Los Angeles Independent Media Center

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