Friday, June 29, 2007

New Signs of US Decline

World Opinion

"In one measure of Bush's unpopularity," a new Pew poll shows "he is less trusted on foreign policy than Russian President Vladimir Putin by allies Britain, Germany and Canada, even as faith in Putin has plummeted."

The poll also found that majorities in 26 countries now have a less favorable view of the United States than they did in 2002. Also, "opinions of the American people have declined over the past five years in 23 of 33 countries where trends are available."

Successful Competition

UNITED NATIONS (AP) — The main challengers to U.S. economic power — Brazil, Russia, India and China — have overtaken the United States in dominating the global energy industry, according to a new study by Goldman Sachs. The rising power of the four countries — nicknamed the BRICs — is already evident in the metals and mining sector and is starting to be felt in insurance and consumer-related industries . . .

At the end of the first Gulf War in 1991, 55 percent of the 20 largest companies in the energy industry by market capitalization were American. But in 2007, 35 percent of the 20 largest energy companies are from BRIC countries and about 30 percent are American. "The U.S. is now lagging with the smallest percentage number of energy companies worldwide."

In many cases "it really does look like the attitude of European and also the BRIC countries' oil companies has been very different to the more traditional-based players in the Anglo-American world — much less colonialist, much more inclusive, really working together to come up with solutions in a way that seems to have been beyond the traditional competitors."

"We're starting to see this replicated in the mining industry, where 20 percent of the top 20 companies are now from BRIC countries. We believe this sort of pattern will be repeated industry by industry."

It is already evident in the insurance business, where BRICs account for about 10 percent of the top 20 companies, and in the global beverage industry, where the new economic powers are just starting to show with about 5 percent. The BRICs will soon be moving into the food and pharmaceutical sectors.

Wednesday, June 27, 2007

Hurry, Tony Blair, and Stop Israel!

It is being widely reported in most parts of the world other than the US that the military forces of Israel have invaded Gaza without provocation and killed at least 11 people, including a 12 year old child. Israel calls its unprovoked attacks “preventive measures.”

Israel supposedly withdrew from the Gaza Strip and returned it to the Palestinians about two years ago, although retaining control of the airspace and maritime access. The legitimate elected Palestinian government remains in control of Gaza in spite of US/Israel efforts, and the Israeli attacks are undoubtedly part of a campaign to destroy the lawful government and replace it with a puppet theatre agreeable to Israel.

Even Palestinian President Abbas, who has tried and failed to overthrow the lawful Hamas government with US and Israeli backing, struck a pose of condemning the deadly Israeli aggressions. He said, "This bloody escalation, which was initiated by the Israeli government, is a distinct violation of the tahadiyeh [truce], and will lead to a chain of retaliations and the prolongation of violence." His office went on to say that "this aggression comes only a single day after the Sharm e-Sheikh summit and calls into question whether Israel really intends to seal an agreement and negotiate to end the occupation."

Monday, June 25, 2007

Bye Bye Blair? We Should Be So Lucky!

Showdown in the Vatican

I recently watched “The Trial of Tony Blair” on the BBC, a film in which Blair resigns, converts to Roman Catholicism, and is whisked away on a plane to The Hague to stand trial for war crimes in the International Criminal Court.

Would that real life were so satisfying. But those of us who despised the Blair-Bush warmaking coalition do have the satisfaction of knowing the former prime minister must have felt like a naughty schoolboy being hauled into the principal’s office when he made a much-heralded visit to the Pope at the Vatican. Instead giving Blair his blessing, the Pope blessed Blair out. (If that’s an unfamiliar colloquialism, it means “The Pope cussed Blair out,” or “The Pope severely chastised Blair.”) That black smoke seen angrily billowing from the chimney of the Sistine Chapel had nothing to do with the election of a new pope! The Vatican described the exchanges between the Pope and Blair as a "frank confrontation," which in diplomatic language translates as a “profound disagreement”, or, some say, “complete disaster”.
There had been strong rumors that Tony Blair was going to visit the Pope as a step toward his acceptance into the Roman Catholic Church, but instead of welcoming a new convert the Pope criticized Blair for having pushed policies directly contrary to some of the strongest policies of the Church.

A spokesman for Blair had said last week he would discuss with the Pope not only interfaith questions but also world issues such as peace in the Middle East. As it turned out, the discussion apparently consisted mostly of the Pope blasting Blair for his “best supporting actor” role in starting the Iraq War.

Very shortly before Blair’s audience with the Pope, Blair’s spokespersons – aware of looming trouble – toned down the conversion process and said that Blair was going to talk mostly about spreading harmony between Christianity, Islam and Judaism. If he did indeed dare present himself to the Vatican as a man qualified to talk about that subject, he must have increased the papal disapproval tenfold. If Jesus made one thing clear, it was that he hated hypocrites.

A New Job for Tony?

It has been reported that not only President Bush but also Europe's most senior officials have given their support to a plan to make Tony Blair a Middle East envoy. Bush is pressing Blair to become a representative of the Quartet of powers that supposedly are to implement the “road map to peace” between Israel and the Palestinians and Israel’s neighbors.

“Nevertheless some European diplomats are worried that Blair's participation in the U.S.-led war in Iraq make him too controversial a figure in the Arab world.” How understated can an understatement be? Next to George Bush and Vice President Cheney and Paul Wolfowitz, who could be more hated in the Arab world than Tony Blair, and who could be less likely to lead the way on a “road map to peace” – already the least heeded piece of paper in the world next to last year’s grocery ads? Under Blair, Britain was as responsible as the United States for fabricating false evidence and stories designed to justify the invasion of Iraq.

As I was preparing to write about Blair’s conspicuous lack of qualification as an envoy to the Middle East, I found that The Guardian had already done a clever job of it.

This is the great opening statement from The Guardian:

'Many jobs have been touted for the outgoing prime minister. It's hard to say which of them he's most unqualified for.'


‘Special envoy to the Middle East is the most ridiculous of all these touted jobs. The idea that Blair should become a peace envoy in the Middle East, in what the New York Times calls a "visible attempt at laying the groundwork for a Palestinian state", is in a class of its own for sheer absurdity. That is not less so for President Bush's support, nor for the fact that Blair has already applied for the job.’

‘After Iraq, the culminating events came last summer. With Israel bombarding Lebanon, with most Labour MPs wanting an immediate ceasefire, and with barely a fifth of British voters thinking the Israeli action justified, Blair would not budge an inch from his support for Bush and Ehud Olmert.’

It was reported elsewhere that Blair said to Bush last year while Israel’s American-equipped jets were razing Lebanon, and Blair was joining in delaying a ceasefire so that even more Lebanese could be murdered, that he could go to the Middle East ahead of Condoleezza Rice "if she needs the ground prepared as it were ... Because obviously if she goes out, she's got to succeed, as it were, whereas I can go out and just talk".

A fine admission for a future envoy to the area: “I can go out and just talk.” Just what Israel wants in an envoy.

Marc Sirois, of the Beirut Daily Star, wrote that the prime minister had "sacrificed what credibility he ever had in this part of the world" by abdicating any responsibility he had toward the conflict. Blair couldn't possibly act as an honest broker, since "he is identified so strongly by Arabs in general and Palestinians in particular as somebody who supports the policies of the Bush administration. George Bush might be hated here but at least he's respected. Tony Blair doesn't even have respect."

Less respected than G.W. Bush! Tony Blair’s niche in history is assured.

Tony Blair Update, June 28: Hamas spokesman Fawzi Barhum said in Gaza that Blair's appointment as envoy 'is not acceptable to Hamas nor to the Palestinians. He will not
do anything to support the Palestinian interests but will do everything to
support the Israeli occupation.'

Thursday, June 21, 2007



More missing news. I never read or heard this anywhere until today. It refers the U.S. fortified “Green Zone” in Baghdad, which is supposed to be the “safe” area for U.S. personnel, U.S.-protected foreigners, and the puppet Iraqi government:

‘A June 5 U.N. report said insurgents had bombarded the Green Zone with rockets and mortar fire more than 80 times since March, reportedly killing at least 26 people.’

That’s 26 “safe zone” inhabitants killed in two months. I might have missed seeing that number in the news earlier, but I don’t believe we were told about it.

Here’s more of the June 21 article that contained the information:

‘Blasts rattle Baghdad's Green Zone’

‘BAGHDAD (AP) — A series of mortars or rockets slammed into the U.S.-controlled Green Zone on Thursday, and an official said at least one round struck a parking lot used by the Iraqi prime minister and his security detail.
The barrage occurred a day after the U.S. military acknowledged "an increasing pattern of attacks" against the sprawling complex on the west bank of the Tigris River despite a security crackdown now in its fifth month.

'The U.S. Embassy confirmed there were rounds of indirect fire, the military term for rockets or mortars, but said it could not immediately provide details such as where they struck.' [COMMENT: Of course not. That would be very difficult to determine. Duh.]

'Rear Adm. Mark Fox, a U.S. military spokesman in Baghdad, declined to provide details on the number of attacks against the Green Zone, which is also known as the International Zone, but said they were increasing.’

Wednesday, June 20, 2007

Confirmation from Carter

This article about a speech by Jimmy Carter on June 19 contains one paragraph which is definitely NOT by Carter, and which is an outrageous editorial effort to contradict the point Carter is making. I’ve marked that paragraph and commented there.

Carter blasts US policy on Palestinians

‘DUBLIN, Ireland -- Former President Jimmy Carter accused the U.S., Israel and
the European Union on Tuesday of seeking to divide the Palestinian people by
reopening aid to President Mahmoud Abbas' new government in the West Bank while
denying the same to the Hamas-controlled Gaza Strip.

‘Carter, a Nobel Peace Prize winner who was addressing a human rights conference
in Ireland, also said the Bush administration's refusal to accept Hamas' 2006
election victory was "criminal." Hamas, besides winning a fair and democratic mandate that should have entitled it to lead the Palestinian government, had proven itself to be far more organized in its political and military showdowns with Abbas' corrupt Fatah movement.

‘Carter said the consensus of the U.S., Israel and the EU to start funneling aid
to Abbas' new government in the West Bank but continue blocking Hamas in the
Gaza Strip represented an "effort to divide Palestinians into two peoples."

‘****In the latest crisis, the U.S., Israel and much of the West have been trying to
shore up Abbas in hopes that the West Bank can be made into a democratic example
that would bring along Gaza.****’ (MY COMMENT: What the hell is this supposed to mean? The West Bank “a democratic example”? Hamas candidates, not the Fatah rebels who now control the West Bank, were elected to run the government. The Hamas government is the result of democracy and puts democracy into practice. Due to US and Israeli interference Hamas retains its rightful power only in Gaza. The West Bank is presently the world’s most conspicuous example of anti-democracy in action.)

‘Far from encouraging Hamas' move into parliamentary politics, Carter said the
U.S. and Israel, with European Union acquiescence, sought to subvert the outcome
by shunning Hamas and helping Abbas to keep the reins of political and military

‘"That action was criminal," he said in a news conference after his speech.

‘"The United States and Israel decided to punish all the people in Palestine and
did everything they could to deter a compromise between Hamas and Fatah," he

‘Carter said the U.S. and others supplied the Fatah-controlled security forces in
Gaza with vastly superior weaponry in hopes they would "conquer Hamas in Gaza" -
but Hamas routed Fatah in the fighting last week because of its "superior skills
and discipline."’

Monday, June 18, 2007

Lies, Lies, Lies!

I almost took out my rage on the television set last night when I listened to some of the most outrageous lies I’ve ever heard. Here in the US we think of Fox News as the ultimate in dishonesty, but the disgrace last night was on MSNBC. In Keith Olbermann’s absence, his smirking substitute interviewed one of the show’s regular Jewish “experts” about the current struggle between the Hamas and Fatah parties in Palestine.

'ALISON STEWART: And before we let you go, Jonathan, we want to ask you about another conflict the White House has to consider. Islamic fundamentalists led by the Hamas terror organization seized control of the Gaza Strip for [from? This woman rarely seems to understand what she’s reading.] moderates backed by the Bush administration. What does this do to President Bush‘s vision for that region?
JONATHAN ALTER: Well, you know, it‘s just really—it‘s so awful. I mean, here the Israelis unilaterally handed over Gaza. They did what they‘ve been urged to do in the West Bank. Everybody said, Yes, give the Palestinians their territory. So they did that. How were they rewarded? With missiles fired into Israel from Gaza, and now, with a takeover by Hamas, which is committed to the destruction of Israel.'

The truth is that Hamas won the freely held Palestinian elections early this year and assumed leadership of the government fair and square, just as the Democrats did in the US. But Hamas was – to Israeli and American tastes – too popular and too effective in promoting the welfare of the Palestinian people. The US had branded Hamas a “terrorist” organization because it had refused to accept Israeli occupation rather than, like the losing party, Fatah, obediently bowing to foreign bribes. (Incidentally, Fatah is recognized to be extraordinarily corrupt and indifferent to the people’s needs, while Hamas has just the opposite reputation – integrity and great social welfare work on behalf of the people.)

So the US, despite having insisted on the elections which brought Hamas to power, set out to undermine the legitimate government of Palestine and encourage the violent overthrow of Hamas by the losing party. The financial and other methods used were flagrant efforts to destroy a popularly elected legal government. Fatah gunmen (some trained by the US) began to physically attack Hamas people. Israel kidnapped Hamas mayors and other officials. The violent rebellion instigated by “USrael” reached the point of civil war, and the American media cheered not the elected government but the rebels.

But Newsweek acknowledged what was really going on: “As long as Hamas refused to recognize Israel, the United States refused to deal with the Hamas-dominated Palestinian government. The hope was not that ordinary Palestinians would suffer, but that they would realize such a government was not in their best interests. At the same time Washington tried to bolster Abbas and his Fatah movement.” [Isn’t it commendable of the US to starve the people who elected a government so that they will “realize such a government was not in their best interests”] Newsweek: “Hamas, under pressure, built up its own paramilitary forces to counter those controlled by Abbas (and trained by the United States). Then, last week, as tit-for-tat killings in Gaza spiraled out of control, those Hamas fighters in Gaza turned out to be far more fierce than their better-funded opponents. The result: the radicals are now in charge of Gaza.” [Note that “radicals” are not nice. Memo to Newsweek: Why not say, “The elected government is now in charge of Gaza.”]

So, good news – in Gaza (the smaller of the two bits of Palestine not officially incorporated into “Greater Israel”) Hamas defeated the armed Fatah uprising. Hoorah, right? Wrong.


MSNBC told the exact opposite of the truth. Their story implied that Fatah was the legitimate government, which was defeated by some sort of Hamas rebellion while poor deceived Israel stood by wringing its hands.

Alison Stewart said, “Islamic fundamentalists led by the Hamas terror organization seized control of the Gaza Strip [from] moderates” . Her words not only reversed the fact that it was the Hamas government which prevented Fatah from seizing control, but also instructed Americans how to feel about Hamas by calling it a “terror” organization and distorting its nature with the scare words, “Islamic fundamentalists”.

Jonathan Alter joined in the “ain’t it awful” dialogue by saying that poor Israel, which has done so much for the Palestinians (sarcasm!), even being so generous as to give back a small piece of the territory it stole from them, has been “rewarded” with “a takeover” by Hamas. How can you take over a government you were elected to run?

Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas (hand picked for that position by US/Israel, who appreciate his handy-dandy cooperative attitude) swore in an emergency Cabinet on Sunday and purportedly outlawed the militia forces of Hamas. Abbas has no legal power to outlaw anything, least of all the elected government.

Newsweek wrote: “The hurried swearing-in ceremony of the new Cabinet left the Palestinians effectively with two governments — the Hamas leadership in Gaza and the new Cabinet in the West Bank led by respected economist Salam Fayyad. [Notice that the usurper is “respected”, which may be translated into Israelspeak as "easily bent".] Abbas issued decrees Sunday annulling a law requiring the new government to be approved by parliament, which is dominated by Hamas, and outlawing the Islamic group's militias. “ Hmmm. I seem to recall that annulling a country’s laws by decree has been labeled “dictatorship” by the US. Well, yes, but that was last month. Now it is probably something that G.W. Bush admires and envies.

Newsweek sums up with an uncharacteristically candid statement admitting that the US has lost all credibility:
‘Citizens of countries where Washington has called for greater democracy—Iran, say, or Syria—now have three less-than-inspiring examples close to home. In Lebanon, Iranian-backed Hizbullah reigns as a power unto itself [having booted out the most recent Israeli invasion]. In Iraq, the sect-based parties that came to power in the 2005 elections have created a bloody nightmare, and stymied any attempts to forge a truly national consensus. And in the Palestinian territories, Washington simply rejected the election results.’

Another Sign of US Decline

Boeing, once unchallengeable, loses out to rival, European Airbus.

Could it be that the hatred which the US has brought upon itself in the Middle East is reflected in these aircraft orders? Or is it just that once an imperialist nation goes into a nosedive everything seems to start falling apart?

June 18, 2007
‘LONDON (MarketWatch) -- Airbus on Monday announced a host of orders for its airplanes to usher in the Paris Air Show, including key deals with US Airways Group and Qatar Airways.
US Airways said it would order 60 single-aisle aircrafts from the A320 family and another 32 wide-body aircraft. US Airways said it will gradually eliminate its fleet of Boeing 737-300s and 737-400s.
Also backing the Airbus A350 XWB program was Qatar Airways, which ordered 80 of that aircraft. The Middle Eastern airline also increased its orders for the A380 superjumbo to five from two.
Kuwait's Jazeera Airways, meanwhile, ordered 30 Airbus A320s.
Emirates Airlines said it was ordering eight more of the A380 superjumbo, bring its order for the aircraft -- which has encountered multiple production and rollout delays -- to 55.’

Disgrace at De Paul

Bad news. Professor Norman Finkelstein has been denied tenure by De Paul University.

A professor and scholar as widely published and famous as Finkelstein would ordinarily have achieved tenure without a ripple on the sea of academe. In this case, however, a routine tenure proceeding was transformed into a cause celebre by Zionists -- in particular the infamous Alan Dershowitz -- who hate Prof. Finkelstein because he, although a Jew, has been openly critical of Israel and of the misuse of the "holocaust industry". What makes the thing even more appelling is that neither Derschowitz nor his confederates, if any, were connected with De Paul University!

The tenure proceeding became, pure and simple, an ideological battleground between a fanatically pro-Israel propagandist and the voices of truth and reason. It is astonishing that although the advocates of truth and reason far outnumbered the intruding Zionists, and the Zionists blatantly mischaracterized Prof. Finkelstein's writings, the Derschowitz pressure, or extortion, or whatever it was, caused a top man or two at De Paul to cave in and deny Prof. Finkelstein a permanent position.

The result is a total defeat of academic freedom. Shame on those at De Paul University who brought this disgrace on their institution!

Below I re-post my explanation of the case:

'Alan Dershowitz, the fanatically pro-Israel Zionist activist operating out of Harvard, has been outrageously intervening to prevent Professor Norman Finkelstein from successfully obtaining tenure at De Paul University.

'Dershowitz has no connection with De Paul, just as he had no connection with Brandeis University when he undertook to sabotage former President Jimmy Carters’ scheduled speech there. Dershowitz’s motivation in both cases was the same: Prof. Finkelstein and Carter wrote books criticizing Israel.

'I can say from reading both Dershowitz and Finkelstein that Finkelstein is far more honest and scholarly than Dershowitz. Indeed the words "honest" and "scholarly" do not apply to Dershowitz at all. The libelous things which Dershowitz has been saying about Finkelstein in his campaign to prevent the professor's tenure make me smile because they are all applicable to Dershowitz himself!

'Unfortunately, although the whole acadamic world (except Zionists) seems to be expressing support for Finkelstein and disgust with Dershowitz, my impression is that the only person at De Paul University who is opposed to the tenure is one of the two individuals who can prevent it.'

Friday, June 15, 2007

Lewis Libby: "Pardon me."

Lewis Libby, who helped Vice President Cheney and others betray an American CIA agent in order to punish her husband for telling truths that should have undermined a US invasion of Iraq, and who has been convicted and sentenced for lying under oath, is back in the news because the trial judge has refused to let Libby remain free until his appeal is decided . . . there being no chance that his appeal could succeed.

It is notable that now, as when Libby was convicted and sentenced, his name is invariably mentioned in conjunction with the possibility of a presidential pardon, almost as if the natural procedure for all convicted felons is sentencing, appeal, pardon . . . rather than sentencing, appeal, jail. As we all know, pardons are even rarer than honest politicians, almost unheard of. It is also rare for a convicted criminal to be freed pending appeal.

Last night on MSNBC’s “Countdown” a guest expert said something which supported my earlier assertions that there was almost no support among the general public for a presidential pardon. I argued that the instant clamor for a pardon arose from the fact that Libby is Jewish. In accord, the “Countdown” expert stated last night that there was very little support for a Libby pardon outside the Washington beltway, and that the support was primarily from neocons . . . the word “neocons” pertaining to a category of Jews who moved into “conservatism”. (I will write about the meaning of “neocon” soon.)

Below I copy some of my earlier comments, but first I want to suggest that perhaps the constant babble about a pardon is part of a campaign to give the impression – which may not be true – that President Bush can hardly wait to pardon Libby, and to give Bush an excuse to “bend to the public will”. Perhaps the neocons hope to pressure Bush by making it seem that a pardon for Libby is a foregone conclusion. But it is questionable whether any such pressure ever influences G.W. Bush, who, once set in motion, is about as responsive to public opinion as Godzilla demolishing a city.

The real danger that there might be a pardon comes from Libby’s now being able to make a deal with the prosecutor to avoid all or some of his prison term by telling everything that he knows and covered up with lies . . . which means putting Vice President Cheney on the skewer and bringing the fire a bit too close to G.W. Bush for comfort. But only a Godzilla completely immune to all opinion, including the judgments of history, would grant a pardon under such circumstances:

1. The Godfather (Bush/Cheney) does bad things. 2. Subordinate (Libby) lies in court to protect his boss, The Godfather. 3. Subordinate sentenced to jail. 4. Subordinate may avoid jail by spilling the beans about The Godfather. 5. Godfather – the only person with power to keep subordinate out of jail – grants presidential pardon in order to keep subordinate from squealing.

A little too obvious even for President Bush? We’ll see. The Godfather’s favorite method – simply rubbing subordinate out – would be a lot easier.

The rest of this post contains things I wrote about Libby earlier. If you didn’t read them before, let me guarantee you that they really are fabulously important and interesting.

I wrote on March 8, "Let’s Hear It for Libby, Folks”:

‘As one who thinks that I. Lewis Libby got what he deserved, I was surprised that last evening’s television news discussions were virtual pep rallies for Libby’s pardon. Guests had been selected to promote the idea that Libby was a wonderful guy who should be pardoned. Almost all of the Libby-related discussions centered on his prospects for a pardon. Yet no one suggested that Libby was not guilty of the serious crimes for which he was convicted; no one questioned that he consciously, deliberately committed those crimes over a long period.

‘That leads to my final observation on why Libby is being treated like a hero instead of a criminal. When I saw how he was being boosted by the media I checked this morning and found out that he is Jewish. I noticed years ago that whenever an individual somewhere in the world was accused of a crime and there was a great international media outcry in support of the accused and against the accuser, the accused was usually Jewish. It became a kind of game with me to notice the phenomenon of “worldwide outrage” and see if the individual the protest supported was a Jew.’

Soon after that I wrote:

‘Except for almost all their newspapers and television networks, Americans do NOT want Lewis Libby pardoned.

‘According to a new poll from CNN, most Americans do NOT want President Bush to pardon Vice President Cheney's convicted former chief of staff Lewis Libby. "Nearly 70 percent of Americans oppose a presidential pardon for former White House aide Lewis 'Scooter' Libby after his conviction on perjury and other charges related to a CIA agent's exposure, according to a CNN poll out Monday," the news network reports.
Less than 20 percent support a Libby pardon.’

Thursday, June 14, 2007

How Inconvenient!

On June 12, in ”How Convenient?, I published a followup to Senator Joe Lieberman’s call for the US to bomb Iran. Indirectly seconding Lieberman’s motion within hours was a US Undersecretary of State.

“IRAN IS ARMING TALIBAN, U.S. ENVOY CLAIMS.” ‘Undersecretary of State Nicholas Burns, speaking to reporters in Paris, said Iran was funding insurrections across the Middle East — and “Iran is now even transferring arms to the Taliban in Afghanistan.”'

Today comes an assertion which is as inconvenient for the Washington warmongers as Burns’ statement was convenient:

‘Afghan official says Iran is not arming Taliban.
Defense minister dismisses claim by top U.S. State Department official’

‘BRUSSELS, Belgium - Afghanistan’s defense minister on Thursday dismissed claims by a top U.S. State Department official that there was “irrefutable evidence” that the Iranian government was providing arms to Taliban rebels.

‘“Actually, throughout we have had good relations with Iran and we believe that the security and stability of Afghanistan are also in the interests of Iran,” Abdul Rahim Wardak told The Associated Press. “There has been evidence of weapons, but it is difficult to link it to Iran. (They) might be from al-Qaida, from the drug mafia or from other sources,” Wardak said.’

Putting Burns’ words alongside the flagrant lies based on equally “irrefutable evidence” which were used to push America into the Iraq war, the word “irrefutable” now has a new meaning in Washington: “Nonexistent”.

We apparently have truly arrived at the totalitarian world of George Orwell’s “1984”, albeit a few years late, where the Party’s slogan is, “War is Peace; Freedom is Slavery; Ignorance is Strength."

We can now add, “Lies are Truth. Truth is Treason.”

Religious Fanaticism and Middle Eastern Wars

I was checking for new stories about Paul Wolfowitz as he prepares to walk the plank from his presidency of the World Bank, and I came across this article by Christopher Vasillopulos, a professor of international relations at Eastern Connecticut State University. I especially admire the article because it says so many things I’ve written here on VIEW FROM THE MOON.

I quote parts of the article. My comments are in [brackets].


‘Two Jewish neocons have been in the news . . . Paul Wolfowitz, soon to be the ex-president of the World Bank, and Norman Podhoretz, the long-time editor of “Commentary”.

‘Wolfowitz has been forced to resign due to corruption and Podhoretz has made headlines by saying that he is praying that the US bombs Iran. I see these stories as pieces of a larger whole, united by the Jewish idea of entitlement, which in its neocon version has a violent expression.

[So, Podhoretz asks Jehovah to make US bombs rain on Iran while Senator Joe Lieberman takes the low road and calls on television for the US to bomb Iran (see my “a Joe Lieberman note”, June 10) -- a religious and a political double whammy designed to get Americans to kill and die once more for Israel.]

‘A series of recent books which describe the inner workings of the Bush administration agree that Paul Wolfowitz was one of the most important, if not the most important advocate of the Iraq war. As undersecretary for defense, he was the highest ranking of the Jewish neocons, who were unrelenting in their efforts to reshape the Middle East.

‘Long before 9/11, Wolfowitz and other neocons [including I. Lewis Libby and Richard Perle] authored the doctrine of pre-emptive war. As is well known, the fundamental purpose of the doctrine was to create regimes friendly to Israel. Failing that, regimes hostile to Israel would be weakened. What is not so well-known is how Jewish neocons convinced non-Jewish neocons that eliminating Saddam Hussein was essential. Their assertion was simply that Saddam Hussein was an Iraqi Hitler and that failure to remove him would lead to another Holocaust.

[I started to say, “Who would be stupid enough to believe that?”. Then I remembered G.W. Bush.]

‘One would expect the neoconservatives, who almost always default to military rather than diplomatic activity, to use the word, “appeasement” regularly. Instead, they use the word “Holocaust.” This equivalency is based on the implicit allegation that appeasement implies Holocaust. When the Holocaust model is invoked to justify war against the Middle Eastern enemies of Israel, it amounts to a Jewish jihad. An analysis of Wolfowitz’s zeal to invade Iraq, no less than Podhoretz’s obsession with Iran, however, will demonstrate [this claim’s] truth.

‘One need not be Jewish to employ the Old Testament’s perspective that the world is divided between good and evil, an idea that is, in fact, the premise of Christian fundamentalism. Jewish jihadism is a state of mind, one which takes its cue from the Old Testament’s penchant for Armageddon. . . . Paul Wolfowitz and other Jews in the Bush administration, including among others, Douglas Feith, Richard Perle and Kenneth Adelman, have most often played the Holocaust card to shame those who were reluctant to confront Saddam.

[I am soon going to post on FLIGHTS OF PEGASUS more of my own thoughts on the Old Testament and its pernicious influence, “The Impeachment of Jehovah: Introduction” and “The Impeachment of Jehovah.”]

‘To place morality or idealism or any other absolute value in the forefront of foreign policy is to make policy formation an offshoot of a religious commitment. . . All absolutes are religious, for they make a direct appeal to authority that is not tested by reason or evidence. There are countless references by associates of Wolfowitz and other Jewish jihadists that they were dedicated zealots impervious to reason and evidence which tended to erode their absolute conviction that they and only they were right. Realists, like Halper and Clarke and I, believe that international politics are largely determined by national self-interest and that its chief instrument is military power. Realists also believe that this state of affairs, as awful as its can sometimes be, is preferable to international politics driven by any absolute, moral or religious value. Such values are the breeding grounds of fanatics, of those who believe that their actions, regardless how horrific, are ordained by God or some other form of the Absolute. Jewish jihadists, like other jihadists, are ready to destroy the world rather than let it persist in sin.

‘This is how the Iraq war was summed up by Gen. Zinni: “I don’t think the neocons really give a shit what happened in Iraq and the aftermath. … They said: Look if it works out, let’s say we get Chalabi in, he’s our boy, great. We don’t and maybe there is some half-ass government out there, maybe a strong man emerges, it fractures, and there’s basically a loose federation and there’s really a Kurdish state. Who cares? There’s some bloodshed and it’s messy. Who cares? I mean, we’ve taken out Saddam. We’ve asserted our strength in the Middle East. We’re changing the dynamic. We’re off the peace process as the centerpiece and we’re not putting pressure on Israel.”’

[I have previously written that the Israel-first Jews who are responsible for the Iraq war did not and do not care what happens to Iraq now that it is reduced to bloody chaos and rendered incapable of challenging Israel. While American politicians pretend that their war aim was and is “democracy and freedom” for a stable and peaceful Iraq, the neocons will rejoice all the more if Iraq remains in anarchy and American soldiers fight there forever.]

Tuesday, June 12, 2007

How Convenient!

In my last post I included some comments on Senator Joe Lieberman’s recent public statements advocating that the U.S. bomb Iran. One of his angles was that the U.S. should bomb Iran “to stop them from killing Americans” – referring to the American military in the Middle East.

Isn’t it wonderful timing that we now read, so conveniently soon, an MSNBC headline:

‘Undersecretary of State Nicholas Burns, speaking to reporters in Paris, said Iran was funding insurrections across the Middle East — and “Iran is now even transferring arms to the Taliban in Afghanistan.”’

I wonder how Burns defines “insurrections” and which ones he has in mind. In any case, Lieberman has put the bullet in the gun, an American envoy has cocked the trigger, and . . . Israel stands expectantly by, calling the plays and quietly applauding the work of its loyalists in cooking up yet another phony excuse for an American war.

I originally read about Lieberman’s statements in an excellent article by Tim King in I see that Mr. King has published a most interesting followup article, “Lieberman’s Suggestion to Bomb Iran Draws Fire and Support”. Judging from that article, those who write in support of Lieberman’s new war seem out of touch with reality, as well as ignorant of basic facts. One reader refers to Iran as “our deadly enemy”, while another says that the president of Iran has “openly stated” that Iran will attack America. What nonsense.

Congratulations to Mr. King for his good work.

Sunday, June 10, 2007

Why Can't the Tail Deliver the Dog? Also, a Joe Lieberman note.


I’ve been reading Jimmy Carter’s book, “Palestine Peace Not Apartheid”, and one of his comments on his many personal conversations with Arab and Israeli leaders stands out above all others. Carter is writing about the Saudi Arabian viewpoint in the context of U.S. failure to cause Israel to comply with various peace-making agreements in which Israel has made promises and then broken them, as well as to cause Israel to comply with numerous United Nations resolutions.

Carter wrote:

“I might add that the Saudis and many others greatly overestimate the influence of the United States, and they never understand why we cannot ‘deliver’ our own friends [i.e., the Israelis] in the Middle East when it suits our purposes.”

That sentence speaks loudly about who has the controlling hand in the U.S./Israel axis. I’ve repeatedly written in this blog about the Israel Lobby’s dominant and destructive influence on U.S. policies. Some have disagreed, arguing that Israel is a chess piece in a U.S. plan for domination of the Middle East. Historically, there may be truth in the idea that Zionism was used by “Western nations” to serve their own purposes, but today it is quite clear who holds the leash that leads the obedient American mastiff. Israeli leaders have openly boasted for years that they can bring U.S. politicians to heel whenever they please.

It is fascinating that Carter says that others “greatly overestimate” the influence of the United States on a tiny state which the Americans made possible, which the U.S. keeps alive and stronger militarily than its neighbors through massive financing and armaments, and whose foreign policy aims are dutifully supported and echoed by the U.S. in the U.N. and elsewhere. Any reasonable person would think that the United States of America would be, in power relative to Israel, the organ grinder in relation to his little monkey, and not the other way around.

I recommend Jimmy Carter’s book because of its sincerity and the unique first-hand personal experiences recounted there, even though from my point of view it is far too accepting of Israel.


As I was writing this, I read for the first time of Senator Joe Lieberman’s loud call for the United States to bomb Iran – which, if done, would fulfill one of Israel’s most fervently expressed wishes. This is an excellent example of how the Zionist tail wags the American dog. Senator Lieberman is strictly religious Jew with open loyalty to Israel, “one of the Senate's most consistent supporters of Israel, and an advocate of the Iraq War.” (Wikipedia.) His wife is named Hadassah after "Hadassah", the Women's Zionist Organization of America, founded in 1912. Zionism, in case anyone doesn’t know, is the Jewish movement which resulted in the creation of Israel in Palestine and which continues to promote Israel's interests. Need I say more?

Saturday, June 9, 2007


I’ve been mulling over a post for VIEW FROM THE MOON for several days, unsure why I haven’t written anything. For awhile I was asking, “What’s the use?” Maybe I’ll take Cindy Sheehan’s cue. Maybe I’ll just say, “The show is cancelled because of lack of interest.”

I picture those who look at this blog as falling into three groups: 1. A small group who agree with me on Zionism and other things, and who probably know more about them than I do, and who can read the same opinions a thousandfold on other websites. 2. A small group who regularly scan the Internet for anti-Zionist and “anti-Semitic” opinions and leave canned comments lifted from “talking points” distributed by the Anti-Defamation League and the Simon Wiesenthal Center – lifted verbatim, spelling mistakes and all. 3. A very large proportion, a huge proportion, who have no idea what I’m talking about and couldn’t care less. To the latter crowd belong those who think that Iraq attacked the United States in New York, who believe that some nations are “evil” and some “good”, who have absorbed two generations of teachings that Arabs are sinister and cruel while Jews are noble victims, and who have no idea where Palestine and Israel and Iraq and Iran are, much less what Zionism is or how Israel came into being. If I could believe that VIEW FROM THE MOON had influenced even one of this latter group to become informed and to escape the conventional thinking about American foreign policy, I would feel successful and would never consider quitting. . . but I have no reason to be that optimistic.

Viewed from the Moon, the Earth still looks beautiful. . . silent, blue, seductively veiled in swirls of white clouds. But then it always looks that way. From the Moon you can’t see the explosions in Iraq or Palestine. You can’t hear the tortured screams of prisoners of the Americans and Israelis. If you had just arrived on the Moon, in fact, you would have the impression that you were looking across black space at a luminous cosmic paradise.

Paradise lost, perhaps, but not because of a heavenly Old Testament disciplinarian. Paradise lost, rather, because of the nature of humankind and its inability to organize itself so that its most wise, kind, generous and peaceful members are in charge of its nations. When the Earth is viewed from the Earth, where for the most part the greedy and selfish and brutal rule, the peaceful lunar view seems a sad mockery.

And yet lately Americans (those few paying any attention) could get the impression that we are going through a slight lull in the steady rise of violence and insanity. Here are some of the positive events that have created this intermezzo:

1. Neocon Paul Wolfowitz, one of the chief Iraq war criminals, booted out by the World Bank because of brazen misconduct and incompetence as President of the bank.

2. I. Lewis Libby, Wolfowitz’ protégé and co-planner of wars in the Middle East, given a reasonably hefty prison sentence for his crimes, although for some reason still walking around a free man.

3. Representatives of the United States sitting down and talking with Iranian representatives in the first public diplomatic discussions between the two nations in many years. This accompanied by a decrease in American anti-Iranian oratory and in what were almost daily Israeli threats to bomb Iran.

4. Some signs that even Republicans are finally starting to join in pressuring Bush to do something about ending (or at least altering) the American military presence in Iraq.

5. An increase in lip service to curbing global warming.

6. An upset tummy for G.W. Bush which kept him from embarrassing the United States overseas for at least a few hours.

7. That great American national icon (who may replace the Statue of Liberty as the symbol of American ideals and aspirations), Paris Hilton, put into jail for a series of flagrant violations of law, then let out by a strangely compassionate sheriff, and then put back again. Which of that is positive news and which is negative news depends on whether you are Paris Hilton or almost everybody else, but in general it gives the impression that justice is being done, or at least attempted, in a country where there is a blatant double system of incarceration for the rich and famous on the one hand everybody else on the other hand.

Of course I know that there have been negative as well as soothing developments in the past couple of weeks, and that the sewer of horrors gushes unabated in occupied Palestine and Iraq and Afghanistan. I know that those who scheme for war have not stopped their scheming, and that any apparent improvements in U.S. policies will probably prove illusory and shortlived. Nevertheless, being able to write a few positive things has provided a pleasant interlude.