Nadler: Questions About War in Iraq Cannot 'Fairly Involve Israel'

[sabra]

<<SNIP>>
http://www.nysun.com/article/15705

Nadler: Questions About War in Iraq Cannot 'Fairly Involve Israel'

BY ELI LAKE - Staff Reporter of the Sun
June 20, 2005

WASHINGTON - A New York lawmaker has distanced himself from remarks made by a former CIA analyst at a Democratic-only hearing to examine a set of British documents that suggest members of Prime Minister Blair's government had reservations about the Bush administration's case for war.

In a press release sent out Friday, Rep. Jerold Nadler, a Democrat from New York, said: "There are serious questions to be answered about the decision to go to war in Iraq - and Congress is right to be asking them - but none of those questions fairly involve Israel. There is no place in this debate for maligning Israel and defaming our support of her ongoing struggle for security and peace."

<</SNIP>>

[ElectroPrincess]

1. Wrong, is Israel a "sovereign state" or a "sacred prized pal"

No, the STATE of Israel should be fair game.

[DixieDem]

126. True, it should...

But, please do not end your research there.

My own feelings after doing mega research... Israel is an easy scapegoat. For those that don't want to get to the bottom of what this is REALLY about - just blame Israel and forgetaboutit.

However, if you want to know the truth you need to dig much further... 'OIL' seems to be a good starting place.

[Dover]

2. Geeez....in lieu of the Israeli spy case, I think the case for Israeli

involvement can surely be made. But, of course, Rep. Nadler IS from N.Y. afterall.:eyes:

[Vladimir]

5. What has him being from New York got to do with it? n/t

[geek tragedy]

8. Lots of Joooooos live in NY. But don't you dare suggest

that anti-Zionism and anti-semitism ever co-exist.

[still_one]

11. I am a Jew, was against the Iraq war from the start

and do NOT agree with many of the policies of Israel, but when you refer to "Jews" as Jooooooos, is not a particularly kind

The real problem is this administration, PNAC, which many of this administration are part of, both Jews and Christians, but most of all using the tradgedy of 9/11 to invade a country that wasn't a threat, based on lies which have killed over 1700 Americans, wounded over 12000 Americans, and killed over 100000 Iraqii civiliians whose only crime was being born Iraqii

I have no problem critisizing Israel, or any country that is wrong, but I do have a problem blaming Israel for the Iraq war.

Bush refused to continue the peace talks between Israel and the Palestinians from Clinton when he took office in 2001, and did everything to throw fuel in the fire. Bush broke up takes between North and South Korea, (the Sunshine policy), when he took office from Clinton.

Even the first gulf war most people do not realize in was our ambassador to Iraq, April Gellispee who implicitly told Hussein we would NOT do anything if he invaded Kwuait. Our ambassador said we do NOT get involved in boundary conflicts in the middle east

We alone are responsible for our actions based on the people we elect

[geek tragedy]

12. "Jooooos" was meant sarcastically. I was mocking

the anti-semitic mindset.

Btw, stating that the US doesn't get involved in boundary conflicts (which there was between Iraq and Kuwait long before Iraq invaded) and saying "if you invade, we won't do anything about it" are two very different things.

[still_one]

13. the point I was making was that the U.S. under bush I

gave mixed messages to Iraq, which helped lead to the first gulf war

[geek tragedy]

15. Maybe, but Saddam was still 100% wrong to invade.

There's no legal right to invade another country--even if the US says it's okay. ;)

[still_one]

24. of course you are right, but it was a setup

[bicentennial_baby]

17. mixed message? more like the go-ahead...

When April Glaspie told Hussein that "we have no opinion on the matter", that was a green light if there ever was one...

[geek tragedy]

18. The matter was a border dispute between the two countries.

Kuwait was allegedly using horizontal drilling equipment to tap the oil reserves under Iraq.

Saddam did not ask US permission to invade. That would have kinda destroyed the element of surprise.

[bicentennial_baby]

21. I know all about what happened

so you can save it. We very well could have dissuaded our client from the actions that he took, and we chose not to. If the US gov't was in any way surprised by the invasion of Kuwait, it would be b/c, like most other administrations, they couldn't see farther than the end of their own noses.

[still_one]

25. what is amazing is most Americans do not even realize what happened

[Vladimir]

20. I try to give people the benefit of the doubt

but yes, that's how it sounded to me too.

on edit: joke removed

[bunny planet]

91. Excuse me, where are you coming from? Not helpful at all.

Plenty of Jewish Americans were against this war and do not sanction every policy of the Israeli government. Calling them Joooooos seems devisive, counterproductive and insulting.


Care to explain how the debate is helped by such statements, and please don't ask me what's happened to my sense of humor. I have a great one, just know the difference between a slur and humor.

[geek tragedy]

107. I'm not calling them Joooooos. It was meant sarcastically.

It was meant to imply that certain folks are obsessed with Jews, that's all.

[Coastie for Truth]

94. Bush is from Texas

Lee Raymond and George Bush I and George Bush II and Neil (Silverado S&L) Bush and the House of Saud and Prince Bandar all have the same Lawyer - James Addison Baker III of lawyers to the oil potentates.

Connect the dots -- follow the money. $58/bbl?

[DoYouEverWonder]

3. We have to deal with the Israel issue

the GOVERNMENT of Israel is a key player in this whole mess. McGovern spoke the truth about Israel being the I in O.I.L. We will never, never have peace in the Middle East or any where else, until we deal with the whole ball of wax and Israel's is a part of it.

Here's the proof that Israel is the I in O.I.L.



A Clean Break:
A New Strategy for Securing the Realm

Following is a report prepared by The Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies’ "Study Group on a New Israeli Strategy Toward 2000." The main substantive ideas in this paper emerge from a discussion in which prominent opinion makers, including Richard Perle, James Colbert, Charles Fairbanks, Jr., Douglas Feith, Robert Loewenberg, David Wurmser, and Meyrav Wurmser participated. The report, entitled "A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm," is the framework for a series of follow-up reports on strategy.

Israel has a large problem. Labor Zionism, which for 70 years has dominated the Zionist movement, has generated a stalled and shackled economy. Efforts to salvage Israel’s socialist institutions—which include pursuing supranational over national sovereignty and pursuing a peace process that embraces the slogan, "New Middle East"—undermine the legitimacy of the nation and lead Israel into strategic paralysis and the previous government’s "peace process." That peace process obscured the evidence of eroding national critical mass— including a palpable sense of national exhaustion—and forfeited strategic initiative. The loss of national critical mass was illustrated best by Israel’s efforts to draw in the United States to sell unpopular policies domestically, to agree to negotiate sovereignty over its capital, and to respond with resignation to a spate of terror so intense and tragic that it deterred Israelis from engaging in normal daily functions, such as commuting to work in buses.

http://www.israeleconomy.org/strat1.htm



This has nothing to do with the millions of people around the world who happen to be Jewish. I love Jewish people. My husband and son have Jewish blood. I grew up in an apartment building with people who had lived in the Nazi Concentration Camps. What is happening in the Middle East right now has been planned for a long time. Many of the people who planned these event became major players in the Bush administration and many of them became the architects of the Iraq War. Some of them have very close ties with the Sharon government. Some of them are double agents, for example Larry Franklin. These people are traitors and are destroying our country. Some of them happen to be Jewish.

[Coastie for Truth]

96. The problem isn't Israel - it's oil

The problem is our heroin-cocaine like addiction to oil and our selling ourselves into prostitution to keep pumping $58/bbl crude (actually $2.59/gal gasoline) into our 8 mpg Hummers so that our spoiled suburban soccer moms can drive their spoiled kids around suburbia.

Hell - my wife drives a Corolla.

I gave you a mega reading list yeaterday -- here's a short one--->

1. Anthony Evans, "An Introduction to Economic Geology and Its Environmental Impact"

2. James Howard Kunstler, "The Long Emergency: Surviving the End of the Oil Age, Climate Change, and Other Converging Catastrophes of the Twenty-first Century"

3. F. William Engdahl, "A Century Of War : Anglo-American Oil Politics and the New World Order "

[Vladimir]

4. Yeah, because that is logical, isn't it?

Israel is America's number one ally in the region - the idea that it had nothing to do with the pre-war planning is quite implausible. Of course, that does not mean that the US went to war *because* of Israel - but this is sort of the point. By claiming that "none of those questions fairly involve Israel", Nadler is engaging in the same kind of muppetry and fringe-ism, and it doesn't help shit. Stifling legitimate debate about the state of Israel only plays into the hands of anti-semites everywhere.

[short bus president]

9. Once again, Israel is not an ally;

Israel is a dependant.

[Vladimir]

19. Whichever way you look at it

its still implausible that Israel had no input in the matter. And I am not sure I agree that Israel is a US dependant, but that's a debate for another day.

[still_one]

29. you are right

and instead of focusing on what the bush administration has done to our country, the debate will shift, and attention will be drawn away from where it should be

What this administration and PNAC have done is create an excuse for anti-Jewish attacks that will only get worse as the war drags on

[TahitiNut]

6. The sacred cow has an infected teat called Likud.

:shrug:

[lateo]

7. This guy is an asshat.

You can't seperate Israel from the Iraq war...because of Wolfowitless' involvement and the whole PNAC plan.

[still_one]

10. No one forced the U.S. to go into Iraq except the U.S.

Is everyone here implying that the U.S. is NOT responsible for its own actions?

What should be critisized and brought up is PNAC. That involves people here with the support of the right wing in Israel, but to imply that Israel is responsible for us going into Iraq is wrong

[Name removed]

42. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

47. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Vladimir]

50. Please don't post anti-semitic bullshit here n/t

[librechik]

60. As long as certain subjects are forbidden

we'll never get to the bottom of the investigation. We don't know for sure what the govt of Israel's involvement inthe war was. We will never discover it if we aren';t allowed to ask.

It's vexing that the subject is so intimately rolled up in the complexity of Jewish history, so tightly entwined that (as thsi thread shows) it is really too easy to fall into the old racist arguments.

what a nightmare! Because it seems there is much evidence of the gov't of Israel's involvement in intrigues around the invasion.

We will NEVER know the truth about these things. For this reason, it's best to avoid it, I suppose. Nadler looks like he's keeping his head in the sand though.

[JerseygirlCT]

44. I agree. Blaming Israel is a distraction

and let's this administration off the hook.

[jasop]

70. HERE AGAIN IS THE TRUTH. You gonna have it removed again?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,999737,00.html

[geek tragedy]

98. That post doesn't link to a racist site nor does it rant about

"Jewish Americans" who have turned our country over to Israel.

Your first post was racist. Deal.

[trebizond]

14. Nadler is a damn good guy

Voted against the Iraq War, member of the Progressive Caucus, 100% rating from SANE. But he (rightly, in my opinion) makes the observation that attributing the Iraq War to Israeli influence is absurd and so gets labelled an "asshat" whose opinions should be disregarded because he is *engage code language* "from New York". I really don't get it.

[geek tragedy]

16. There are single-issue 'anti-zionists' that call themselves progressives.

Doesn't make sense to me.

[still_one]

32. This serves two purposes

1. It shifts the debate
2. It removes the responsibility away from the administration

I have no doubt that the Democrats will again self-destruct in 2006 and 2008

Yes, there are issues with Israel that need to be dealt with in a middle east peace process, but first we need to deal with our involvement

[Name removed]

22. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[still_one]

27. the whole Congress is owned by someone

why just single out Israel?

The Israelli lobby is huge, the Arab lobby is huge, the Pharmecuetical lobby is huge, the beef lobby is huge, the energy lobby is huge.

We have the best government paid for by the lobbists, ALL THE LOBBISTS

[Name removed]

39. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[geek tragedy]

45. No, some of us just aren't obsessed with Israel and are suspicious

of people who are.

And you make a lot of factual claims with very little to back them up.

[Vladimir]

51. Actually, she has a very good point

the US is run by class, not ethnic issues, and support or allegiance with Israel is motivated by the same class interests which motivate support and allegiance with Saudi Arabia.

[geek tragedy]

53. Yep, would a true die-hard supporter/friend of Israeli supremacism

hold hands with the House of Saud?

Bush is nobody's friend--he's a tool of the powerful and rich. Support for Israel is just rhetoric for him.

[Vladimir]

56. The ethnic and racial angles are perfect wedge

issues here, to get the working class of the entire region to act against its interests. Working class Israelis, Palestinians, Arabs etc. gain nothing from the continued conflict, but corporate interests on all sides are rolling in it because of them.

[Behind the Aegis]

108. Clues

The Truth is that there are more Jews living in the US than Israel. So, it stands to reason that their would be more "dual citizens" of Israel in the US than any other country. However, their are MORE dual citizens of other nations in the US than Israel. Israeli dual citizens are not even in the top 20!

The Truth is the US allows testing of weapons on American territory with a number of allies, usually in joint actions/tests.

The Truth is that the number of UN resolutions against Israel are different than those against Iraq. It is comparing apples and oranges.

The Truth is the US pays billions to Israel, but it is one of the only countries to do so. Where are Egypt, the next highest to receive our funds, has more than 20 benefactors.

The Truth is that Israel does not have more human rights violations than Iraq, even before the US occupation of Iraq.

So, now you have a clue.

[Liberal Dose]

23. Considering the fact that Israel attacked the USS Liberty in 1967

4 days into the Arab-Israeli war, intending to kill the crew, sink the ship, then blame it on the Arabs, I would say that Israel is fair game.

"Never before in the history of the United States Navy has a Navy Board of Inquiry ignored the testimony of American military eyewitnesses and taken, on faith, the word of their attackers.
-- Captain Richard F. Kiepfer, Medical Corps, US Navy (retired), USS Liberty Survivor

On June 8, 2005, the survivors of the attack on the USS Liberty filed a war crimes report in yet another attempt to have this attack investigated. I pray they finally get justice for the 34 dead and 172 wounded.

http://www.ussliberty.org/report/report.htm

http://www.ussliberty.org/

[still_one]

26. every country is free game if they do something wrong

It was never blamed on the Arabs

http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/01/12/us.israel.ussliberty/

[Liberal Dose]

28. I said they intended to blame it on the Arabs, but the crew was able to

patch together their radio and call for help. Once the USS Saratoga and USS America sent fighter planes, the Israelis backed off. Had they succeeded in sinking the ship and killing the crew...

[still_one]

30. not valid

and there is no evidence to suggest that

[jasop]

34. ummm.. ok.. lets pretend there isn't a pink elephant in the room n/t

[still_one]

35. show me credible evidence where the Arabs were going to be blamed?

[Liberal Dose]

37. You go ahead and rely on the "official" government report. I will rely on

the words of the survivors.

[still_one]

40. show me where the surviors said the Arabs were going to be blamed

[Liberal Dose]

46. Considering that there is no way you had time to go to their website and

read, I suggest you find it yourself. If you can't find it, then assume that the possiblity of blaming Arabs is my own conclusion, as well as the Israelis fearing that the American ship was spying on them.

[still_one]

57. I have read extensively on this

and NOT just one SIDE

[Liberal Dose]

62. Same here. I choose to believe the sailors.

[still_one]

64. I believe the sailors, i.e. victiums also

but where is the facts that the Arabs were going to be scape goated for this come from?

[Liberal Dose]

71. Do you think Israel would've taken responsibility if they hadn't been

caught? Hell, they really were caught and refuse to tell the truth.

[Coastie for Truth]

111. I have also read extensively

I have read both CAPT A. Jay Cristol, "The Liberty Incident" and CDR Lloyd Bucher, "Bucher:My Story" - along with many of the web sites and other books.

I was a "CACO" (Casualty Assistance Call Officer") for a "Friendly Fire" victim, I had a cousin who was a "Friendly Fire" victim, and my dad almost died in WW2 because of a "Naval Intelligence" screw up - cover up.

I have also done a web search on Jim Ennes, and followed his path.

I would give little credibility to either the Chief of Naval Intelligence of to Ennes' back -- and therefore to Ennes.

I would say that it was a tragic accident - with multiple, parallel causes - one of which was the Intelligence Navy unintelligently runs their private, closed little Intelligence Navy.

Today, the Intelligence Navy is under Steve Cambone's control - he of Gitmo and Abu Ghraib fame -- and willing to blame anybody but the closed little club Military Intelligence/Naval Intelligence professionals.

[Vladimir]

33. But that already assumes that after sinking the ship

they would have had to systematically find any survivors and kill them - would they have started the attack with napalm and cannon-fire if this was the plan? I doubt it.

[still_one]

38. I am afraid they have already made their mind up, forget the facts

I wonder how many people would have mourned the Jews if the Arabs had been successful during that war, and pushed them into the sea?

I don't think very many

[Liberal Dose]

49. You haven't even bothered to look at the facts. You went to CNN

[Liberal Dose]

41. There is nothing that can make me believe the Israelis didn't know they

were attacking an American ship. Go to the survivors website before reading the article by Corporate News Network. Afterwards, draw your own conclusions as to the reasons why. OR, be lazy and try to get someone else to draw them for you :)

[Vladimir]

52. But this was not my point

I passed no judgement on how deliberate the attack was - for all I know it could have been deliberate. This does not necessarily mean that it was done to blame Arabs though.

Please point me to these survivors' websites - its custom here that people back up claims with evidence.

[The Stranger]

54. Proving that they were to blame the Arabs is a red herring.

He made his main point and you have conceded.

[Vladimir]

58. What have I conceded?

where did I claim it was accidental in the first place, so I might have something to concede?

[Liberal Dose]

61. That's SHE!

I will make an effort to type in a more feminine manner :*

[still_one]

63. The only point I want to know is to SHOW me where

the Arabs were going to take the FALL?

Israel did target the USS liberty. They knew it was an American ship. They did it intentionally to take strategic advantage during the war. It was NOT right what they did, it was even worse that they did NOT attempt to help the survivors

It was also wrong for us to KILL over 100000 civillians in Iraq based on a lie. It was also wrong for Japan to invade Pearl Harbor, for the killing fields in Cambodia, for the cultural revolution, and for countless other needless deaths

It is important to remember, but it is also important to go forward. Should we have completely eliminated Germany and Japan after the war? What we had learned from world war I, gave us the Marshall Plan in world war II

If you build up countries economically there is less chance for war. That is why our policy with regard to Cuba and others is very counter productive

But I have the utmost confidence that human beings will continue to screw things up very badly, and I also have confidence that if we don't take back Congress in 2006 it won't matter

[Liberal Dose]

66. What do you mean by "strategic advantage" and don't you think that a real

investigation should've been done, with those responsible punished? The same tactic was used when Rachel Corrie was murdered.

[still_one]

76. yes the U.S. covered it up, a real investigation should have been done

but the strategic advantage" I am talking about is that they did NOT want the war to stop until they could capture the Golan Heights which was the location where missles were constantly being launched before the war at them. They also wanted Jerusleum, where they were not allowed to worship when it was under Arab control. This war was started by the Arabs who wanted to completely destroy Israel

your anti-Israelli seniments seeth through your comments, so I would assume that there is nothing that Israel has ever done right

I believe that Israel should exist and Palestian should exist independently

I suggest you look at both sides of the issue, but if your position is that Israel has no right to exist, then we have nothing further to discuss

[Liberal Dose]

79. Both Israel and Palestine have the right to exist. I do believe regarding

Israel, it a case of the abused becoming the abusers. If you view my comments as having "anti-Israeli" statements seething through them, it is imagined on your part. Just as I imagine every one of your comments to be shouting "Israel before America."

[still_one]

81. touche'

[eyl]

83. Doesn't quite fly (so to speak)

Jerusalem was taken the day before the attack on the Liberty. And as for the Golan Heights, apparently the US ambassador in Tel Aviv (Walworth Barbour), at least, was already aware of Israeli intentions to attack the Heights. According to historian Michael Oren

on June 8, the American consulate in Jerusalem reported that Israel was retaliating for Syria's bombardment of Israeli villages "in an apparent prelude to large-scale attack in effort to seize Heights overlooking border kibbutzim." That same day, U.S. Ambassador Walworth Barbour in Tel Aviv reported that "I would not, repeat not, be surprised if the reported Israeli attack does take place or has already done so," and IDF Intelligence Chief Aharon Yariv told Harry McPherson, a senior White House aide who was visiting Israel at the time, that "there still remained the Syria problem and perhaps it would be necessary to give Syria a blow."

And as for the notion that the intent was to lay the blame on the Arabs - why were the forces involved bearing Israeli insignia, then?

A last comment. I've seen a number of reports on "friendly fire" and "misfire" incidents, some with casualties. It's striking in how many of those cases it seems impossible that the soldiers involved could have made that mistake; but, it happened nonetheless. And remember that this wasn't a peacetime incident; the fighters involved (and their controllers) had been flying sorties at a high rate for 4 days. Under those conditions, mistakes, even obvious ones, unfortunately happen. For example, they day before the Liberty was attacked, an Israeli tank column was mistakenly bombed by IAF forces. I've yet to hear anyone claim that was deliberate.

[Liberal Dose]

86. Who is Michael Oren

http://www.fas.org/sgp/eprint/bamford.html

For example, it would be important to know whether the author of the article, Michael Oren, who was harshly critical of my chapter on the Israeli military's role in the attack on the Liberty, has any ties to Israel himself. I am a totally independent writer and have no ties to either Israel or any organization involved with the USS Liberty.

Oren, however, is a reserve officer and war veteran of the Israeli Defense Forces as well as a former advisor to the government of Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin -- who was Army chief of staff at the time the Liberty was attacked. He now works for a small right wing, pro-Benjamin Netanyahu Israeli think tank in Jerusalem, the Shalem Center. It is run by its founder, Yoram Hazony, one of former Prime Minister Netanyahu's closest aides (he also ghost wrote a book by him). During the race for prime minister, the political party of Ehud Barak even accused the center of illegally funneling money to Netanyahu -- a charge denied by the center. The Israeli Education Ministry has called the center "a research institute whose leanings are extreme right-wing and even fascistic."

[eyl]

102. Shrug

Not being familiar with the Shalem Center, or with Oren, I can't really comment on that (other than to say that A) I'd like to know where the "extreme right-wing and even fiscistic" quote was made, since that entire paragraph seems to be copied verbatim - unsourced -on sites criticising the Center and B) I'd think Barak would be leery of accusing others of campaign finance misconduct). However, his sources are listed in that article (LBJ, National Security File, Box 104/107, Middle East Crisis: Jerusalem to the Secretary of State, June 8, 1967; Barbour to Department, June 8, 1967; Joint Embassy Memorandum, June 8, 1967). I can't access those references from this side of the Atlantic, but maybe you can. In any event, the date of Jerusalem's conquest is an easily checkable historical fact. It's also my understanding that Cristol's book reached the same conclusions regarding American knowledge of an impending attack on the Golan as Oren did; and AFAIK, both works are independent of each other.

[Liberal Dose]

59. Perhaps you didn't see my original post

http://www.ussliberty.org/report/report.htm

http://www.ussliberty.org/

[Vladimir]

65. OK, I did see it

however I clicked on the second link, and it seemed to have nothing to do with the Liberty - you may wish to fix that.

am studying it now, will post a bit on it later.

[Liberal Dose]

68. Is the second link taking you to a "Don Marquis" website? That happened to

me, too. Weird. I thought something was wrong with my browser. It shows up if you look at the google cached page, though.

http://64.233.187.104/search?q=cache:-7c8Y68YodcJ:www.ussliberty.org/+%2Bisrael+%2B%22uss+liberty%22&hl=en

[Vladimir]

74. Yes it is

very weird. Anyhow, I have now looked at the website. On the one hand, it does seem to have been a quite deliberate attack, on the other, I still see no particular evidence that it was going to be blamed on the Arabs - and nowhere on the website is the claim made that I can find. Clearly, the fact that lifeboats etc. were being shot up does indicate that the IDF didn't want there to be any survivors though, but it still seems to me that were the attack done for such obvious strategic reasons (one can only presume to draw the US into the war), it would have been done far less clumsily, and with a lot more than 3 planes and a handful of torpedo boats.

[still_one]

77. Israel was WRONG to attack the liberty

and even wrong not to help the survivors

They did it so the war, which was started by the Arabs to destroy it, would not be stopped prematurely so they could capture the Golan Heights and Jerursaleum

They were afraid the U.S. would have tried to stop them

It does not justify anything, it is just what happened

[Liberal Dose]

84. The thing that pisses me off the most is how the survivors have been

treated. http://www.ussliberty.org/apologists.htm

[still_one]

85. that is mostly to blame on the U.S. government

both democratic and republican

[Liberal Dose]

87. and Israelis as well

http://www.usslibertyinquiry.com/arguments/American/israelidefenses/antisem.html

Consider the comments of Yiftah Spector, the first pilot to attack USS Liberty. Recall that he admits that he knew that the ship was in international waters and that he did not know the nationality of the ship he was attacking. With this in mind, Spector recently said in an interview:


"I'm sorry for the mistake. In war mistakes happen," Spector said. "But it wasn't my mistake."

He added he remained baffled that the conspiracy theories live on that Israel deliberately attacked the US intelligence ship. He suggested it might be due to anti-Semitism, or anti-Israeli sentiments. He has never in the past 37 years ever met with any of the Liberty survivors, but had no qualms about doing so now.

"These people never, ever spoke to me. Perhaps they are anti-Semites? Or these guys feel hurt and are looking for guilty parties, maybe to get compensation, or money? I am not afraid to meet them. Anyone who wants to meet with me is welcome. I don't have any claims against them. I don't want any compensation from them or anything. If they want they can look me up. And they best not deal with lies and deception since it won't help. It's best they tell the truth."

"They must understand that a mistake was made here," Spector said. "The fool is one who wanders about in the dark in dangerous places, so they should not come with any complaints."

[still_one]

89. no, the cover-up is the fault of the U.S.

The ship and crew were from the U.S. They knew what happened, it is the U.S. who is responsible for the cover-up period

[Liberal Dose]

93. I was talking about the survivors being called liars, anti-semites, etc.

[Coastie for Truth]

105. Jim Ennes

has allowed himself to be used by some anti-semitic and extreme right wing groups.

[Coastie for Truth]

106. The coverup of Pueblo and Liberty

(and Kerratuck (sp?) during WW2) were designed to protect the Naval Intelligence bureaucracy - and a command structure separate and distinct from and independent of the operating forces of the United States Navy.

[Coastie for Truth]

101. My cousin Phil

was killed by the United States Army in a "friendly fire" so-called accident.

Phil was like my older brother - taught me to swim, shoot baskets, hit a baseball, field a baseball.

And, my cousin Phil was killled by the United States Army's friendly fire.

Pat Tillman was killed by Friendly Fire.

[Coastie for Truth]

99. What pisses me off is how Libertysurvivor Jim Ennes

and his new found "Swift Boat Veterans For The Truth" buddies O'Neill and Corsi covered up the "friendly fire" deaths of other Swifties --

1...http://www.uscg.mil/hq/g-cp/history/WEBCUTTERS/Point_Welcome.html
2. http://www.aug.edu/~libwrw/ptwelcome/PointWelcome2.html
3. http://www.usni.org/navalhistory/Articles98/NHwells.htm

[Name removed]

78. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Vladimir]

80. Yeah, you see its the bit where the author says

'to potentially 9-11 itself', where I stop caring what he has to say. That particular conspiracy theory is part of a fairly despicable genre...

Still, not to be unfair, I can see how the argument could be made that Israel intended to blame this on Egypt - I just don't consider it proven from what I have now seen. The official whitewash does not, of course, help understanding the matter in the slightest.

[Liberal Dose]

82. Nothing will ever be proven unless there is a complete investigation.

Scapegoating the Arabs is just one conclusion for those who continue to be left speculating on their own.

[Coastie for Truth]

104. I would blame it on the same

incompetence of the Chief of Naval Intelligence, on his convoluted telecommincations systems, and on his independence from the operating forces of the United States Navy.

This is all documented in Bucher's book about the loss of the USS Pueblo, and the official investigation of the USS Pueblo.

[Coastie for Truth]

97. USS Liberty - USS Pueblo - Chief of Naval Intelligence

The "What really happened" story is from the James Ennes -Alison Weir web site (altho on the Liberty, Ennes turned up in the Joe Corsi-John O'Neill "Swift Boat Veterans for the Truth" organization) James Ennes is a not so innocent dupe of the Chief Of Naval Intelligence's deadly spin machine.

According to Federal Judge (and retired Navy Captain) A. Jay Cristol and USS Pueblo CO Lloyd Bucher, the cover up was a coverup to protect the bureaucracy of the Chief of Naval Intelligence.

The Chief of Naval Intelligence screwed up Liberty - didn't tell the operating forces or the Israelis that Liberty was there, even denied that it was there. Chief of Naval Intelligence put out a cover story that the ship was a "false flagged Russian ship" and then another cover story that the ship was a "false flagged Egyptian troop carrier."

Then, just eight short months later the Chief of Naval Intelligence screwed up Pueblo the same way - didn't tell the operating forces, or the South Koreans or the Japanese that Pueblo was there.

The "truth" about Liberty is in both:
1. CAPT A. Jay Cristol, "The Liberty Incident"
2. CDR Lloyd Bucher, "Bucher:My Story"
and also alluded to in the report on Pueblo.


Why am I so concerned -- BECAUSE MY LATE FATHER WAS A NAVAL INTELLIGENCE OFFICER IN WORLD WAR 2. IN 1945 MY DAD'S "NAVAL INTELLIGENCE" RECON PBY CATALINA WAS LOST AT SEA - AND THE INTELLIGENCE TYPES SAID THAT HE AND HIS CREW WERE IN AUSTRALIA. IT WAS PURE SERENDIPITY - AND A GREATER FORCE - THAT HE AND HIS CREW WERE SIGHTED AND SAVED BY ANOTHER US SHIP -- THE INTELLIGENCE ASSHOLES SAID HE WAS IN AUSTRALIA ---UNTIL HE AND HIS CREW MADE IT BACK TO THE TENDER.

[geek tragedy]

100. Whatreallyhappened is known as an anti-semitic site.

Forgive me if I don't consider what they have to say.

[graphixtech]

103. MediaMonitors.net Recent Article about USS Liberty

http://usa.mediamonitors.net/content/view/full/15695

"Thirty eight years have passed since Israel attacked the USS Liberty on June 8, 1967. The Israelis said it was all “an accident.” This is same excuse they used, in 2003, when they killed Rachel Corrie! Thirty-four Americans died on the Liberty and 173 more were wounded. The Liberty’s Vets believe the assault was deliberate and have charged Israel with committing War Crimes."


“Justice delayed, is Justice denied.”
USS Liberty Vets Demand End to Coverup!
by William Hughes
(Friday June 10 2005)

-- William Gladstone

Washington, D.C. - On June 10, 2005, veterans of the USS Liberty, <1> and their supporters, gathered on the 11th floor of a downtown hotel, not far from the White House. Thirty eight years have passed since the Liberty was subjected to what credible, eyewitness survivors believe was a premeditative and brutal attack by the military forces of Zionist Israel. The Israelis have always whined that it was all “just an accident.” <2> It’s clear to me, and many others, that justice has not been done in this case. The primary purpose of today’s confab, sponsored by the USS Liberty Veteran’s Association, was to announce the filing of its brief with the Secretary of the Army. It charges Zionist Israel with War Crimes! <3>

The Liberty Vet’s brief is entitled, “A Report: War Crimes Committed Against U.S. Military Personnel, June 8, 1967.” It is a cogent, detailed, factually-based and scathing indictment of deliberate wrong doings by Israel, on June 8, 1967, when its air and naval forces attacked, without provocation, the USS Liberty, (AGTR-5), an Intelligence ship, in international waters. That vicious crime consisted of repeated Israeli assaults on the vessel by Mirage fighter bombers, Dassault Mystyre III jets, and torpedo boats. The Israelis used missiles, rockets and napalm to slaughter 34 of the Liberty crew members, wounding 173 others. The monstrously evil deeds of the Israelis also included the machine gunning of the Liberty’s life rafts. <4> The Liberty Vets’ “Report” rightly describes the egregious conduct of the Israelis as being in violation of the terms of “the Geneva Convention” and as demonstrating a gross and “wanton disregard for human life.” <3>

A cook on the Liberty, who was wounded, Seaman Warren D. Heaney, told me before the conference, “We need some closure to this event. It has been going on much too long. It’s wearing us down. The families of these men need the real reasons told why their loved ones had to die.” Maurice B. “Moe” Shafer, a Chief Petty Officer on the vessel, who spoke at the conference, said, “It’s long past the time to conduct this long overdue investigation...It is time to uncover - the coverup - and let’s get to the truth!”

Incidentally, I couldn’t help but notice the absence of any members of the U.S. Congress and/or officials from the Bush-Cheney administration at today’s event. This was in marked contrast to the annual conference of the powerful pro-Israeli lobbying juggernaut - the American Israeli Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC).

(more at link)

[Behind the Aegis]

121. Media sources

Mediamatter is not much better than Whatreallyhappened as far as being "balanced." Perhaps, like a broken clock, the are correct two times a day, but pretty useless the rest of the time.

[pelsar]

110. its pretty obviously was a mistake.....

i really dont understand what all the confusion is about. If the Israeli Air Force had plans to sink the ship as opposed to attacking a target of opportunity, the two flights of attacking jets would hardly have used napalm and light rockets and 20mm.

sinking a ship fast was shown in WWII is best done with bombs....so its pretty strange that the israeli airforce who just days earlier bombed the arabs combined air forces on the ground didnt "bring with them any bombs"

as far as what the crew did or didnt know....what could they possibly know...they were under attack, they would have no idea who, what or why....

and finally....attacking the wrong ship....its happended before, heres just one incident,(note it was two full flights of slower moving US Navel fighter planes:

The survivors describe how the American Navy planes repeatedly attacked the boats, and ignored the American flag that two members were holding in plain sight from the roof of the boat and at the stern.

http://www.pacificwrecks.com/walkabout/rabaul/ptboat.html

or the famous bismark incident:
The famous hunting of the German ship Bismarck during that war saw a curious incident. The British aircraft carrier Ark Royal, having detected Bismarck, launched fourteen Swordfish torpedo planes at it (top speed around 154mph) . Emerging from cloud cover, the planes found they had total surprise as the ship returned no anti-aircraft fire whatsoever. Only after the eleventh torpedo had been dropped was the reason realized: their target was actually a British ship: the Sheffield.

trying to say that the liberty incident was intentional has no basis in the reality of happenings of a war zone....

[redqueen]

31. I disagree completely.

We need to look at the whole situation plainly... not cherrypick what issues we'd like to address so as not to upset anyone.

[PurityOfEssence]

36. Would the IWR have passed without so much assistance by pro-Israel folks?

Probably, but it's an interesting question. When Congressman Moran said that Israel has far too much influence in our government, he was vilified far and wide.

Here in Los Angeles, four Democratic Representatives voted for it. Why would Howard Waxman do such a thing? How about Berman, Schiff and Harman?

Not mentioning the Israel issue is to miss the elephant in the room, and doing so is not anti-semitic. If Israel is to be sustained and coddled REGARDLESS of what it does, it's neither wise nor fair.

[still_one]

43. don't speak of logic, that may mean we need to actually think

[donkeyotay]

48. Substitute "China" for "Israel"

If China had has much say about our governance as Israel does, people would be up-in-arms. The state of Israel is separate from Israel as a religious concept. A state can always be criticized, and I don't think you can really appreciate our situation without including the influence of the Likud. Does that mean Israel should be "blamed" for the war? No, but as one of the players, neither should it be omitted from an attempt to understand exactly what happened. Zionism, both Christian and Jewish is a political issue and should stop hiding behind religion.

I hope to hear more liberal American Jews speak out against the rightwing ideology both here and in Israel. There's plenty of debate about it everywhere except here. The American people are called names for even trying to discuss this important issue, and that's not right either. Neo-bigotry is what that is.

[Kagemusha]

55. Look, people. The Bush admin is to blame. Full stop.

Whatever influence Israel may have had that the government of Tony Blair did not have, the most that was possible at a governmental level was to nudge the Bush administration in a direction it was already heavily determined to march towards. Aggressive war is something that can only be blamed on the sitting government of the superpower, i.e. the Bush Administration. THAT is why Israel is only a tangental concern in this. Not because it isn't involved, but because its involvement pales to the involvement of the US government.

[trebizond]

75. Amen. The voice of sanity.

The Bush administration is a hard-right, corporate-dominated, imperialistic, corrupt, self-serving regime. They invaded Iraq because it suited THEM--not because a small foreign nation seduced them into it. I cannot fathom why some progressives are unwilling to accept that.

[readmylips]

67. Israel is being held captive by US...

The country is way too deep in the same shit barrel with the US and they can't get out. I'd like to see Israel step back and reject the strong hold the US has on the country. Reject the guns, bombs, all war paraphernalia from the US. Work for Peace..but if they do that, little bush might bomb Israel. If you're not with us, you're against us.

I used to like Israel and all the support for Israel. Now I think someone should take Israel out of it's misery. Boom! The money US politicians waste on behalf of oil conglomerates, just to have Israel in the backyard of their oil fields, are billions that should be spent to give Americans a better quality of life. Billions that should be spent helping the poor throughout the world. Fok Israel.

[bribri16]

69. The cry of "anti-Semtism" everytime somone critices Israeli policies in

the ME and US unbalanced support of the Likud government and the control of our politics by Isareli supporters and lobbyists is really getting tired and is having a reverse affect. No one ever gets criticized for criticizing Arabs or other foreign nations or their leaders. I think there is now a growing back-lash against Israel because of the supression of freedom to speak out about US foreign policy where Israel is involved.

[jasop]

72. And exactly why is it only Israel that you can't talk about? I will never

understand how you can have a discussion anywhere in the world about politics and criticize all types of wrongdoings by any government EXCEPT Israel. Why?

[Coastie for Truth]

120. Just like in the 1970's

we couldn't talk about neighborhood schools because it was perceived as racism. Well some folks perceive some of the lies, half truths, and innuendoes as racism.

[Behind the Aegis]

90. Sometimes the cries need to be heard...

When comments like, "Now I think someone should take Israel out of it's misery. Boom!", you can see why some of us are very sensitive to comments about Israel. Truth be known, it is OK to criticize Israel, but for some of the left, it is just a clever excuse to cover up their own anti-Semitism!

[Colorado Blue]

95. Amen. I am deeply distressed by both the ignorance and

the degree of sheer hatred that is being expressed on these threads.

If these are progressives than what the hell is the FAR RIGHT up to?

I'm afraid to think.

I'm afraid, period.

[Coastie for Truth]

115. It was kind of like the cry of Limousine Liberals

in the 1970's -- "Yes I support school integration and Brown v. Board of Education - but don't mess with the academic, classical academy magnet school in MY neighborhood."

Code words. In the 1970's truth be known, it was marginally pushing the envelope to talk about the academic magnetic classical academy in your own neighborhood, but for some limousine liberals, it was just a clever excuse to cover up their own racism! I see the same thing here.

[Coastie for Truth]

116. Kinda like the cry of the limousine liberals in the 1970's

"Protect our neighborhood, academic magnet, classical academy - we support integration but protect our neighborhood, academic magnet, classical academy."

A code word for racism.

[Coastie for Truth]

122. Like in the 1970's

the cry of "racism" every time somebody stood up for neighborhood schools, or mgnet schools, or classical academies or academic standards. Accused of racism.

Well get friggin used to it.

[donsu]

73. "there is no place in this debate" for Nadler to call Israel "her"

you know that every time a politician refers to a country, including our own, as female, that the politician has a sordid agenda. or they are trying for the mom and apple pie reaction.

and Nadler is wrong - Israel is deeply involved with the criminal bushgang.

[Coastie for Truth]

114. And Shell Oil isn't

Shell Oil has been indicted for "materially overstating proven reserves to manipulate the price of its stock" - and has been sued for diverting corporate funds to pay bribes to terrorists.

Like Mark Felt told Woodward and Bernstein -- "follow the money" - at like $58/bbl.

This is first, last, and always, American blood for oil to in a war to make the world safe for soccer moms driving their spoiled kids around in 8 mpg Hummers.

[The Stranger]

88. 87 posts and still no third vote to send this thread to the "Greatest"

topics board?

[Jim Sagle]

124. I've seen better threads on a thrift-shop suit.

[Coastie for Truth]

92. I think a real case can be made for some Texans

some "Friends of George's"

1. with his membership on Cheney's secret energy task force, and his spy in the White House manipulating the Kyoto-Global Warming Debate, and Exxon Mobil's financial need for Middle Eastern oil.

2. James Addison Baker, III - Attorney for Shell Oil, ExxonMobil, the Bush Family and the House of Saud, Director of the , fomer Bush I Secretary of State, former Bush I White House Chief of Staff.

This is so totally a war for oil hegemony - classic petroleum politics war for oil.

[Burried News]

109. Looks like fair or unfair it will involve Israel

It seems to me though that the opposition Israeli's do a better job pressuring Sharon than we do pressuring Bush - maybe that's because the have Haaretz and we don't.

[Coastie for Truth]

113. If you don't think oil is the big, primary, number one motivator

you've been chugging too many Lone Star long neckers at the San Jacinto Inn and the Petroleum Club.

[Coastie for Truth]

112. A generation from now

when we look back on gasoline powered cars as "so 2005" and the archives are opened up - we will see -- it was a cabal of oil people - oil company "suits" and their political beneficiaries.

And the names will include the top level of management of the ExxonMobil and TexacoChevron and Unocal and BP and Shell, and Carlyle and Halliburton - and names like ExxonMobil CEO Lee Raymond and TexacoChevron CEO David O'Reilly and VP and Halliburton CEO Dick Cheney and Bush lawyer Jim Baker and a collection of Bush Hangers On -- and the Neocons/PNAC will be seen to be low level arendators and theoreticians who provided a patina of intellectual cover to Cheney/Bush (notice the juxtaposition).

:sarcasm: Maybe it's a cabal of Ivy League Southern Methodists - Bush, Cheny, Baker :sarcasm:

[Zerex71]

117. Can someone tell me why Israel is off the table as a topic for discussion?

I think it's in fact highly appropriate that their role in all of this be discussed, because we all know it's what drives our foreign policy in the Middle East. They're fair game as far as I'm concerned.

[Behind the Aegis]

118. It isn't.

Although this topic shouldn't have been moved to this particular forum, the discussion of Israel is not "off the table," as demonstrated by the name of this very forum. What is "off the table" or at least what should be, is anti-Semitic rhetoric. There is quite a bit of anti-Semitic crap spewed under the guise of anti-Israeli sentiment. Israel, like any nation, is not beyond reproach nor exempt from criticism of her policies. The real problem is when people want to discuss Israel's involvement in something that the real critics' voices are lost because others take advantage of anti-Israeli sentiment to spew hateful anti-Semitic diatribes.

Not all criticism of Israel is anti-Semitic, but repeating lies and misconceptions, can be.

As for Israel "driving" our foreign policies in the Middle East, you might want to rethink that. OIL, the black crude stuff bubbling up, is the REAL DRIVE of our Middle Eastern policies. Israel, like a few other nations, are nothing but pawns and scapegoats. Does Israel have some influence in US Middle East policies? You bet they do! DO they control it? Not EVEN close to it!

[Name removed]

155. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Coastie for Truth]

119. Wrong On Two Counts----

because we all know it's what drives our foreign policy in the Middle East.

OIL
is what drives our foreign policy in the Middle East. If you want to blog constructively - Google "Mark Sykes" and "Sykes-Picot Agreement".

Better yet - go down to your library - go over to www.amazon.com - and get yourself a copy of A Century Of War : Anglo-American Oil Politics and the New World Order by F. William Engdahl - which traces the ME issues back to the 1890's. To save you time - here's the link on Amazon .

They're fair game as far as I'm concerned.

There's a difference between the envelope of fair game, and outside the envelope into foul game. It kind of like the cry of the Limousine Liberals in the 1970's

"Protect our neighborhood, academic magnet, classical academy - we support integration but protect our neighborhood, academic magnet, classical academy."

which was a code word for racism.

[Name removed]

127. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

129. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

131. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Colorado Blue]

133. Well, I don't really think Jewish victimhood has a hell of a

lot to do with Middle Eastern oil.

Well, actually it does, come to think of it. But, that's another story:)

And, it is true that Al Qaeda has recently made specifically religious threats gainst "Christians, Jews and Crusaders".

But, important as "holy war" might be to al Qaeda, and deadly as sectarian violence within the Middle East has been, I think the West has other priorities.

Securing scarce resources, upon which the world's economy is utterly dependent, is the goal here, I think. The region is fragile, politically, and Saudi Arabia, our primary source, has suffered internal attacks. Worse, she might be running low on oil. Other fields in the region - Iraq and Central Asia - offer fresh resources. Big pipeline projects were planned years ago - through Turkey, and south through Pakistan and India - and are now underway. Haliburton - Cheney's old company - and Enron were both involved in the planning and Haliburton, I believe, has some contracts.

Whether imperialism is the right way to secure scarce resources is another debate. I think most of us would prefer other means of procurement (understatement). Nevertheless, precedent is ample. The behavior of the US since the late 1960's has been increasingly aggressive concerning the use of military force to secure regional dominance and access to resources, but it actually has a much longer history - dating back to the 19th century. During the Reagan Administration, our adventures in the Middle East and Latin America were extraordinarily violent. Gulf War I was a continuation.

And our allies, the British, still have global interests and connections as deep and wide-ranging as any empire in history.

Attempting to frame this particular war as a religious attack, with the Jews somehow acting as the pivot point, strikes me as being a tad innaccurate.

Plus, I'm not sure I like to see myself in perpetual misery, stuck between two warring empires of the spirit.

Oi.

[Name removed]

134. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Behind the Aegis]

135. views

Ernst Zundel has a whole piece about "Jewish victimhood." Not sure who he is? I'll save you a Google search. He is a Holocaust revisionist. He believes that the Holocaust was "invented" to perpetuate the idea of "Jewish victimhood." Try a Google search on "Jewish victimhood," you will encounter some 'fascinating' sites.

[Zerex71]

136. What's your point?

Seriously, what point are you trying to make?

[Behind the Aegis]

137. Implications

You are implying that because of "Jewish victimhood," the Jews who are neocons encouraged or were directly involved with the Iraq invasion because a war with Iraq would serve Jewish purposes. It is an anti-Semitic assertion!

[Zerex71]

138. That's not anti-Semitic in the least bit.

This is exactly my problem with people who run to grab the 'anti-Semitic' epithet at every possible turn. This is also exactly what I talk about when I say the perpetual motion machinery of victimhood -- WHY is it that we are NOT ALLOWED to ask these questions about Jews and Israel? WHY are these topics off-limits? WHY can we not be allowed to even POSSIBLY SUGGEST that there MIGHT be some grain of truth to this? WHY is this the genetic reflex that comes up EVERY TIME someone brings up something involving Israel?

All I know is, you're making my point for me.

For example, if I turned the tables and made the claim that somehow the Palestinians were behind this, would you jump on me and say that was anti-Palestine? I doubt it!

[Behind the Aegis]

140. let's be very clear

Your assertion is that one of the underlying reasons for the illegal attack on Iraq is because the Jews wanted it?

[Zerex71]

141. No, I never said that.

I am saying that because of these very influential ties that's it's also very possible that there is a strong influence to have done so (invade). Try not to infer anything that I did not say. Personally, I think this has more to do with the PNAC crowd but it involves them all -- think about it: the PNAC has a large Jewish contingent and is very plugged into the AEI/JINSA circuit; Bush has a personal grudge against Saddam and a megalomaniac complex stemming from massive a inferiority complex; and Cheney and his cronies stand to benefit immensely financially from such a war. All of these confluent factors are part of it.

[Behind the Aegis]

143. And the fact still remains....

...the US would have still attacked Iraq, with or without, influence from Israeli supporters. But, to suggest played one of the biggest, if not the biggest role in this illegal war, is short-sighted and ill-conceived.

[Zerex71]

149. Who's saying it's the biggest role?

Who's making this assertion? A strong role, perhaps, but not the biggest one. I outlined how they are all part of a confluence of factors that caused this thing to happen, a series of factors that also include a compliant, complicit press, and an American public too hopped up on reality TV and trans fats to care much about what happens beyond their own provincial borders.

[Name removed]

139. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Behind the Aegis]

142. Wrong definition

Anti-Semitism is discrimination against Jews. Don't take my word for it....

an·ti-Sem·i·tism (nt-sm-tzm, nt-)
n.
Hostility toward or prejudice against Jews or Judaism.
Discrimination against Jews.



Source: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.


anti-Semitism

n : the intense dislike for and prejudice against Jewish people


Source: WordNet ® 2.0, © 2003 Princeton University
from Dictionary.com

And what I am tired of is people acting as if their is only one participant in the process! Israel is, like any other nation, not beyond reproach. But, to act as if it runs the world or just American policy is lunacy! There have been many things for which Israel can be criticized, but she is not the "be all to end all" of world powers.

[Zerex71]

144. I'm not hostile or prejudiced against Jews, nor do I discriminate against

them. Therefore, I'm not anti-Semitic. Pretty simple to see.

It is amusing to see how riled up people get anytime you use the words "Israel" or "Jew" or "Jewish". I'm trying to remember since when these words were banned from English speech and adult discussion, and I can't recall any such time.

[Behind the Aegis]

Banned words

They haven't been banned. But, when they are used in conjunction with conspiracy theories (Jews run DC, London, Moscow or Jews run the Media or Israel is responsible for the Iraq war), they are considered bigoted; i.e. anti-Semitic.

[Name removed]

147. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Behind the Aegis]

151. Not as much as the Oil overlords!

[Name removed]

145. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Behind the Aegis]

148. Lots of power

Israel does hold some influence over US policy and vice-versa. So, does Britian and several other nations.

[Zerex71]

150. I would remind people to look up how much money and materiel

we furnish to Israel in any fiscal year, as compared with any other country.

[Zerex71]

146. People have also forgotten what real anti-Semitism is.

You can be critical of any group of people or country and yet not hate them or have any ill will towards them. People in the United States are so dumb they can't seem to distinguish between real hatred any more. When Dick Durbin says our people act like Nazis down at Guantanamo, he's right! But somehow, people act like "we can't possibly be as bad as NAZIS because that's what made them the NAZIS", when, in fact, we have done things just as bad, sadistic, and morally repugnant.

Evil comes in all forms and does not discriminate in its geographic boundaries, whether converting blood to oil to money in Dick Cheney's pockets, bulldozing refugee camps, or blowing oneself up as a suicide bomber. The United States is not 'the greatest' just because we say we are; and besides, our time has passed.

[pelsar]

156. Zerex....cant distinguish?

sorry bub:
When Dick Durbin says our people act like Nazis down at Guantanamo, he's right!

since you seem not to have an understanding of how nazis treated their prisoners vs the marines in Guantanamo, i doubt very much that you have an understanding of what anti semitism is vs critisim of israel

[Coastie for Truth]

123. Now the Evangelicals

--who would like to see every Jewish person forcibly converted to Evangelical Christianity (shades of Torquemada and Pius IX's kidnapping and forcible conversion of )-- are accusing everybody - Democrats and Jews included - of Link:http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/20/AR2005062000993.html. These are the same Zionist Evangelicals who want all Jews to return to Jerusalem -- to fulfill Biblical prophecy about the second coming.

It ain't the Zionist Jews who have Bush's ear - it's the Zionist Evangelicals - the ones the Dems are accused of . The same Evangelicals who want to replace evolution with creationism and who have succeeded in banning Federal funding for stem cell research and who have succeeded in banning gay marriage and who want a "Marriage Protection" Constitutional Amendment.

Who's got the influence?

[DixieDem]

125. I originally blamed Israel for this war...

It's so darn easy to do. But it's NOT the truth! After much, much research... I now blame this war on oil and war profiteers!

[newyorican]

128. That's funny...

I originally blamed the lust for oil.

Then I discovered that was only part, albeit a large part, of the equation.

Nor do I believe that the war is because of Israel, or being fought for Israel. However, far too many partisans are loudly proclaiming that Israel has nothing to do with the war. That is demonstrably false.

Israel says US will attack Iraq in May

Israel Says War on Iraq Would Benefit the Region

Attack Iraq soon, Sharon aide says

Israel To U.S.: Don't Delay Iraq Attack

AIPAC is pushing for the USA to attack Iran for Israel

AIPAC spurring Congress to pass sanctions bill against Iran

Israel says Iran close to having a nuclear bomb

Israel warns on Iranian "nightmare"

Sharon stirs up conflict with Syria and Iran

Iran, Libya, Syria are next?

Syria's Next

US Assures Israel That Syria And Iran Are Next

War is not in U.S. interest

Sharon Recruits US Mercenaries Against Syria

Sharon Wants U.S. Action Against Syria

Iraqi WMD 'possibly in Syria'

Note: Some of the links have been removed as they sites were of "questionable" nature. IOW, the questionable links were used to sidetrack the discussion into one about sourcing, without addressing the actual topic - being the involvement of Israels political leadership in the march toward war.

[Lithos]

130. Why is

a link to a policy conference that made no claims or statements to attack Iran labled:

AIPAC is pushing for the USA to attack Iran for Israel.

[newyorican]

152. The link...

is to an ominous Flash presentation about Iran's' "march" to developing a nuclear weapon. I seriously doubt the expected reaction is to drop by with cookies and milk for a couple of verses of Kum-bye-ya.

However, if that link in particular doesn't seem to fit, ignore it. There are plenty of other links to articles left to support the point.

That point being Jerold Nadler is wrong. In fact, questions about the war cannot fairly not involve Israel. Unless there is a willful desire to not deal with all of the facts.

[Lithos]

158. I believe the official position of AIPAC

Is for sanctions, not armed aggression. This would be supported by a policy conference.

L-

[Colorado Blue]

132. Even so, the thrust remains the same: Israel somehow

controls the US.

Regardless of all the oil, the geostrategic implications of a military presence in a fragile, war-torn region our economy utterly depends upon, it is ISRAEL who is leading us around by the nose?

This began in the Reagan/Bush Administration, with the arming of Iraq, the arming of IRAN via Israel - in a war which cost a million lives - and the use of vast sums of Saudi money to arm the mujeheddin under Bin Ladin, in Afghanistan, against the Soviets.

Gulf War I, also with the blessings of the British, was the first strike to break down the army we'd built for Iraq, and establish a military presence in the region. This also had the unforeseen consequence of radicalizing al Qaeda against the US, as the presence of our army in Saudi Arabia was seen as an assault on sacred soil. Several attacks followed, throughout the nineties. Clinton tried to warn the Bush Administration, but he and Clarke were ignored.

And, the Soviet Union had fallen. This left the field wide open for the US and Britain and their allies to operate in the region.

Contracts were let for the big pipeline projects from Central Asia to Istanbul or south through India, ages ago. Companies involved were Haliburton and Enron, among others. But, the pipeline projects depended upon security for their construction. Violent incidents in the region were, and continue to be, a threat to their completion and their security.

Additionally, industry insiders began to publicly worry about "Peak Oil", the fact that oil will become scarcer and more expensive even as global demand soars due to third world development.

Though the Israelis were justifiably afraid of Saddam, the war has brought increased violence to Israel as well as blame and condemnation, which is spreading to Diaspora Jewry. Conflation of the war in Iraq with the ongoing violence in I/P has been easy to make with television imagery, cheapshot headlines and internet media.

The resulting instability and pressure on Israel must have been foreseen as a possible consequence by Israeli leadership; it certainly occurred to me. I doubt, therefore, that the desire for war was as insistent as these headlines make it out to be, but rather was an expression of concern for the threat Saddam may still have posed to the region, in a local sense.

Moreover, for all we know, the US was calling in some markers, demanding public support for the war from all corners of the globe, especially where it had influence.

Israel has been used as a pawn of the US before, and will be again.

US interests are global and strategic. The global economy is utterly dependent, right now, upon petroleum and the gigantic related industries. Until alternatives are successfully developed, this condition will persist and, if anything, we can look forward to more of the same.

[newyorican]

153. I have come to the conclusion...

that you are determined to deliberately misinterpret the issue. You are far too intelligent not to understand exactly what I am saying.

Nor do I believe that the war is because of Israel, or being fought for Israel. However, far too many partisans are loudly proclaiming that Israel has nothing to do with the war. That is demonstrably false.

However, you are partially correct in that:

Though the Israelis were justifiably afraid of Saddam, the war has brought increased violence to Israel as well as blame and condemnation, which is spreading to Diaspora Jewry. Conflation of the war in Iraq with the ongoing violence in I/P has been easy to make with television imagery, cheapshot headlines and internet media.

The resulting instability and pressure on Israel must have been foreseen as a possible consequence by Israeli leadership; it certainly occurred to me. I doubt, therefore, that the desire for war was as insistent as these headlines make it out to be, but rather was an expression of concern for the threat Saddam may still have posed to the region, in a local sense.

The same concerns were voiced by millions of protesters around the world before the war. The only ones not concerned were the right wing leadership (in both US and Israel) and their supporters.

The absolute lions share of the blame lies at the doorstep of the White House. But the GOI is not some innocent butterfly caught up in a windstorm not of it's own making. Too may many partisans are attempting to revise recent history by stating that Israel had nothing to do with the march to war. I believe I have proved that to be fallacious.

[bemildred]

154. Heck, I predicted Iraq-2 would be a disaster for Israel.

That was kind of a no-brainer, a common sentiment in certain circles here.
But you are 100% correct that Jabba and the Israeli defense "leaders" were all for it.
I also said they were fools some years ago, I still stand by that.
But, I'm no expert.

[pelsar]

157. no...you havent proved anything....

you have shown that many jewish americans and israelis were in favor of the iraqi war...does that mean that it was they that pushed the agenda?

there are lots of events where both americans and an outside country attempts to pressure america in to a series of actions...witness the political discussions on iran and korea of late....so when an action is taken or not taken you can them "blame them"

no doubt israel was a part of the equation...just as in gulf war I ...when we were told to "suck it up" (our influence sure was effective them wasnt it!)...but to say that the war is BECAUSE of us..or FOR us is pathetic....We dont control the US, we have some influence in certain matters as does England in others....buts thats all legit.

[newyorican]

159. Unfortunately, you have also...

decided to deliberately misinterpret what I am saying.

I state:

Nor do I believe that the war is because of Israel, or being fought for Israel. However, far too many partisans are loudly proclaiming that Israel has nothing to do with the war. That is demonstrably false.

Your retort:
...but to say that the war is BECAUSE of us..or FOR us is pathetic....We dont control the US, we have some influence in certain matters as does England in others....buts thats all legit.

You claim it is "pathetic" to state something I am clearly not saying. Perhaps there is a language barrier? A final attempt to clarify, "Nor do I believe..." = "I do not believe". I can't make it any clearer than that.

As to the point I have repeatedly proved to be the case:

The absolute lions share of the blame lies at the doorstep of the White House. But the GOI is not some innocent butterfly caught up in a windstorm not of it's own making. Too may many partisans are attempting to revise recent history by stating that Israel had nothing to do with the march to war. I believe I have proved that to be fallacious

You concur:
no doubt israel was a part of the equation...
While stating I "haven't proved anything".

I'll go even further in saying that this attempt at revising recent events appears to be in reaction of the predicted backlash in reaction to the quagmire (which was also predicted) that our collective leaderships have either directly caused or encouraged. This backlash is being used by those with ulterior motives as well as the less-informed to paint all Israelis as war-mongering, string-pullers. More informed people know it's the Israels leadership that's war-mongering, wannabe string-pullers.

You can continue to direct your ire at those making the obvious observation of action-reaction, or you can redirect your ire at your leadership. They have thoughtlessly taken positions that leave all Israelis and Jews in the diaspora wide open to those not thoughtful enough to realize it the leaders driving the foolish agenda, not the people. The same is even more true of the US leadership and the average US citizen. What the hell do the leaders care, they are safe in the halls of power. The rest of us are not. We are exposed, and we would be fools not to realize it. In this case denial is dangerous to ones self.

[pelsar]

161. ok....

i concide its a very thin line both you and are walking....in fact the play on who had what influence at what time will infact never be known........

in fact i would say i "jumped the gun" in this case.

I do however disagree with you seperating the leadership in israel from the electorate...here the electorate is more informed and more involved than in the US. Our "war mongering politicians have their own sons/daughters/grandkids in front line combat units (as opposed to those in the US). This tends to weigh on their decisions far more than mere power.....they are not safe in the "halls of power"-they are infact exposed just as much as I am.

[Colorado Blue]

162. I agree with your statement!

"The absolute lions share of the blame lies at the doorstep of the White House."

That's a very big difference from blaming Israel for causing this war, or even for playing much of a role beyond cheerleading for its major ally.

I agree, there was propaganda support for Bush, by the Israelis. However, there was also demur regarding the WMD's. As I recall, Mossad at the time expressed belief that they had been sent to Syria. So if you put the cheerleading together with the "yeah buts" you get a little different sense of the Israeli POV on the matter.

And, as Pelsar says, they're INVOLVED over there, their butts are on the line. Weight must be given to their fears of Saddam. They'd been terrified of his WMD's for years and had been hit by his missiles. This experience, and fear of future warfare, overarches ideological concerns or political correctness, and the Israeli response must be seen accordingly. We in the US don't share that experience and we can't judge the Israeli POV without empathizing with their fears.

This goes for the possible acquisitions of chemical, biological and nuclear weapons by other powers in the region. From here, it's an abstraction. To the Israelis, it's a waking nightmare - as is the frequent experience of violent and deadly terror.

Finally, as in Gulf War I, Bushco was going all over the place trying to dig up allies and moral support. Didn't people jokingly characterize the "Coalition of the Willing" as the "Coalition of the Bribed and Coerced"?

Israel's government, as a tiny client state of the US, was probably, at least to some extent, doing what it was told.

[Jim Sagle]

160. Nadler RRRAWWWKSSS, and so does Israel!

:toast: