THE ULTIMATE DISGRACE OF THE U.S. SENATE

On the same day that the International Red Cross and the United Nations condemned Israel for violations of international law, including deliberate murder of UN aid workers, the United States Senate enthusiastically passed a resolution supporting Israel's invasion of Gaza in every way. While the Red Cross presented detailed stories of Israeli forces deliberately causing the deaths of wounded civilians and small children through neglect, even though Israel's military had posts within a few yards of such horrific scenes, U.S. senators cheered Israel on by voting in favor of a resolution written by Israel's chief American lobby AIPAC ('American Israel Public Affairs Committee'). The resolution unreservedly endorses and supports the murderous Israeli invasion and the lie that Israel is “retaliating” for unprovoked Gaza aggression.

Every senator who voted for the resolution put before him by Israel has branded “murderer” and “coward” on his soul. Those people have no moral or ethical principles, or regard for truth, which can stand up against their fear of not being reelected. They know that in the United States a politician's fate is determined by the good will or ill will of the Zionists who work here to support Israel, and the Jews who support the more active Zionists. And Israel knows that it can do anything, no matter how despicable or illegal or disapproved by the rest of the world, because it can count on the obedient support of American politicians and administrations.

The passive American public's perception of Israel is based on lies, and so it is necessary to repeat once again that Israel in Palestine is an invader, an occupier, and a thief of other people's land and water, as documented throughout VIEW FROM THE MOON. It is also important to remember that Hamas, reviled in the US and Israel with the phony “terrorist” label, was driven into Gaza by violence after its candidates were freely elected as the legitimate government of Palestine.

The current Israeli massacres in Gaza – like the many more limited ones in the past – are obviously timed to inflict the maximum possible damage on Palestine's government and people while the docile Bush administration is still in power. If Israel does not “trust” Obama, we can only hope they are right, and that Obama's pre-election bows to the Zionists were no more than an essential part of getting elected. For me, the great test of Obama will be whether or not he casts off the yoke of Israel.

Here is what the United States Senate supports:

guardian.co.uk, Friday 9 January 2009 11.38 GMT
'At least 30 people were killed in the Zeitoun district of Gaza after Israeli troops repeatedly shelled a house to which more than 100 Palestinians had been evacuated by the Israeli military. According to testimonies gathered by the UN, Israeli soldiers evacuated around 110 Palestinians to a single-storey house in Zeitoun, south-east Gaza. The evacuees were instructed to stay indoors for their own safety but 24 hours later the Israeli army shelled the house with rockets. Around half the Palestinians sheltering in the house were children.'

If There Was Ever Any Doubt. . .

BULLETIN: UNITED STATES NO LONGER MOST POWERFUL NATION ON EARTH

If there was ever any doubt about whether a tiny Jewish colony in Palestine can control the foreign policy of “the most powerful nation on earth”, this story should put the doubt to rest.

Next to getting the U.S. troops out of Iraq, the most important demand on most voters' minds last November was that the Democrats do something to prevent Bush from starting a new war – specifically, against Iran. We now hear that the ever-heroic Democrats are dropping legislation which would require that Bush get approval from Congress before moving against Iran!

What could be worse for the Dems than once more, as they did before the invasion of Iraq, to give an irresponsible megalomaniac carte blanche to invade a Middle Eastern country? This time they can’t hide behind the “we didn’t know any better” lie over which they’re still rending their garments. They don’t even have that feeble an excuse for ignoring their people’s and their country’s interests.

Their reason for abdicating the right of Congress to veto a Bush attack on Iran: “There is widespread fear in Israel about Iran.”

Is that any reason to give a green light to a new war for the United States? Is there “widespread fear in California about Iran”? Is there “widespread fear about Iran in Minnesota or Michigan”? Not likely. What could there be to fear?

We see in this AP article a blood-chilling example of the power of the Israel Lobby over the Congress. Ironically, while the Democrats suffered dissolving spines, Cheney was giving a speech to AIPAC, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, probably the most powerful component of the Israel Lobby.

How much hard-biting analysis of the Israel influence on the junking of the Iran legislation will we hear on MSNBC tonight? I’ll wait to judge the status of Keith Olbermann’s spine until I see what he does with the story on his show.

Updated: 11:07 a.m. ET March 13, 2007
‘WASHINGTON - Democratic leaders are stripping from a military spending bill for the war in Iraq a requirement that President Bush gain approval from Congress before moving against Iran.
‘House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., and other leaders agreed to remove the requirement concerning Iran after conservative Democrats as well as other lawmakers worried about its possible impact on Israel, officials said Monday.
‘The Iran-related proposal stemmed from a desire to make sure Bush did not launch an attack without going to Congress for approval, but drew opposition from numerous members of the rank and file in a series of closed-door sessions last week.
‘Rep. Shelley Berkley, D-Nev., said in an interview that there is widespread fear in Israel about Iran, which is believed to be seeking nuclear weapons and has expressed unremitting hostility about the Jewish state.’

Even from here I can hear the squeak of the twisting of congressional arms by AIPAC.
--------------

And Now,
Good News:

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.

We Fight for Israel. Why?

A premise of this blog is that pro-Israel influence on the U.S. government is the most important story missing from American news coverage.

It’s very rare to hear something like this in the U.S.:

“Jordan’s King Abdullah said Sunday [on ABC, November 26, 2006], the problems in the Middle East go beyond the war in Iraq and that much of the region soon could become engulfed in violence unless the central issues are addressed quickly. King Abdullah said it is natural that Americans, with troops fighting in Iraq, view that war as the major problem in the Middle East. “But, for the majority of us living in this part of the world, it has always been the Israeli-Palestinian, Israeli-Arab problem."

(I have to comment that Americans wouldn’t have the war problem if they hadn’t started the war.)

A few courageous souls have spoken out.

Pat Buchanan, in the March 24, 2003 issue of the "American Conservative”, wrote under the title “Whose War?”:

“We charge that a cabal of polemicists and public officials seek to ensnare our country in a series of wars that are not in America’s interests. We charge them with colluding with Israel to ignite those wars and destroy the Oslo Accords. We charge them with deliberately damaging U.S. relations with every state in the Arab world that defies Israel or supports the Palestinian people’s right to a homeland of their own. We charge that they have alienated friends and allies all over the Islamic and Western world through their arrogance, hubris, and bellicosity.
“They charge us with anti-Semitism—i.e., a hatred of Jews for their faith, heritage, or ancestry. False. The truth is, those hurling these charges harbor a ‘passionate attachment’ to a nation not our own that causes them to subordinate the interests of their own country and to act on an assumption that, somehow, what’s good for Israel is good for America.”

An elected official who speaks out against pro-Israel pressure is rarest of all.

Under the title ”Bush wanted to invade Iraq to help Israel” , U.S. Senator Ernest Hollings wrote, more than two years ago, in May 2004,

“The president’s war has backfired, and we’re creating more terrorism than we’re stopping. . . . Even President Bush acknowledges that Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with 9-11. . . . Of course there were no weapons of mass destruction. Israel's intelligence, Mossad, knows what's going on in Iraq. . . . They have to know. . . . Israel long since would have taken us to the weapons of mass destruction if there were any or if they had been removed. . . .
“With Iraq no threat, why invade a sovereign country? The answer: President Bush's policy to secure Israel. . . . Bush felt . . . spreading democracy in the Mideast to secure Israel would take the Jewish vote from the Democrats. You don't come to town and announce your Israel policy is to invade Iraq. But George W. Bush, as stated by former Secretary Paul O'Neill and others, started laying the groundwork to invade Iraq days after inauguration. And, without any Iraq connection to 9-11, within weeks he had the Pentagon outlining a plan to invade Iraq.”
Hollings named columnist Charles Krauthammer; Richard Perle, the former chair of the Pentagon’s Defense Policy Board; and Paul Wolfowitz, a deputy secretary of defense, as leaders of the push for U.S. wars which would benefit Israel.
“With President Bush's domino policy in the Mideast gone awry, he keeps shouting ‘Terrorism War.’ Terrorism is a method, not a war. We don't call the Crimean War with the Charge of the Light Brigade the Cavalry War. Or World War II the Blitzkrieg War. There is terrorism in Ireland against the Brits. There is terrorism in India and in Pakistan. In the Mideast terrorism is a separate problem to be defeated by diplomacy and negotiation, not militarily.”
Various Jewish organizations attacked Senator Hollings. The ADL (Anti-Defamation League of B’nai B’rith) sent him a letter:

"This is reminiscent of age-old, anti-Semitic canards about a Jewish conspiracy to control and manipulate government. We urge you . . . to reconsider these comments and reject public debate that invokes stereotypes or intolerance of any kind."

(You can always spot the ADL by its use of the word “canard”. It’s almost a trademark, like calling any criticism of the Israel Lobby the equivalent of some insanely inflated theory of a Jewish conspiracy. See, Reductio ad absurdum.)

In response to the charges of anti-Semitism, Senator Hollings spoke in the Senate on May 20, 2004. I haven’t yet been able to find a transcript of that speech, but a report in the ”JTA Global News Service of the Jewish People” offered some excerpts:

“I don’t apologize for this column,” Hollings said. “I want them to apologize to me for talking about anti-Semitism.” And he reiterated his view that the Iraq war was fought for Israel. “That is not a conspiracy. That is the policy, Everybody knows it . . . You can’t have an Israel policy other than what AIPAC (American Israel Public Affairs Committee) gives you around here,”
The JTA article went on to report that some Democrats on Capitol Hill said Hollings was on the mark about AIPAC.
“Sen. Hollings eloquently stated what many members of Congress believe but are too afraid to say,” said one senior Democratic Hill staffer. . . The staffer said lawmakers fear they’ll lose elections if they don’t support AIPAC. “More likely, they’ll lose key fund-raising support or be deluged with calls and appearances from pro-Israel lobbyists and constituents. Sometimes it’s just easier to sign the letter.”

And sometimes it’s just easier to start the war.

We're Losing Patience!

One of the most grotesque features of the current attitude of the Bush maladministration toward its Iraq war – as the situation tumbles deeper and deeper into chaos and carnage -- is to bluster to the Iraqi puppet government, ludicrously cooped up in the American “Green Zone”: “It’s your mess. Fix it, and hurry up about it. President Bush is losing patience!”

The great missing piece in this nonsense is that Bush & Co., including Paul Wolfowitz (who has been kicked upstairs), and Richard Perle (who has lately turned to blaming the U.S. government for botching the lovely war he planned and promoted with lies), refuse to recognize their responsibility for the hideous mess.

Until George II invaded, Iraq was a remarkably stable, prosperous, and orderly country, considering its underlying religious and ethnic tensions and the murderous effects of years of U.S. “sanctions” begun under the reign of George I. One might say that Saddam Hussein demonstrated great leadership in preventing just the kind of civil war which has now broken out.

After invading Iraq and waffling, clueless, over the barbaric rape of Iraq’s antiquities, unique remnants of the first great civilization on Earth, the Bush gang has presided over ever-accelerating violence against both Americans and Iraqis.

Surprise, Mr. Bush! When you attack a country for no reason after starving thousands of its children, bomb its cities, shoot people indiscriminately, render most of population unemployed, make torture national policy, arrest and humiliate the country’s president and murder him via a kangaroo court, how can it be that the people don’t want the Americans in Iraq? It must come as a terrible shock that instead of dancing and singing for the invaders, the Iraqis want to kill them.

To be fair, how could even Bush’s brilliant Brains Trust have predicted that these ungrateful Iraqis, deprived of their leaders, their economy, their jobs, their accustomed supplies of gas and electricity, and their army and police forces, would become increasingly violent not only toward Americans but also toward traditionally conflicting factions. (On the subject of brilliant brains, Richard Perle has been associated with several of those propaganda generators which the press calls “Think Tanks”; a more appropriate name in this case would be “Dumb Tanks”, or more flatteringly, “Fib Vats”.) After all, says Mr. Bush, we’ve done all we can to bring the blessings of democracy to your benighted land, and our marines and army are blasting away at you day and night. What else do you expect from us? Start doing your part! I’m losing patience!

So, says Bush, let’s set some deadlines – er, milestones – for you so you can take the blame for what we’ve caused and we can high-tail it out of here.

However the U.S. gets out, what Israel wanted when it said to Bush through such people as Perle and Wolfowitz, “Let’s you and him fight”, was a helpless, impotent Iraq, and that’s what the Israel got. Democracy and freedom had nothing to do with the invasion of Iraq.

The Israeli goals of eliminating competition in its region are obviously more important to President Bush than the interests of his own country, and he may bask in
AIPAC's
approval as long as Iraq remains one less Middle Eastern rival of the Jewish state. . . unless he balks at attacking Iran on Israel’s behalf.