the Center.

Potential conflicts not limited to Perle

Perle, however, is not the only Defense Policy Board member with ties to companies that do business with the Defense Department:

Retired Adm. David Jeremiah, a former vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff who served over 38 years in the Navy, is a director or advisor of at least five corporations that received more than $10 billion in Pentagon contracts in 2002. Jeremiah also sat on the board of Getronics Government Solutions, a company that was acquired by DigitalNet in December 2002 and is now known as DigitalNet Government Solutions. According to a news report by Bloomberg, Richard Perle is a director of DigitalNet Holdings Inc., which has filed for a $109 million stock sale.

Retired Air Force Gen. Ronald Fogleman sits on the board of directors of companies which received more than $900 million in contracts in 2002. The companies, which all have longstanding business relationships with the Air Force and other Defense Department branches, include Rolls-Royce North America, North American Airlines, AAR Corporation and the Mitre Corp. In addition to being chief of staff for the Air Force, Fogleman has served as a military advisor to the Secretary of Defense, the National Security Council and the President. He also served as commander-in-chief of the U.S. Transportation Command, commander of Air Mobility Command, the 7th Air Force and the Air Component Command of the U.S./ROK Combined Forces Command.

Retired Gen. Jack Sheehan joined BECHTEL in 1998 after 35 years in the U.S. Marine Corp.

BECHTEL, one of the world's largest engineering-construction firms, is among the companies bidding for contracts to rebuild Iraq. The company had defense contracts worth close to $650 million in 2001 and more than $1 billion in 2002. Sheehan is currently a senior vice president and partner and responsible for the execution and strategy for the region that includes Europe, Africa, the Middle East and Southwest Asia. The four-star general served as NATO’s Supreme Allied Commander Atlantic and Commander in Chief U.S. Atlantic Command before his retirement in 1997. After his leaving active duty, he served as Special Advisor for Central Asia for two secretaries of Defense.

Former CIA director James Woolsey is a principal in the Paladin Capital Group, a venture-capital firm that like Perle’s Trireme Partners is soliciting investment for homeland security firms. Woolsey joined consulting firm Booz Allen Hamilton as vice president in July 2002. The company had contracts worth more than $680 million in 2002. Woolsey told the Wall Street Journal that he does no lobbying and that none of the companies he has ties to have been discussed during a Defense Policy Board meeting. Previously, Woolsey worked for law firm Shea & Gardner. He has held high-level positions in two Republican and two Democratic administrations.

William Owens, another former high-level military officer, sits on boards of five companies that received more than $60 million in defense contracts last year. Previously, he was president, chief operating officer and vice chair of Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC), among the ten largest defense contractors. One of the companies, Symantec Corp., increased its contracts from $95,000 in 2001 to more than $1 million in 2002. Owens, who served as vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, is widely recognized for bringing commercial high technology into the U.S. Department of Defense. He was the architect of the Revolution in Military Affairs (RMA), an advanced systems technology approach to military operations that represents a significant change in the system of requirements, budgets and technology for the U.S. military since World War II. Owens serves on the boards of directors for several technology companies, including Nortel Networks, ViaSat and Polycom.

Harold Brown, a former Secretary of Defense under President Jimmy Carter, and James Schlesinger, who has served as CIA director, defense secretary and energy secretary in the Carter and Nixon administrations, are two others that have ties to defense contractors. Brown, a partner of Warburg Pincus LLC, is a board member of Philip Morris Companies and a trustee of the Rand Corporation, which respectively had contracts worth $146 million and $83 million in 2002. Schlesinger, a senior adviser at Lehman Brothers, chairs the board of trustees of the Mitre Corp., a not-for-profit that provides research and development support for the government. Mitre had defense contracts worth $440 million in 2001 and $474 million in 2002.

Chris Williams is one of four registered lobbyists to serve on the board, and the only one to lobby for defense companies. Williams, who served as a special assistant for policy matters to Defense Secretary Rumsfeld after having been in a similar capacity for Sen. Trent Lott (R-Miss.), joined Johnston & Associates after leaving the Pentagon. Although the firm had represented Lockheed Martin prior to Williams’ arrival, the firm picked up two large defense contractors as clients once Williams was on board: Boeing, TRW and Northrop Grumman, for which the firm earned a total of more than $220,000. The firm lobbied exclusively on defense appropriations and related authorization bills for its new clients. Johnston & Associates is more often employed by energy companies; its founder, J. Bennett Johnston, is a former Democratic senator from Louisiana who chaired the Energy Committee.

None of the members with ties to defense contractors responded to requests for comment.

The board’s membership also contains other well known Washington hands, including some who are registered lobbyists. Richard V. Allen, a former Nixon and Reagan administration official, who is now a senior counselor to APCO Worldwide, registered as a lobbyist for Alliance Aircraft.

Former Congressional representative Tillie Fowler joined the law firm Holland & Knight in 2001. She served eight years in the U.S. House of Representatives where she was a member of several committees including the House Armed Services Committee and the Transportation Committee. In 2002 she lobbied for such clients as the Minnesota Department of Transportation and the American Plastics Council.

Thomas S. Foley is a partner at Akin, Gump, Strauss, Hauer & Feld law firm, which he joined in 2001. He was the U.S. ambassador to Japan from 1997 to 2001 and was the Speaker of the House of Representatives from 1989 to 1994, after being a representative since 1965. Foley is a registered lobbyist, but has no defense clients.

To write a letter to the editor for publication, e-mail letters@publicintegrity.org. Please include a daytime phone number.



[Edited 1 times, lastly by Mech on 04-23-2003]

IP Logged

Fastwalker
Senior Member


832 posts, Mar 2003

posted 04-23-2003 03:26 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Fastwalker     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
quote:
Nah..it's still about Oil and Control of the Region.

Prove it. Answer my questions. If it’s about oil, then how are US companies going to profit from this oil? Which companies are these…You offered only the names Halliburton and Bechtel so far, and these companies do not profit from oil sales, as I have already shown. How do you address this point and the fact that I already blew your entire argument completely out of the water?

quote:
The oil pipeline to Haifa, Israel is already being proposed.

If Israel wants to buy it’s oil from Iraq, like everyone else…then why shouldn’t it? That’s kinda the point. We want countries to buy Iraqi oil, so we can use the money to rebuild Iraq and turn on that water and electricity, they keep complaining about. Iraq profits…Israel gets oil….everyone wins. What’s your point?

quote:
That's just one example.

Of what

quote:
I oppose attacking nations that never attacked us. That's not the America I remember.


All you remember is the Clinton era. So you’d rather let Iraq attack other nations, threaten the world, develop weapons of Mass destruction, torture and murder millions of it’s own people….hold the entire world economy hostage by controlling mid-East oil? Is this what you are for? And what about the terrorism problem? Eliminating the Iraq threat goes a long way. Were you for letting this threat expand without doing anything to stop it (as GW is so effectively dealing with it)? Apparently so…And BTW, Iraq did attack us. They’ve been attacking us for the last 12 years.
Nothing will change my mind about that.

quote:
I refuse to be a tool for the globalists.

Too late for that…you already are a tool for globalists like China, France, Russia and Germany and various Arab propaganda news sources. They want what you want.

quote:
But American liberty? !00% Absolutely.

Obviously you are against American liberty. You would rather have American liberty threatened by terrorist groups and dictator controlled countries without doing anything about it except to act as a mouthpiece for enemy propagandists.

quote:
wan't insinuating nuthin fastwalker...a little guarded aren't we ?

Just making things clear Seeker…..

IP Logged

shatoga
Agent Provocateur


588 posts, Nov 2002

posted 04-23-2003 03:43 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for shatoga     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
so FW has no armed forces catalogue to figure out my MOS.

Yeah, the VA does give us service connected disabled veterans (real veterans) more health services.
Your tax money pays for it.

The VA docs say my blood already paid the bill over 30 years ago.

I didn't miss "Wag the Gulf 2"
It was just another PR bushwar to distract US from the loss of freedom at home.

The Russian press,
new to freedom of the press,
take it seriously.
they said; they lived for a century under communism and recognize propaganda when they see it.
When they look at the biased Amerikan media, they recognize the propaganda.

Reporters fired for telling the truth.
Reporters murdered for telling the truth.

It's remade in English, instead of German, for the fourth reich, but it's still a rightwing dictatorship.


If Clinton had done what Bush has, would you hypocrites be saying to "support the President".

Nazis and the Republican Party

By Carla Binion
January 28, 2000 |

Investigative reporter Christopher Simpson says in "Blowback" that after World War II,
Nazi émigrés were given CIA subsidies to build a far-right-wing power base in the U. S.
These Nazis assumed prominent positions in the Republican Party's "ethnic outreach committees."
Simpson documents the fact that these Nazis did not come to America as individuals
but as part of organized groups with fascist political agendas.
The Nazi agenda did not die along with Adolf Hitler.
It moved to America (or a part of it did) and joined the far right of the Republican Party.< http://victorian.fortunecity.com/brambles/499/Special_Reports/Nazis/nazis.html http://www.john-loftus.com/Thyssen.htm http://falloutshelternews.com/BushHitlerLinks.html http://www.hermes-press.com/nazification_step3.htm

Takes the same actions, for the same reasons,as the Nazis did:

The people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders.
That is easy.
All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked,
and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism
and exposing the country to danger.
It works the same in any country."
Hermann Goering,
{It's working in America today!}

Jews should not be considered citizens of Germany.
Ein Volk-Ein Reich-Ein Fuhrer!-Gott Mitt Eins!

"I don't know that atheists should be considered citizens,
nor should they be considered patriots.
This is one nation under God."-- George Bush


>(a famous reporter at CNN) says "The news room is practically a war zone itself --
the reporters are being prevented by a single news editor
from reading stories that are coming over the wire service
if they don't promote the Administration's propaganda. (tidbit from a party)<

Sound familiar?

And I'm not the only person who has noticed!
http://home.attbi.com/~slimyslugs/reichstag_fire_and_september_11.htm http://falloutshelternews.com/BushHitlerLinks.html http://www.propagandamatrix.com/bush_school_photos_2.html http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/12/20011204-17.html http://www.tetrahedron.org/articles/apocalypse/25_reasons.html http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/what_was_the_government_doing.htm http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/g6b_calgary.html http://the-news.net/cgi-bin/story.pl?title=September%2011%20-%20US%20Gove rnment%20accused&edition=663 http://web11.superb.net/www.nodomain.com/editorials/smoking_gun.html
;
Remove ">" brackets "<" to view image
; http://www.falloutshelternews.com/What_Would_Hitler_Do.html http://www.freefromterror.net http://www.copvcia.com http://www.davidicke.com/icke/index1a.html http://globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO109C.html%20 http://www.tetrahedron.org http://rense.com/general25/genr.htm http://www.democraticunderground.com/cgi-bin/duforum/duboard.cgi?az=s how_thread&om=2797&forum=DCForumID12 http://www.democraticunderground.com/cgi-bin/duforum/duboard.cgi?az=s how_thread&om=5853&forum=DCForumID38

"something that's really important and is so true...
Democrats are just as patriotic about their country as Republicans"
George W. Bush- January 22, 2001



[Edited 2 times, lastly by shatoga on 04-23-2003]

IP Logged

Mech
Resisting the NWO


Northeast USA
3907 posts, Sep 2002

posted 04-23-2003 03:46 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Mech   Visit Mech's Homepage!   Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
We were NOT attacked. So THAT blows your "terrorist" theory out of the water. So does the fact that NO WMD'S have been found in Iraq.

Also...This war WAS about oil..among other things..like Defense contracting
and domination of the middle east.

Only a bonehead who has access to a MOUNTAIN of evidence presented here would continue to believe that
this war was all about "liberation". The "Liberation" was merely a by-product,
probably short lived.

Mostly it was bout CONTROL. Oil, posture, profits, and who knows what else.

The GLOBALISTS stand to gain. Not America.

PS: AGAIN...I never voted for a Democrat president. Or Republican. I'm a Constitutionalist.


Other examples of BLOOD FOR OIL.....


http://www.hinduonnet.com/thehindu/2001/10/13/stories/05132524.htm

http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/01_52/b3763127.htm



[Edited 5 times, lastly by Mech on 04-23-2003]

IP Logged

Mech
Resisting the NWO


Northeast USA
3907 posts, Sep 2002

posted 04-23-2003 06:40 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Mech   Visit Mech's Homepage!   Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Whose War?A neoconservative clique seeks to ensnare our country in a series of wars that are not in America’s interest by Patrick J. Buchanan

By Patrick J. Buchanan
April 23, 2003
http://www.gooff.com/NM/templates/Breaking_News.asp?articleid=889&zoneid=2


A neoconservative clique seeks to ensnare our country in a series of wars that

are not in America’s interest!

by Patrick J. Buchanan

The War Party may have gotten its war. But it has also gotten something it did not bargain for. Its membership lists and associations have been exposed and its motives challenged. In a rare moment in U.S. journalism, Tim Russert put this question directly to Richard Perle: “Can you assure American viewers ... that we’re in this situation against Saddam Hussein and his removal for American security interests? And what would be the link in terms of Israel?”

Suddenly, the Israeli connection is on the table, and the War Party is not amused. Finding themselves in an unanticipated firefight, our neoconservative friends are doing what comes naturally, seeking student deferments from political combat by claiming the status of a persecuted minority group. People who claim to be writing the foreign policy of the world superpower, one would think, would be a little more manly in the schoolyard of politics. Not so.

Former Wall Street Journal editor Max Boot kicked off the campaign. When these “Buchananites toss around ‘neoconservative’—and cite names like Wolfowitz and Cohen—it sometimes sounds as if what they really mean is ‘Jewish conservative.’” Yet Boot readily concedes that a passionate attachment to Israel is a “key tenet of neoconservatism.” He also claims that the National Security Strategy of President Bush “sounds as if it could have come straight out from the pages of Commentary magazine, the neocon bible.” (For the uninitiated, Commentary, the bible in which Boot seeks divine guidance, is the monthly of the American Jewish Committee.)

David Brooks of the Weekly Standard wails that attacks based on the Israel tie have put him through personal hell: “Now I get a steady stream of anti-Semitic screeds in my e-mail, my voicemail and in my mailbox. ... Anti-Semitism is alive and thriving. It’s just that its epicenter is no longer on the Buchananite Right, but on the peace-movement left.”

Washington Post columnist Robert Kagan endures his own purgatory abroad: “In London ... one finds Britain’s finest minds propounding, in sophisticated language and melodious Oxbridge accents, the conspiracy theories of Pat Buchanan concerning the ‘neoconservative’ (read: Jewish) hijacking of American foreign policy.”

Lawrence Kaplan of the New Republic charges that our little magazine “has been transformed into a forum for those who contend that President Bush has become a client of ... Ariel Sharon and the ‘neoconservative war party.’”

Referencing Charles Lindbergh, he accuses Paul Schroeder, Chris Matthews, Robert Novak, Georgie Anne Geyer, Jason Vest of the Nation, and Gary Hart of implying that “members of the Bush team have been doing Israel’s bidding and, by extension, exhibiting ‘dual loyalties.’” Kaplan thunders:

The real problem with such claims is not just that they are untrue. The problem is that they are toxic. Invoking the specter of dual loyalty to mute criticism and debate amounts to more than the everyday pollution of public discourse. It is the nullification of public discourse, for how can one refute accusations grounded in ethnicity? The charges are, ipso facto, impossible to disprove. And so they are meant to be.

What is going on here? Slate’s Mickey Kaus nails it in the headline of his retort: “Lawrence Kaplan Plays the Anti-Semitic Card.”

What Kaplan, Brooks, Boot, and Kagan are doing is what the Rev. Jesse Jackson does when caught with some mammoth contribution from a Fortune 500 company he has lately accused of discriminating. He plays the race card. So, too, the neoconservatives are trying to fend off critics by assassinating their character and impugning their motives.

Indeed, it is the charge of “anti-Semitism” itself that is toxic. For this venerable slander is designed to nullify public discourse by smearing and intimidating foes and censoring and blacklisting them and any who would publish them. Neocons say we attack them because they are Jewish. We do not. We attack them because their warmongering threatens our country, even as it finds a reliable echo in Ariel Sharon.

And this time the boys have cried “wolf” once too often. It is not working. As Kaus notes, Kaplan’s own New Republic carries Harvard professor Stanley Hoffman. In writing of the four power centers in this capital that are clamoring for war, Hoffman himself describes the fourth thus:

And, finally, there is a loose collection of friends of Israel, who believe in the identity of interests between the Jewish state and the United States. … These analysts look on foreign policy through the lens of one dominant concern: Is it good or bad for Israel? Since that nation’s founding in 1948, these thinkers have never been in very good odor at the State Department, but now they are well ensconced in the Pentagon, around such strategists as Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle and Douglas Feith.

“If Stanley Hoffman can say this,” asks Kaus, “why can’t Chris Matthews?” Kaus also notes that Kaplan somehow failed to mention the most devastating piece tying the neoconservatives to Sharon and his Likud Party.

In a Feb. 9 front-page article in the Washington Post, Robert Kaiser quotes a senior U.S. official as saying, “The Likudniks are really in charge now.” Kaiser names Perle, Wolfowitz, and Feith as members of a pro-Israel network inside the administration and adds David Wurmser of the Defense Department and Elliott Abrams of the National Security Council. (Abrams is the son-in-law of Norman Podhoretz, editor emeritus of Commentary, whose magazine has for decades branded critics of Israel as anti-Semites.)

Noting that Sharon repeatedly claims a “special closeness” to the Bushites, Kaiser writes, “For the first time a U.S. administration and a Likud government are pursuing nearly identical policies.” And a valid question is: how did this come to be, and while it is surely in Sharon’s interest, is it in America’s interest?

This is a time for truth. For America is about to make a momentous decision: whether to launch a series of wars in the Middle East that could ignite the Clash of Civilizations against which Harvard professor Samuel Huntington has warned, a war we believe would be a tragedy and a disaster for this Republic. To avert this war, to answer the neocon smears, we ask that our readers review their agenda as stated in their words. Sunlight is the best disinfectant. As Al Smith used to say, “Nothing un-American can live in the sunlight.”

We charge that a cabal of polemicists and public officials seek to ensnare our country in a series of wars that are not in America’s interests. We charge them with colluding with Israel to ignite those wars and destroy the Oslo Accords. We charge them with deliberately damaging U.S. relations with every state in the Arab world that defies Israel or supports the Palestinian people’s right to a homeland of their own. We charge that they have alienated friends and allies all over the Islamic and Western world through their arrogance, hubris, and bellicosity.

Not in our lifetimes has America been so isolated from old friends. Far worse, President Bush is being lured into a trap baited for him by these neocons that could cost him his office and cause America to forfeit years of peace won for us by the sacrifices of two generations in the Cold War.

They charge us with anti-Semitism—i.e., a hatred of Jews for their faith, heritage, or ancestry. False. The truth is, those hurling these charges harbor a “passionate attachment” to a nation not our own that causes them to subordinate the interests of their own country and to act on an assumption that, somehow, what’s good for Israel is good for America.

The Neoconservatives

Who are the neoconservatives? The first generation were ex-liberals, socialists, and Trotskyites, boat-people from the McGovern revolution who rafted over to the GOP at the end of conservatism’s long march to power with Ronald Reagan in 1980.

A neoconservative, wrote Kevin Phillips back then, is more likely to be a magazine editor than a bricklayer. Today, he or she is more likely to be a resident scholar at a public policy institute such as the American Enterprise Institute (AEI) or one of its clones like the Center for Security Policy or the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs (JINSA). As one wag writes, a neocon is more familiar with the inside of a think tank than an Abrams tank.

Almost none came out of the business world or military, and few if any came out of the Goldwater campaign. The heroes they invoke are Woodrow Wilson, FDR, Harry Truman, Martin Luther King, and Democratic Senators Henry “Scoop” Jackson (Wash.) and Pat Moynihan (N.Y.).

All are interventionists who regard Stakhanovite support of Israel as a defining characteristic of their breed. Among their luminaries are Jeane Kirkpatrick, Bill Bennett, Michael Novak, and James Q. Wilson.

Their publications include the Weekly Standard, Commentary, the New Republic, National Review, and the editorial page of the Wall Street Journal. Though few in number, they wield disproportionate power through control of the conservative foundations and magazines, through their syndicated columns, and by attaching themselves to men of power.

Beating the War Drums

When the Cold War ended, these neoconservatives began casting about for a new crusade to give meaning to their lives. On Sept. 11, their time came. They seized on that horrific atrocity to steer America’s rage into all-out war to destroy their despised enemies, the Arab and Islamic “rogue states” that have resisted U.S. hegemony and loathe Israel.

The War Party’s plan, however, had been in preparation far in advance of 9/11. And when President Bush, after defeating the Taliban, was looking for a new front in the war on terror, they put their precooked meal in front of him. Bush dug into it.

Before introducing the script-writers of America’s future wars, consider the rapid and synchronized reaction of the neocons to what happened after that fateful day.

On Sept. 12, Americans were still in shock when Bill Bennett told CNN that we were in “a struggle between good and evil,” that the Congress must declare war on “militant Islam,” and that “overwhelming force” must be used. Bennett cited Lebanon, Libya, Syria, Iraq, Iran, and China as targets for attack. Not, however, Afghanistan, the sanctuary of Osama’s terrorists. How did Bennett know which nations must be smashed before he had any idea who attacked us?

The Wall Street Journal immediately offered up a specific target list, calling for U.S. air strikes on “terrorist camps in Syria, Sudan, Libya, and Algeria, and perhaps even in parts of Egypt.” Yet, not one of Bennett’s six countries, nor one of these five, had anything to do with 9/11.

On Sept. 15, according to Bob Woodward’s Bush at War, “Paul Wolfowitz put forth military arguments to justify a U.S. attack on Iraq rather than Afghanistan.” Why Iraq? Because, Wolfowitz argued in the War Cabinet, while “attacking Afghanistan would be uncertain … Iraq was a brittle oppressive regime that might break easily. It was doable.”

On Sept. 20, forty neoconservatives sent an open letter to the White House instructing President Bush on how the war on terror must be conducted. Signed by Bennett, Podhoretz, Kirkpatrick, Perle, Kristol, and Washington Post columnist Charles Krauthammer, the letter was an ultimatum. To retain the signers’ support, the president was told, he must target Hezbollah for destruction, retaliate against Syria and Iran if they refuse to sever ties to Hezbollah, and overthrow Saddam. Any failure to attack Iraq, the signers warned Bush, “will constitute an early and perhaps decisive surrender in the war on international terrorism.”

Here was a cabal of intellectuals telling the Commander-in-Chief, nine days after an attack on America, that if he did not follow their war plans, he would be charged with surrendering to terror. Yet, Hezbollah had nothing to do with 9/11. What had Hezbollah done? Hezbollah had humiliated Israel by driving its army out of Lebanon.

President Bush had been warned. He was to exploit the attack of 9/11 to launch a series of wars on Arab regimes, none of which had attacked us. All, however, were enemies of Israel. “Bibi” Netanyahu, the former Prime Minister of Israel, like some latter-day Citizen Genet, was ubiquitous on American television, calling for us to crush the “Empire of Terror.” The “Empire,” it turns out, consisted of Hamas, Hezbollah, Iran, Iraq, and “the Palestinian enclave.”

Nasty as some of these regimes and groups might be, what had they done to the United States?

The War Party seemed desperate to get a Middle East war going before America had second thoughts. Tom Donnelly of the Project for the New American Century (PNAC) called for an immediate invasion of Iraq. “Nor need the attack await the deployment of half a million troops. … [T]he larger challenge will be occupying Iraq after the fighting is over,” he wrote.

Donnelly was echoed by Jonah Goldberg of National Review: “The United States needs to go to war with Iraq because it needs to go to war with someone in the region and Iraq makes the most sense.”

Goldberg endorsed “the Ledeen Doctrine” of ex-Pentagon official Michael Ledeen, which Goldberg described thus: “Every ten years or so, the United States needs to pick up some small crappy little country and throw it against the wall, just to show we mean business.” (When the French ambassador in London, at a dinner party, asked why we should risk World War III over some “shitty little country”—meaning Israel—Goldberg’s magazine was not amused.)

Ledeen, however, is less frivolous. In The War Against the Terror Masters, he identifies the exact regimes America must destroy:

First and foremost, we must bring down the terror regimes, beginning with the Big Three: Iran, Iraq, and Syria. And then we have to come to grips with Saudi Arabia. … Once the tyrants in Iran, Iraq, Syria, and Saudi Arabia have been brought down, we will remain engaged. …We have to ensure the fulfillment of the democratic revolution. … Stability is an unworthy American mission, and a misleading concept to boot. We do not want stability in Iran, Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, and even Saudi Arabia; we want things to change. The real issue is not whether, but how to destabilize.

Rejecting stability as “an unworthy American mission,” Ledeen goes on to define America’s authentic “historic mission”:

Creative destruction is our middle name, both within our society and abroad. We tear down the old order every day, from business to science, literature, art, architecture, and cinema to politics and the law. Our enemies have always hated this whirlwind of energy and creativity which menaces their traditions (whatever they may be) and shames them for their inability to keep pace. … [W]e must destroy them to advance our historic mission.

Passages like this owe more to Leon Trotsky than to Robert Taft and betray a Jacobin streak in neoconservatism that cannot be reconciled with any concept of true conservatism.

To the Weekly Standard, Ledeen’s enemies list was too restrictive. We must not only declare war on terror networks and states that harbor terrorists, said the Standard, we should launch wars on “any group or government inclined to support or sustain others like them in the future.”

Robert Kagan and William Kristol were giddy with excitement at the prospect of Armageddon. The coming war “is going to spread and engulf a number of countries. … It is going to resemble the clash of civilizations that everyone has hoped to avoid. … [I]t is possible that the demise of some ‘moderate’ Arab regimes may be just round the corner.”

Norman Podhoretz in Commentary even outdid Kristol’s Standard, rhapsodizing that we should embrace a war of civilizations, as it is George W. Bush’s mission “to fight World War IV—the war against militant Islam.” By his count, the regimes that richly deserve to be overthrown are not confined to the three singled-out members of the axis of evil (Iraq, Iran, North Korea). At a minimum, the axis should extend to Syria and Lebanon and Libya, as well as ‘“friends” of America like the Saudi royal family and Egypt’s Hosni Mubarak, along with the Palestinian Authority. Bush must reject the “timorous counsels” of the “incorrigibly cautious Colin Powell,” wrote Podhoretz, and “find the stomach to impose a new political culture on the defeated” Islamic world. As the war against al-Qaeda required that we destroy the Taliban, Podhoretz wrote,

We may willy-nilly find ourselves forced … to topple five or six or seven more tyrannies in the Islamic world (including that other sponsor of terrorism, Yasir Arafat’s Palestinian Authority). I can even [imagine] the turmoil of this war leading to some new species of an imperial mission for America, whose purpose would be to oversee the emergence of successor governments in the region more amenable to reform and modernization than the despotisms now in place. … I can also envisage the establishment of some kind of American protectorate over the oil fields of Saudi Arabia, as we more and more come to wonder why 7,000 princes should go on being permitted to exert so much leverage over us and everyone else.

Podhoretz credits Eliot Cohen with the phrase “World War IV.” Bush was shortly thereafter seen carrying about a gift copy of Cohen’s book that celebrates civilian mastery of the military in times of war, as exhibited by such leaders as Winston Churchill and David Ben Gurion.

A list of the Middle East regimes that Podhoretz, Bennett, Ledeen, Netanyahu, and the Wall Street Journal regard as targets for destruction thus includes Algeria, Libya, Egypt, Sudan, Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Hezbollah, Hamas, the Palestinian Authority, and “militant Islam.”

Cui Bono? For whose benefit these endless wars in a region that holds nothing vital to America save oil, which the Arabs must sell us to survive? Who would benefit from a war of civilizations between the West and Islam?

Answer: one nation, one leader, one party. Israel, Sharon, Likud.

Indeed, Sharon has been everywhere the echo of his acolytes in America. In February 2003, Sharon told a delegation of Congressmen that, after Saddam’s regime is destroyed, it is of “vital importance” that the United States disarm Iran, Syria, and Libya.

“We have a great interest in shaping the Middle East the day after” the war on Iraq, Defense Minister Shaul Mofaz told the Conference of Major American Jewish Organizations. After U.S. troops enter Baghdad, the United States must generate “political, economic, diplomatic pressure” on Tehran, Mofaz admonished the American Jews.

Are the neoconservatives concerned about a war on Iraq bringing down friendly Arab governments? Not at all. They would welcome it.

“Mubarak is no great shakes,” says Richard Perle of the President of Egypt. “Surely we can do better than Mubarak.” Asked about the possibility that a war on Iraq—which he predicted would be a “cakewalk”—might upend governments in Egypt and Saudi Arabia, former UN ambassador Ken Adelman told Joshua Micah Marshall of Washington Monthly, “All the better if you ask me.”

On July 10, 2002, Perle invited a former aide to Lyndon LaRouche named Laurent Murawiec to address the Defense Policy Board. In a briefing that startled Henry Kissinger, Murawiec named Saudi Arabia as “the kernel of evil, the prime mover, the most dangerous opponent” of the United States.

Washington should give Riyadh an ultimatum, he said. Either you Saudis “prosecute or isolate those involved in the terror chain, including the Saudi intelligence services,” and end all propaganda against Israel, or we invade your country, seize your oil fields, and occupy Mecca.

In closing his PowerPoint presentation, Murawiec offered a “Grand Strategy for the Middle East.” “Iraq is the tactical pivot, Saudi Arabia the strategic pivot, Egypt the prize.” Leaked reports of Murawiec’s briefing did not indicate if anyone raised the question of how the Islamic world might respond to U.S. troops tramping around the grounds of the Great Mosque.

What these neoconservatives seek is to conscript American blood to make the world safe for Israel. They want the peace of the sword imposed on Islam and American soldiers to die if necessary to impose it.

Washington Times editor at large Arnaud de Borchgrave calls this the “Bush-Sharon Doctrine.” “Washington’s ‘Likudniks,’” he writes, “have been in charge of U.S. policy in the Middle East since Bush was sworn into office.”

The neocons seek American empire, and Sharonites seek hegemony over the Middle East. The two agendas coincide precisely. And though neocons insist that it was Sept. 11 that made the case for war on Iraq and militant Islam, the origins of their war plans go back far before.

“Securing the Realm”

The principal draftsman is Richard Perle, an aide to Sen. Scoop Jackson, who, in 1970, was overheard on a federal wiretap discussing classified information from the National Security Council with the Israeli Embassy. In Jews and American Politics, published in 1974, Stephen D. Isaacs wrote, “Richard Perle and Morris Amitay command a tiny army of Semitophiles on Capitol Hill and direct Jewish power in behalf of Jewish interests.” In 1983, the New York Times reported that Perle had taken substantial payments from an Israeli weapons manufacturer.

In 1996, with Douglas Feith and David Wurmser, Perle wrote “A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm,” for Prime Minister Netanyahu. In it, Perle, Feith, and Wurmser urged Bibi to ditch the Oslo Accords of the assassinated Yitzak Rabin and adopt a new aggressive strategy:

Israel can shape its strategic environment, in cooperation with Turkey and Jordan, by weakening, containing, and even rolling back Syria. This effort can focus on removing Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq—an important Israeli strategic objective in its own right—as a means of foiling Syria’s regional ambitions. Jordan has challenged Syria’s regional ambitions recently by suggesting the restoration of the Hashemites in Iraq.

In the Perle-Feith-Wurmser strategy, Israel’s enemy remains Syria, but the road to Damascus runs through Baghdad. Their plan, which urged Israel to re-establish “the principle of preemption,” has now been imposed by Perle, Feith, Wurmser & Co. on the United States.

In his own 1997 paper, “A Strategy for Israel,” Feith pressed Israel to re-occupy “the areas under Palestinian Authority control,” though “the price in blood would be high.”

Wurmser, as a resident scholar at AEI, drafted joint war plans for Israel and the United States “to fatally strike the centers of radicalism in the Middle East. Israel and the United States should … broaden the conflict to strike fatally, not merely disarm, the centers of radicalism in the region—the regimes of Damascus, Baghdad, Tripoli, Tehran, and Gaza. That would establish the recognition that fighting either the United States or Israel is suicidal.”

He urged both nations to be on the lookout for a crisis, for as he wrote, “Crises can be opportunities.” Wurmser published his U.S.-Israeli war plan on Jan. 1, 2001, nine months before 9/11.

About the Perle-Feith-Wurmser cabal, author Michael Lind writes:

The radical Zionist right to which Perle and Feith belong is small in number but it has become a significant force in Republican policy-making circles. It is a recent phenomenon, dating back to the late 1970s and 1980s, when many formerly Democratic Jewish intellectuals joined the broad Reagan coalition. While many of these hawks speak in public about global crusades for democracy, the chief concern of many such “neo-conservatives” is the power and reputation of Israel.

Right down the smokestack.

Perle today chairs the Defense Policy Board, Feith is an Undersecretary of Defense, and Wurmser is special assistant to the Undersecretary of State for Arms Control, John Bolton, who dutifully echoes the Perle-Sharon line. According to the Israeli daily newspaper Ha’aretz, in late February,

U.S. Undersecretary of State John Bolton said in meetings with Israeli officials … that he has no doubt America will attack Iraq and that it will be necessary to deal with threats from Syria, Iran and North Korea afterwards.

On Jan. 26, 1998, President Clinton received a letter imploring him to use his State of the Union address to make removal of Saddam Hussein’s regime the “aim of American foreign policy” and to use military action because “diplomacy is failing.” Were Clinton to do that, the signers pledged, they would “offer our full support in this difficult but necessary endeavor.” Signing the pledge were Elliott Abrams, Bill Bennett, John Bolton, Robert Kagan, William Kristol, Richard Perle, and Paul Wolfowitz. Four years before 9/11, the neocons had Baghdad on their minds.

The Wolfowitz Doctrine

In 1992, a startling document was leaked from the office of Paul Wolfowitz at the Pentagon. Barton Gellman of the Washington Post called it a “classified blueprint intended to help ‘set the nation’s direction for the next century.’” The Wolfowitz Memo called for a permanent U.S. military presence on six continents to deter all “potential competitors from even aspiring to a larger regional or global role.” Containment, the victorious strategy of the Cold War, was to give way to an ambitious new strategy designed to “establish and protect a new order.”

Though the Wolfowitz Memo was denounced and dismissed in 1992, it became American policy in the 33-page National Security Strategy (NSS) issued by President Bush on Sept. 21, 2002. Washington Post reporter Tim Reich describes it as a “watershed in U.S. foreign policy” that “reverses the fundamental principles that have guided successive Presidents for more than 50 years: containment and deterrence.”

Andrew Bacevich, a professor at Boston University, writes of the NSS that he marvels at “its fusion of breathtaking utopianism with barely disguised machtpolitik. It reads as if it were the product not of sober, ostensibly conservative Republicans but of an unlikely collaboration between Woodrow Wilson and the elder Field Marshal von Moltke.”

In confronting America’s adversaries, the paper declares, “We will not hesitate to act alone, if necessary, to exercise our right of self-defense by acting preemptively.” It warns any nation that seeks to acquire power to rival the United States that it will be courting war with the United States:

[T]he president has no intention of allowing any nation to catch up with the huge lead the United States has opened since the fall of the Soviet Union more than a decade ago. … Our forces will be strong enough to dissuade potential adversaries from pursuing a military buildup in hopes of surpassing or equaling the power of the United States.

America must reconcile herself to an era of “nation-building on a grand scale, and with no exit strategy,” Robert Kagan instructs. But this Pax Americana the neocons envision bids fair to usher us into a time of what Harry Elmer Barnes called “permanent war for permanent peace.”

The Munich Card

As President Bush was warned on Sept. 20, 2001, that he will be indicted for “a decisive surrender” in the war on terror should he fail to attack Iraq, he is also on notice that pressure on Israel is forbidden. For as the neoconservatives have played the anti-Semitic card, they will not hesitate to play the Munich card as well. A year ago, when Bush called on Sharon to pull out of the West Bank, Sharon fired back that he would not let anyone do to Israel what Neville Chamberlain had done to the Czechs. Frank Gaffney of the Center for Security Policy immediately backed up Ariel Sharon:

With each passing day, Washington appears to view its principal Middle Eastern ally’s conduct as inconvenient—in much the same way London and Paris came to see Czechoslovakia’s resistance to Hitler’s offers of peace in exchange for Czech lands.

When former U.S. NATO commander Gen. George Jouwlan said the United States may have to impose a peace on Israel and the Palestinians, he, too, faced the charge of appeasement. Wrote Gaffney,

They would, presumably, go beyond Britain and France’s sell-out of an ally at Munich in 1938. The “impose a peace” school is apparently prepared to have us play the role of Hitler’s Wehrmacht as well, seizing and turning over to Yasser Arafat the contemporary Sudetenland: the West Bank and Gaza Strip and perhaps part of Jerusalem as well.

Podhoretz agreed Sharon was right in the substance of what he said but called it politically unwise to use the Munich analogy.

President Bush is on notice: Should he pressure Israel to trade land for peace, the Oslo formula in which his father and Yitzak Rabin believed, he will, as was his father, be denounced as an anti-Semite and a Munich-style appeaser by both Israelis and their neoconservatives allies inside his own Big Tent.

Yet, if Bush cannot deliver Sharon there can be no peace. And if there is no peace in the Mideast there is no security for us, ever—for there will be no end to terror. As most every diplomat and journalist who travels to the region will relate, America’s failure to be even-handed, our failure to rein in Sharon, our failure to condemn Israel’s excesses, and our moral complicity in Israel’s looting of Palestinian lands and denial of their right to self-determination sustains the anti-Americanism in the Islamic world in which terrorists and terrorism breed.

Let us conclude. The Israeli people are America’s friends and have a right to peace and secure borders. We should help them secure these rights. As a nation, we have made a moral commitment, endorsed by half a dozen presidents, which Americans wish to honor, not to permit these people who have suffered much to see their country overrun and destroyed. And we must honor this commitment.

But U.S. and Israeli interests are not identical. They often collide, and when they do, U.S. interests must prevail. Moreover, we do not view the Sharon regime as “America’s best friend.”

Since the time of Ben Gurion, the behavior of the Israeli regime has been Jekyll and Hyde. In the 1950s, its intelligence service, the Mossad, had agents in Egypt blow up U.S. installations to make it appear the work of Cairo, to destroy U.S. relations with the new Nasser government. During the Six Day War, Israel ordered repeated attacks on the undefended USS Liberty that killed 34 American sailors and wounded 171 and included the machine-gunning of life rafts. This massacre was neither investigated nor punished by the U.S. government in an act of national cravenness.

Though we have given Israel $20,000 for every Jewish citizen, Israel refuses to stop building the settlements that are the cause of the Palestinian intifada. Likud has dragged our good name through the mud and blood of Ramallah, ignored Bush’s requests to restrain itself, and sold U.S. weapons technology to China, including the Patriot, the Phoenix air-to-air missile, and the Lavi fighter, which is based on F-16 technology. Only direct U.S. intervention blocked Israel’s sale of our AWACS system.

Israel suborned Jonathan Pollard to loot our secrets and refuses to return the documents, which would establish whether or not they were sold to Moscow. When Clinton tried to broker an agreement at Wye Plantation between Israel and Arafat, Bibi Netanyahu attempted to extort, as his price for signing, release of Pollard, so he could take this treasonous snake back to Israel as a national hero.

Do the Brits, our closest allies, behave like this?

Though we have said repeatedly that we admire much of what this president has done, he will not deserve re-election if he does not jettison the neoconservatives’ agenda of endless wars on the Islamic world that serve only the interests of a country other than the one he was elected to preserve and protect.

March 24, 2003 issue
Copyright © 2003 The American Conservative

IP Logged

Fastwalker
Senior Member


832 posts, Mar 2003

posted 04-23-2003 10:05 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Fastwalker     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Whoops...I do believe, the infamous Fastwalker has been outmatched.....I give up...I can't keep up with Mech the spammer...Don't have to hit me over the head with the 2 by 4 of futility....

IP Logged

theseeker
One moon circles


Damnit...I'm a doctor jim
3297 posts, Jul 2000

posted 04-23-2003 10:41 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for theseeker   Visit theseeker's Homepage!   Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
articles like that are why pat b. won't ever get the big chair...sheesh....I thought clintoon was long-winded...

man !

IP Logged

Mech
Resisting the NWO


Northeast USA
3907 posts, Sep 2002

posted 04-24-2003 03:54 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Mech   Visit Mech's Homepage!   Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Pat's a real Conservative...not a NEO-CON.

Don't always agree with him...but he's right about this administration.

IP Logged


This topic is 45 pages long:  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40  41 42 43 44 45

All times are CT (US)

next newest topic | next oldest topic

Administrative Options: Close Topic | Archive/Move | Delete Topic
Post New Topic  Post A Reply
Hop to:








Contact Us | Chemtrail Central


Ultimate Bulletin Board 5.45c