James Bamford's (A Pretext for War) Book on the Israel Firster Neocons : LA IMC

Nice try as mentioning that Condi Rice and others in the Bush regime are n ot Jewish is exactly the cover used by the Jewish Zionist extremist JINSA/CSP/PNAC Neocons (mentioned in Bamford's excellent 'A Pretext for War' book) as described in the following 'Thinking about Neoconservatism' article by Professor Kevin MacDonald who is right on as well:

http://www.vdare.com/misc/macdonald_neoconservatism.htm

Israel taboo/Tomgram: J. Schell on the Kerry Mandate

http://www.fpp.co.uk/online/02/12/Counterpunch_1.html

The following is very concerning... Check out the Schell article
which mentions Lieberman and how he is has joined in on a revival of the Committee on the Present Danger.. Then read what Jason Vest mentions about the Committee on the Present Danger at the beginning of the following 'Men from JINSA and CSP' article:

http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20020902&s=vest

Fisk refers to the 'Men from JINSA and CSP' article above in the
following article (URL):

http://www.robert-fisk.com/articles114.htm

Also, read James Bamford's new book ('A Pretext for War') as it
conveys that the US was attacked because of its support of Israel's
brutal oppression of the Palestinians (see how much Israel receives
via the link at the upper left of www.wrmea.com ). Bamford also
mentions that the JINSA/CSP/PNAC Neocon cabal in the current Bush
regime had wanted to do regime change in Iraq long before the tragic
9/11 attack... Start reading on page 260 of 'A Pretext for War' to
read about the 'A Clean Break' of Zionist extremists Richard Perle,
Douglas Feith and David Wurmser (Wurmser is now working in Cheney's
office as his Middle East 'advisor').

From: "Ronald"
To: "rbleier"
Subject: Israel taboo/Tomgram: J. Schell on the Kerry Mandate
Date: Fri, 30 Jul 2004 15:36:28 -0400

Friends:

Referring to Kerry’s support for a continuation of the Iraq war,
Schell is properly worried that the Democrats “by suffocating
their own passion, they may lose the energy that brought them this
far.” And if such an outcome should materialize, to what extent
would U.S. support for Israel be responsible?

Why is so difficult for Kerry to say, as Nader does, that if elected
he will set a near term date for an end to the U.S. military
occupation of Iraq? The Republicans demand permanent military bases
in Iraq, open economic borders and Iraqi support for Israel. The
Democrats require only the last one.

Any government that comes to power in Iraq will not be tolerated by
the U.S. unless it expressly rides roughshod over the will of 80% of
its people (the Kurds excluded) and totally supports Israel. Thus
support for Israel is a prescription for endless war as long as the
Iraqi people can hold out, or they can force the U.S. to leave. If
Kerry wins, Democrats will be in the terrible position of supporting
the continued occupation of Iraq.

It’s a testament to the power of the taboo on discussion that
might cast Israel in a negative light that Jonathan Schell dares not
point to the reason Kerry cast his vote for war in the first place
(along with Hillary Clinton, Feinstein and others) and continues to
support it.

--Ronald Bleier

----- Original Message -----
From: Tomeditor@a...
To: Nangarr@a...
Sent: Friday, July 30, 2004 2:20 PM
Subject: Tomgram: Jonathan Schell on the Kerry Mandate

Remember the pundits who swore that sides were so set in this
election, political minds so made up that Kerry would be lucky for
the tiniest "convention bounce"? Well, perhaps this is the year to
ignore much of the punditry that rules our media lives. (When you
see that chipmunk grin of George Stephanopoulis, just grab your
zapper and go looking for Seinfeld reruns.) After all, if a year
ago, you had claimed that on July 30, 2004, the Democrats would
emerge from their convention as an energized, "unified" party ready
to roll, who would have believed you? For two months now, there's
been extraordinary anxiety over (and so news value in) the "dead
heat" horse race of the election, and then the other day
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A16026-2004Jul26.html
a Washington Post/ABC poll seemed to show Kerry slipping. Panic!

But, as this convention ends, it's important to put the present into
some modest perspective. Go back to, say, the "mission
accomplished" moment, or any time in the six months thereafter, and
if I had told you that, at the time of the Democratic Convention,
John Kerry and George Bush would be running neck and neck in the
polls, 19 out of any 20 pundits and news analysts (not to speak of
Democratic Party officials) would have laughed in your face and the
tenth would probably have been working for Tricycle magazine, the
Buddhist publication.

Yet even before last night, a convention bump,
http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews848.html according the latest
Zogby poll, was evidently in the works. Kerry, previously in
that "dead-heat" or "losing ground to Bush," was said to hold a five-
point lead even before he delivered his zinger of an acceptance
speech. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A25678-
2004Jul29.html Best lines: "I will be a commander in chief who will
never mislead us into war. I will have a vice president who will not
conduct secret meetings with polluters to rewrite our environmental
laws. I will have a secretary of defense who will listen to the best
advice of the military leaders. And I will appoint an attorney
general who will uphold the Constitution of the United States.") It
certainly helped that the same pundits had set the media bar for
Kerry's speechmaking abilities underground where the living dead
reside. And it helped that the Republican "July surprise" -- the
sudden announcement of the arrest of an HVT (high value al-Qaeda
target) in Pakistan some days earlier
http://warincontext.org/2004_07_25_archive.html#109089611206045515
just as the New Republic had predicted weeks before -- hardly seemed
to dent the Democrats' moment. But amid the celebrations of the
speech and the polls of the passing second, there is perhaps reason
to take a deep counter-celebratory breath.

With his acceptance speech last night John Kerry effectively sealed
what I called, in a recent report from the convention, the
Democrats' http://www.tomdispatch.com/index.mhtml?pid=1634 "front-
room deal." As the post-speech Convention stage indicated, there
wasn't a Democrat in the house who wasn't "unified." Everyone from
Dennis Kucinich to Joe Lieberman was on board (and note, by the way,
that the final night was distinctly the night of the hawks). Though
the delegates at the convention were clearly anti-the Iraq War and
eager to end it in a way John Kerry isn't -- as everyone I met on
the Convention floor had no hesitation to tell me (or other
reporters either) -- they had with forethought set the issue aside
in favor of defeating George Bush, and so rose countless times with,
I believe, genuine enthusiasm to applaud a nominee whose only
significant comment on any war ("As president, I will wage this war
with the lessons I learned in war…") was an implicit pledge to
continue waging it.

Two nights before, the anti-war candidate who sparked it all,
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/07/26/politics/campaign/26TEXT-
SPEECHES.html Howard Dean had pledged fealty ("I may not be the
nominee, but I can tell you this: For the next 100 days, I'll be
doing everything that I can to make sure that John Kerry and John
Edwards take this country back for the people who built it…") and
in his speech devoted exactly one half of one mild line to the war
("…a foreign policy that relies on the president of the United
States telling the truth to the American people before we send our
brave soldiers to fight in a foreign war."); while Dennis Kucinich,
the only antiwar candidate to stay the course almost to the end, did
the same. And they weren't exactly alone. Though there was a fair
amount of media discussion of the way Kerry's people had "edited"
almost all the speeches to keep "Bush bashing" and "anti-war talk"
to a minimum, don't be fooled: This wasn't simply a Kerry-enforced
mandate. The delegates were in on it, and the Democratic primary
voters were actually the ones who initiated it at a time when John
Kerry had just mortgaged his house and was incapable of mandating
anything whatsoever.

Republicans aside, only one key group wasn't on board last night --
but they may be the crucial group, given the subject that has made a
Kerry candidacy possible. Before Democratic voters ever created the
Kerry Mandate, this group made it possible and yet none of them
spoke on any of the four Convention nights or pledged fealty to
Kerry or any other candidate. None of them were, in fact, within
many thousands of miles of the Fleet Center. They weren't the ghost
detainees, but the ghostly undetained of this convention. Because
the Bush administration couldn't shut them down or somehow turn them
off, torture them away, or crush their ragtag resistance, they
created the vulnerable Bush presidency which made the Kerry Mandate
possible. They are the various shades and factions of Iraqi
resisters and insurgents, former Baathists and new-made Islamists,
angry farmers, outraged city dwellers, not to speak of common thugs
and bandits -- in short, the Iraqi resistance and Iraqi chaos all
rolled into one that has come to replace "mission accomplished."

Yesterday, as a shower of mortars onto American bases (and a further
trickle of American war dead) indicated, as the horrific car bombing
in Baquba showed (with its great gash of Iraqi dead), as more
kidnappings and beheadings of truckers made clear, whomever they may
be, they are rushing toward November 2 and beyond, no less energized
than Democrats or Republicans and no less determined.

Here are a few lines I noticed deep into a Khalid al-Ansary and Ian
Fisher Iraq piece in the New York Times yesterday
(http://www.nytimes.com/2004/07/29/international/middleeast/29iraq.ht
ml?ex=1092139693&ei=1&en=ff760f6df216218b "70Are Killed By Car
Bomber In an Iraqi City")

"In downtown Baghdad, one person was reported killed and several
wounded when a projectile struck a residential street alley near
Haifa Street, the site of several recent police raids and
firefights. Two cars were blackened and burnt in the alley. An
angry crowd gathered at the site, and before chasing away a group of
Western reporters and firing a shot over their heads, one resident
said an American Apache helicopter had fired on the street. An
American military spokesman, however, said he was unaware of any
such attack. Insurgents often fire rockets and mortars in Baghdad,
many of which miss their targets and hit residential areas."

Imagine, this is the capital of "our" Iraq where just yesterday in
the Green Zone (yes, it's still there and we're still locked
inside),
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/07/29/international/middleeast/30IRAQ.htm
l?ex=1092192544&ei=1&en=5e7b1f35fcb2e416 according to Fisher and
Somini Sengupta of the Times, "a notice went out… saying meal
service was being cut back to military rations and cold cuts 'due to
unforeseen circumstances.' An American official said the reason was
that Pakistani workers in the Green Zone went on strike after the
two Pakistani hostages were executed the day before."
http://www.boston.com/dailynews/209/world/In_Iraq_growing_number_of_f
oreP.shtml And more truckers (and trucking firms) seem to be leaving
the country daily in this new guerrilla-war-by-supply-line-
strangulation in which things are only likely to get worse. This,
not the Democrats, is really what has driven George Bush to the edge
of a disaster he never even dreamed possible -- and it could, all
too quickly, do the same for a future Kerry administration.

This is what no Democrat should be celebratory about. As Jonathan
Schell makes so clear below, in a piece the Nation magazine has been
kind enough to share with Tomdispatch and that was written before
Kerry gave his speech, the Kerry mandate is a dangerous one. Even
should he win, he seems -- on the theory that Iraq is
indeed "Vietnam on crack cocaine" -- to be heading directly into
Washington's well-known Credibility Gulch (aka "Who lost Iraq?")
and, with angry Republicans out of power and holding his feet to the
flames, into what could be essentially a six-month (or maybe even
six-week) presidency.

This is the Democratic bargain, interpret it as you will. There
will be victors -- and we saw evidence of them last night -- but
perhaps in the end, not Kerry, even if he wins. In what the
conservative New York Times columnist David Brooks in PBS commentary
last night called, with some admiration, a "nationalist" speech, in
a hall that was so much flag wallpaper, amid the serried ranks of
old Vietnam-era shipmates and generals, and with all that "strength"
circling the electronic walls, and promises of 40,000 more troops
and a doubling of the number of special forces, the winner was
certainly an engorged Pentagon (and an increasingly engorged new
American atmosphere of pure militarism), which -- no matter the
winning party -- will only grow larger; and our multiple
intelligence agencies which couldn't be seen, of course, but will
also grow yet more obese under a Kerry or a Bush administration (on
all of which, more to come here soon). Last night -- there can be
no question -- John Kerry accepted the nomination not to be
President but to be, as speakers on the podium reminded us again and
again, Commander-in-Chief of a country, in Kerry's (as in George
Bush's) phrase "at war."

In the meantime, consider Jonathan Schell's latest "Letter from
Ground Zero" and the problems the Kerry mandate and the front-room
Democratic deal are likely to bring in their wake. We face in all
this a conundrum wrapped in an enigma wrapped in a pretzel. The
question is who will choke on the pretzel this time around? Tom

Strong and Wrong
ByJonathan Schell

"During the Vietnam War, many young men, including the current
President, the Vice President and me, could have gone to Vietnam and
didn't. John Kerry came from a privileged background. He could have
avoided going, too. But instead he said, 'Send me.'

"When they sent those Swift Boats up the river in Vietnam... John
Kerry said, 'Send me.'

"And then when America needed to extricate itself from that
misbegotten and disastrous war, Kerry donned his uniform once
again, and said, 'Send me'; and he led veterans to an encampment on
the Washington Mall, where, in defiance of the Nixon Justice
Department, they conducted the most stirring and effective of the
protests, that forced an end to the war.

"And then, on my watch, when it was time to heal the wounds of war
and normalize relations with Vietnam...John Kerry said, 'Send me.'"

So spoke President Clinton at the Democratic Convention--except that
he did not deliver the third paragraph about Kerry's protest; I made
that up. The speech cries out for the inclusion of Kerry's glorious
moment of antiwar leadership; and its absence is as palpable as one
of those erasures from photographs of high Soviet officials after
Stalin had sent them to the gulag. Clinton's message was plain.

Military courage in war is honored; civil courage in opposing a
disastrous war is not honored. Even thirty years later, it cannot be
mentioned by a former President who himself opposed the Vietnam
War. The political rule, as Clinton once put it in one of the few
pithy things he has ever said, "We [Democrats] have got to be
strong.... When people feel uncertain, they'd rather have somebody
who's strong and wrong than somebody who's weak and right."

And now the United States is engaged in a war fully as wrong as the
one in Vietnam. The boiling core of American politics today is the
war in Iraq and all its horrors: the continuing air strikes on
populated cities; the dogs loosed by American guards on naked, bound
Iraqi prisoners; the kidnappings and the beheadings; the American
casualties nearing a thousand; the 10,000 or more Iraqi casualties;
the occupation hidden behind the mask of an entirely fictitious
Iraqi "sovereignty"; the growing scrapheap of discredited
justifications for the war. But little of that is mentioned these
days by the Democrats. The great majority of Democratic voters,
according to polls, ardently oppose the war, yet by embracing the
candidacy of John Kerry, who voted for the Congressional resolution
authorizing the war and now wants to increase the number of American
troops in Iraq, the party has made what appears to be a tactical
decision to hide its faith.

The strong and wrong position won out in the Democratic Party when
its voters chose Kerry over Howard Dean in the Iowa caucuses and the
New Hampshire primary. An antiwar party rallied around a prowar
candidate. The result has been one of the most peculiar political
atmospheres within a party in recent memory. The Democrats are
united but have concealed the cause that unites them. The party
champions free speech that it does not practice. As a Dennis
Kucinich delegate at the convention said to Amy Goodman on Democracy
Now!, "Peace" is "off-message." A haze of vagueness and generality
hangs over party pronouncements. In his convention speech, President
Carter, who is on record opposing the war, spoke against "pre-
emptive war" but did not specify which pre-emptive war he had in
mind. Al Gore, who has been wonderfully eloquent in his opposition
to the war, was tame for the occasion. "Regardless of your opinion
at the beginning of this war," he said, "isn't it now abundantly
obvious that the way this war has been managed by the Administration
has gotten us into very serious trouble?"

What of the antiwar sentiment that is still in truth at the heart of
most Democrats' anger? It has been displaced downward and outward,
into the outlying precincts of American politics. The political
class as a whole has proved incapable of taking responsibility for
the future of the nation, and the education of the American public
has been left to those without hope of office. Like a balloon that
squeezed at the top expands at the base, opposition to the war
increases the farther you get from John Kerry. Carter and Gore can
express a little more of it. Howard Dean, who infused the party with
its now-muffled antiwar passion, can express more still.
Representative Kucinich, a full-throated peace candidate, has
endorsed Kerry and has kind words to say about him but holds fast to
his antiwar position. On the Internet, Tomdispatch.com,
AlterNet.org, commondreams.org, antiwar.com, MoveOn.org and many
others are buzzing and bubbling with honest and inspired reporting
and commentary. Michael Moore is packing audiences into 2,000
theaters to see Fahrenheit 9/11.

I know, I know: It's essential to remove George W. Bush from the
White House, and Kerry is the instrument at hand. I fully share this
sentiment. But I am not running for anything, and my job is not to
carry water for any party but to stand as far apart from the
magnetic field of power as I can and tell the truth as I see it. And
it's not too early to worry about the dangers posed by the
Democrats' strategy. In the first place, they have staked their
future and the country's on a political calculation, but it may be
wrong. By suffocating their own passion, they may lose the energy
that has brought them this far. They have confronted Bush's policy
of denial with a politics of avoidance. Bush is adamant in error;
they are feeble in dedication to truth. If strong and wrong is
really the winning formula, Bush may be the public's choice. In the
second place, if Kerry does win, he will inherit the war wedded to a
potentially disastrous strategy. If he tries to change course,
Republicans -- and hawkish Democrats (Senator Joe Lieberman has just
joined in a revival of the Committee on the Present Danger) -- will
not fail to remind him of his commitment to stay the course and
renew the charge of flip-flopping. But the course, as retired Gen.
Anthony Zinni has commented, may take the country over Niagara
Falls. Then Kerry may wish that he and his admirers at this year's
convention had thought to place a higher value on his service to his
country when he opposed the Vietnam War.

Jonathan Schell is the Harold Willens Peace Fellow at the Nation
Institute. He is the author, most recently, of A Hole in the World,
a compilation of his "Letter From Ground Zero" columns, and of The
Unconquerable World (just out in paperback).

This article will appear in the latest issue of The Nation magazine.

Copyright C2004 Jonathan Schell

Los Angeles Indymedia : Activist News

Original Cities

Surviving Cities

James Bamford's (A Pretext for War) Book on the Israel Firster Neocons

James Bamford's (A Pretext for War) Book on the Israel Firster Neocons

You're damned right the US supports Israel

Israel is not a Democracy

Thinking about Neoconservatism

America Firster

Friendless Fire

blaming jews is bogus

Another Israel firster tries to smoke screen the truth

More war for Israel coming with the bombing of Iran?

War for Israel

Blog for Karen Kwiatkowski