Sid Walker

I find that an extraordinarily harsh judgment, Ron. You do indeed have very high standards. How do you rate the rest of the 2007 Congress? Do you believe no-one at all should attempt to win elected office in the USA's (admittedly) corrupted political system?

Ted Kennedy, I think, deserves the benefit of the doubt. He has survived - quite an achievement in itself, in his unfortunate family. Without claiming his voting record - or anything else about him - is perfect, I think fair-minded observers might agree he's been one of the more effective legislators in Congress with a much better-than-average commitment to decent, progressive policies over a long period of time. Ironic, really, that we're discussing this just a couple of days after Ted Kennedy issued the following, rather bold statement (bold for a US Senator in our times) opposing the latest crazy 'surge' of the US war machine... January 11, 2007 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Iraq is the overarching issue of our time. American lives, American values, and America’s role in the world is at stake. As the November election made clear, the American people oppose this war, and an even greater number oppose sending more troops to Iraq. The American people are demanding a change in course in Iraq. Instead, the President is accelerating the same failed course he has pursued for nearly four years. He must understand that Congress will not endorse this course. The President’s decision to send more American troops into the cauldron of civil war is not an acceptable strategy. It is against the advice of his own generals, the Iraq Study Group, and the wishes of the American people and will only compound our original mistake ingoing to war in Iraq. Just this morning, the Secretary of State testified that the Iraqi government “is…on borrowed time.” In fact, time is already up. The Iraqi government needs to make the political compromises necessary to end this civil war. The answer is not more troops, it’s a political settlement. The President talked about strengthening relations with Congress. He should begin by seeking authority from Congress for any escalation of the war. The mission of our armed forces today in Iraq no longer bears any resemblance to the mission authorized by Congress in 2002. The Iraq War Resolution authorized a war against the regime of Saddam Hussein because he was believed to have weapons of mass destruction, an operational relationship with Al Qaeda, and was in defiance of U.N. Security Council Resolutions. Not one member of Congress would have voted in favor of the Resolution if they thought they were sending American troops into a civil war. The President owes it to the American people to seek approval for this new mission from Congress. Congress should no longer be a rubber stamp for the President’s failed strategy. We should insist on a policy that is worthy of the sacrifice of our men and women in uniform. President Bush has been making up his mind on Iraq ever since the election. Before he escalates the war, the American people deserve a voice in his decision. He’s the Commander in Chief, but he’s still accountable to the people. Our system of checks and balances gives Congress a key role in decisions of war and peace. We know an escalation of troops into this civil war won’t work. We’ve increased our military presence in the past, and each time, the violence has increased and the political problems have persisted. Despite what the President says, his own generals are on the record opposing a surge in troops. Last November 15th, 2006, General Abizaid was unequivocal that increasing our troop commitment is not the answer. He said, “I’ve met with every divisional commander. General Casey, the corps commander, General Dempsey – we all talked together. And I said, ‘in your professional opinion, if we were to bring in more American troops now, does it add considerably to our ability to achieve success in Iraq?’ And they all said no.” On December 29, General Casey said, “The longer we in the U.S. forces continue to bear the main burden of Iraq’s security, it lengthens the time that the government of Iraq has to take the hard decisions about reconciliation and dealing with the militias…They can continue to blame us for all of Iraq’s problems, which are at base their problems.” Time and again, our leaders in Vietnam escalated our military presence, and each new escalation of force led to the next. We escalated the war, instead of ending it. Like Vietnam, there is no military solution to Iraq. The President is the last person in America to understand that. We must not only speak against the surge in troops, we must act to prevent it.

On viewing the title of this topic, I thought at the very least John must have been caught in bed with a Beefeater. Turns out it's just a lone nut WC true believer exuding froth. What a disappointment. .

To complete a trio of posts on this alarming yet crucial topic.. here are a couple of reports from within Israel. First, an extract from On the Brink, by Meir Stieglitz: ___________________Now see Rosner's Blog in Haaretz, where the author complains bitterly about remarks by General Wesley Clark: Rosner doesn't ask what for me is a rather more urgent question: How can we all ensure that the Israel Lobby STOPS instigating and inciting wars that increasingly threaten the very continuity of global civilization? Perhaps we should also ask whether the Zionist State even exist without generating endless conflict and warfare? For many decades anti-Zionists, both Jewish and non-Jewish, feared that might not be the case. It's beginning to look like they were right.

Paul Craig Roberts gives voice to the suspicions of many. This article, incidentally, illustrates just how far the US Government has tilted towards one-wided support for Israel over the last quarter century. Roberts was working at Assistant Secretary level for the US Administration at the time of the Israeli bombing on Osirak. Distracting Congress from the Real War Plan By Paul Craig Roberts 01/10/07 "Information Clearing House" -- -- Is the surge an orchestrated distraction from the real war plan? A good case can be made that it is. The US Congress and media are focused on President Bush’s proposal for an increase of 20,000 US troops in Iraq, while Israel and its American neoconservative allies prepare an assault on Iran. Commentators have expressed puzzlement over President Bush’s appointment of a US Navy admiral as commander in charge of the ground wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. The appointment makes sense only if the administration’s attention has shifted from the insurgencies to an attack on Iran. The Bush administration has recently doubled its aircraft carrier forces and air power in the Persian Gulf. According to credible news reports, the Israeli air force has been making practice runs in preparation for an attack on Iran. Recently, Israeli military and political leaders have described Israeli machinations to manipulate the American public and their representatives into supporting or joining an Israeli assault on Iran. Two US carrier task forces or strike groups will certainly congest the Persian Gulf. On January 9 a US nuclear sub collided with a Japanese tanker in the Persian Gulf. Two carrier groups will have scant room for maneuver. Their purpose is either to provide the means for a hard hit on Iran or to serve as sitting ducks for a new Pearl Harbor that would rally Americans behind the new war. Whether our ships are hit by Iran in retaliation to an attack from Israel or suffer an orchestrated attack by Israel that is blamed on the Iranians, there are certainly far more US naval forces in the Persian Gulf than prudence demands. Bush’s proposed surge appears to have no real military purpose. The US military opposes it as militarily pointless and as damaging to the US Army and Marine Corps. The surge can only be accomplished by keeping troops deployed after the arrival of their replacements. Moreover, the increase in numbers that can be achieved in this way are far short of the numbers required to put down the insurgency and civil war. The only purpose of the surge is to distract Congress while plans are implemented to widen the war. Weapons inspectors have failed to find a nuclear weapons program in Iran. Most experts say it would be years before Iran could make a weapon even if the Iranian government is actively working on a weapons program. Since the danger, if any, is years away, why is Israel so determined to attack Iran now? The answer might be that Israel has the chance now. The Bush administration is in its pocket. The White House is working with neoconservatives, not with the American foreign policy community represented by the Iraq Study Group. Neoconservative propagandists are in influential positions in the media. The US Congress is intimidated by AIPAC. The correlation of forces are heavily in Israel’s favor. Part of the Israeli/neoconservative plan has already been achieved with the destruction of civilian infrastructure and spread of sectarian strife in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Lebanon. If Iran can be taken out with a powerful air attack that might involve nuclear weapons, Syria would be isolated and Hezbollah would be cut off from Iranian supplies. Israel has two years remaining to use its American resources to achieve its aims in the Middle East. How influential will Israel and the neoconservatives be with the next president in the wake of a US defeat in Iraq and Israeli defeat in Lebanaon? If the US withdraws its troops from Iraq, as the US military and foreign policy community recommend and as polls show the American public wants, the only effect of Bush’s Iraq invasion will have been to radicalize Muslims against Israel, the US, and US puppet governments in the Middle East. Extremist elements will tout their victory over the US, and the pressures on Israel to accept a realistic accommodation with Palestinians will be over-powering. Now is the chance--the only chance--for Israel and the neoconservatives to achieve their goal of bringing Muslims to heel, a goal that they have been writing about and working to achieve for a decade. This goal requires the war to be widened by whatever deceit and treachery necessary to bring the American public along. The US Congress must immediately refocus its attention from the surge to Iran, the real target of Bush administration aggression. ______________________________________

Peter Not sure who your post addressed... but here are a few of my thoughts in response, for what they're worth. First, if you find the documentation to which you refer, please post it. I don't recall seeing that before. Do folk learn from history? Mostly they do, I suspect, after a fashion. I certainly can't imagine the Iranian Government has forgotten the 1981 Israeli attack on Iraq's (perfectly legal and internationally inspected) nuclear reactor. Why do some nations want to develop nuclear power? I suspect a range of reasons. Preparation for making bombs is an obvious possibility - but by no means the only reason. Industrialising nations need energy. Oil-rich third world countries understandably feel that - unless they develop alternative energy resources and diversify their economies - they are simply going to be used as a mine for as long as their oil reserves last and will be left in the end with no oil and no sound economy. Personally, I think nuclear power is the wrong answer for every country. I believe what Amory Lovins has called 'soft energy paths' should be taken, worldwide. However, while I oppose nuclear power and WMDs in general, I don't advocate bombing Three Mile Island or Aldermaston, for that matter. I disagree with even threatening to bomb such places, as a tactic. That sounds like (real) terrorism to me. To my knowledge, not one of the Arab and Moslem countries that Israel purportly believes are an 'existential threat' has ever threatened to bomb Dimona or Nes Ziona. Unfortunately, Israel and the US ARE holding that threat over the head of the Iranians. I imagine that if an attack on Iran proceeds, it will be condemned by most countries in the world. The US, clearly captive to the Zionist lobby to a much greater extent than in 1981, will probably not protest this time (indeed, the US may itself bomb Iran, and would certainly be somewhere in the decision-making loop). Poodle nations like Australia and Britain under Nu Labour will probably cheer from the sidelines. Very soon afterwards, I expect, the price of oil would go through the roof. Despite constant mood-minding and fear-monguering by the mass media, most middle class Americans will eventually figure out they've been had (again) - but that this time, unlike before, their pleasant, consumer-oriented existence within the trappings of a 'free society' is headed for terminal decline. That's when thjings may really heat up - and when the machinary of a police state, installed by stealth over the last decade or so in all the major Anglo-Saxon democracies, may be widely used, not against (largely) fake terrorists, but against political dissidents. If there is to be real regime change in Washington DC, it would probably occur around that time - in revolutionary turmoil that would make 1917 seem like a picnic. I recall an friend of mine, many years ago, telling me his theory of how things might pan out. This guy was a well-read trot - not a Zionist posing as a trot - but the real thing. He truly believed that world revolution would eventually occur to overthrow the exploitation of the great majority by an exploitative ultra-rich elite. Either that - or reversion to barbarism. He opined that when the USA finally undergoes revolution, it would be very violent indeed, because of high levels of gun owenership and the very high stakes.

Cites please, your words mean nothing. I seem to recall Rumsfeld appeared on that amusing 'expose'. I wonder, could that be the real reason he was sacked as Defence Secretary? Guess he couldn't have been sacked immediately after the show. Too obvious. NASA agents controlling the White House had to use the excuses of Iraq & the Dems - just to mislead us.

Perhaps it was the 'drugs' Nixon was on, Mark? Anthony Summers claims Nixon was a pill-popper with good reason to evade the question "have you stopped beating your wife?" The Wonkette, discussing the similarities between Elvis and Nixon, shows the happy couple together. She tells us: "The National Archives and the Associated Press both claim the Nixon-Elvis picture is the No. 1 most-requested photograph".

There's a priceless article in Counterpunch by Fred Gardner: Nixon on Pot, Booze and the Fall of the Roman Empire Gardner draws on tapes of Nixon chatting with his crew to tease out the 'philosphical underpinnings' of his position on 'drugs'. This helps explain why the 35 year old 'War on Drugs' has been such an extraordinary failure. The policy was devised by bigots and utter fools. Here's an extract to whet the appetite: Nixon apparently believed the push to legalize drugs was - inter alia - a Jewish/Communist conspiracy to destroy American society. I imagine today's Red Mafya get a chuckle out of that.

There's an interesting discussion of The Somalian Labyrinth by R. T. Naylor in Counterpunch. Naylor subjects claims of Al Qaida involvement to critical analysis. One gets the impression the author has followed the Horn of Africa's tangled history for many years - and doesn't only pick up interest when CNN & co decide it's 'news' once again.

Johnathan, over the years, I've enjoyed much of your material, so this is not from an entirely hostile reader. However, your use of the term "war against jihadism" deals a fatal blow to the crediblility of the article cited above, IMO. Is that the new in-vogue term for the discredited WoT? Do you honestly believe this "war against jihadism" is "real'? From my vantage point, it looks suspiciously like a contrivance of the western intelligence services and mass media, and bears a rather obvious "Made in Tel Aviv" label.

John Geraghty speaks for me on this - and probably lots of others. It's good to see Europe showing leadership on the climate change issue. And it's sorely needed. The atrocious head-in-the-oily-sand policies of the Bush Administration are replicated, more or less, by the Howard Government here in Australia. And now... a brief commericial (for the planet). If anyone would care to send an email to the Australian Environment Minister to help stave off a World Heritage threatening project to urbanize the patch of paradise close to me (and urbanize it in a manner that locks us into an energy-squandering future) I'd be very grateful. It's all set up to take a couple of minutes - just visit this link. Emails from around the world would be helpful.

Very funny. The best joke so far this year. I thought James might just be Jesus... The real one, that is... not that Angleton character, RIP.

New wars seem to be coming thick and fast. It's hard to keep up with them. I'd be interested in other people's views about the latest 'troubles' in Somalia. Why Somalia? Why now? I don't pretend to know... but here, for what it's worth, is speculation I haven't seen elsewhere that seems at least worth exploring... The PBS web page Interactive Map: The Significance of Saudi Oil shows that if the Straights of Hormuz do close to traffic - a substantial amount of Saudi oil could still be shipped out via the Red Sea. In that event, control of the Bab el Mandeb would be vital. This is the strait linking the Red Sea and the Gulf of Aden. It already represents one of the world's most active shipping lanes, according to the CIA Factbook. Those lanes might get even busier... Controlling southern access to the Red Sea involves taming three countries: Somalia, Eritrea and Yemen. All three have predominatly Moslem populations. Somalia are Eritrea are in bad shape, economically and politically. Both have suffered long periods of instability and warfare (Yemen too, although since unification it has become wealthier and more stable). An attack on Iran - possibly (God forbid!) employing nuclear wepons - would provoke a massive backlash against the US/Israeli Imperium. This would not be confined to the Moslem world - but Moslems would clear feel great anger. Retaliatory moves are likely. For that reason, intimidating Governments and other power brokers within that unstable region at the base of the Red Sea - and getting Ethiopian proxies involved on the ground - is a predictable preparatory measure on the part of the Imperium. Illegal assaults on a sovereign nation by Ethiopian and US forces are carried out under the ideological cover of the 'War on Terror' (what else?) The intended stay-behind message for the locals? Something like: "Do what We say - or We'll bomb hell out of you! Oh, and by the way, don't even think about taking independent action contrary to Our interests!" A political map of Africa helps illustrate the strategic issues:

Forbes reports Pentagon confirms US nuclear submarine collides with Japanese commercial ship The Japanese sailors must have been terrified for a moment. They may have thought they were being attacked by real terrorists. Perhaps they'd bumped into Bin Laden's personal submersible, fully equipped with video production studio? Imagine their relief to discover it was only a friendly old US nuclear sub, ramming into them by accident in the busy Arabian sea lanes! Anyhow, all well that ends well. Back in the USA, Pat Buchanan asks Who Is Planning Our Next War? This extract is choice:

Well, it may be a cheap and nasty grab for resources. But unless there is 'victory' followed by long-term stability in the oil-rich areas of Iraq (at minimum), it's a grab that's most unlikely to succeed, ? What's more, does anyone in the oil industry seriously believe such a grab will work? That also seems unlikely to me (unless they're high on cocaine). If the occupation-endorsed regime goes the way of the Shah in Iran - or Vichy France - successor governments are unlikely to consider themselves bound by contracts signed in this era. If, on the other hand, there is no defeat or withdrawal of US/British forces, and the war keeps going, while it may indeed mean great business for arms peddlars, very little oil will be extracted and exported from Iraq. Overall, I find myself uneasy about these two articles. They remind me of some of the more effusive pre-invasion 'Stop the War for Oil' articles - which it's now apparent were either innocent misinformation or cynical disinformation. While reviving the 'War for Oil' claim, they greatly downplay the role of the Zionist lobby in US and British policy-making. Floyd even claims: Neocons as dupes or patsies? Neocons as hapless tools of the gentile American establishment? Neocons serving as cover for the real villains? Interesting claims - but to be at all believeable, a lot of strong supporting evidence is needed. Copious amounts of evidence indicate the reverse is true.

Iraq: ]The Surge to Nowhere? I nearly started a new thread for this post, but trust it fits within the scope of War Crimes in Iraq. There's an article by Richard Dreyfuss on Uruknet reporduced in full below. A must-read, IMO. Dreyfuss speculates about various scenarios and how they might play out, especially given the new Congress. The basic message is stark for the neocons, the Bush gang and their fans: all roads lead to defeat. There's a paragraph or two that would be hilarious if the subject matter wasn't so grim. Dreyfuss quotes Tom Donnelly, an American Enterprise Institute neocon, a co-chairman of the Project for a New American Century, telling a reporter sagely that the surge is in. I must talk to some of surfie friends about this. They share a similar infatuation with the 'surge' - but get their kicks from waves off a pleasant beach - not dispatching legions of someone else's kids to get blown up, screwed up and spat out by a defeated military goliath pitching ever deeper into an unwinnable war. The Surge to Nowhere: Traveling the Planet Neocon Road to Baghdad (Again) Robert Dreyfuss, TomDispatch.com 05 January 2007 Like some neocon Wizard of Oz, in building expectations for the 2007 version of his "Strategy for Victory" in Iraq, President Bush is promising far more than he can deliver. It is now nearly two months since he fired Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, installing Robert Gates in his place, and the White House revealed that a full-scale review of America's failed policy in Iraq was underway. Last week, having spent months - if, in fact, the New York Times is correct that the review began late in the summer - consulting with generals, politicians, State Department and CIA bureaucrats, and Pentagon planners, Bush emerged from yet another powwow to tell waiting reporters: "We've got more consultation to do until I talk to the country about the plan." As John Lennon sang in Revolution: "We'd all love to see the plan." Unfortunately for Bush, most of the American public may have already checked out. By and large, Americans have given up on the war in Iraq. The November election, largely a referendum on the war, was a repudiation of the entire effort, and the vote itself was a marker along a continuing path of rapidly declining approval ratings both for President Bush personally and for his handling of the war. It's entirely possible that when Bush does present us with "the plan" next week, few will be listening. Until he makes it clear that he has returned from Planet Neocon by announcing concrete steps to end the war in Iraq, it's unlikely that American voters will tune in. As of January 1, every American could find at least 3,000 reasons not to believe that President Bush has suddenly found a way to put Humpty Dumpty back together again. What's astonishing about the debate over Iraq is that the President - or anyone else, for that matter, including the media - is paying the slightest attention to the neoconservative strategists who got us into this mess in the first place. Having been egregiously wrong about every single Iraqi thing for five consecutive years, by all rights the neocons ought to be consigned to some dusty basement exhibit hall in the American Museum of Natural History, where, like so many triceratops, their reassembled bones would stand mutely by to send a chill of fear through touring schoolchildren. Indeed, the neocons are the dodos of Washington, simply too dumb to know when they are extinct. Yet here is Tom Donnelly, an American Enterprise Institute neocon, a co-chairman of the Project for a New American Century, telling a reporter sagely that the surge is in. "I think the debate is really coming down to: Surge large. Surge small. Surge short. Surge longer. I think the smart money would say that the range of options is fairly narrow." (Donnelly, of course, forgot: Surge out.) His colleague, Frederick Kagan of AEI, the chief architect of the Surge Theory for Iraq, has made it clear that the only kind of surge that would work is a big, fat one. Nearly pornographic in his fondling of the surge, Kagan, another of the neocon crew of armchair strategists and militarists, makes it clear that size does matter. "Of all the 'surge' options out there, short ones are the most dangerous," he wrote in the Washington Post last week, adding lasciviously, "The size of the surge matters as much as the length. … The only 'surge' option that makes sense is both long and large." Ooh - that is, indeed, a manly surge. For Kagan, a man-sized surge must involve at least 30,000 more troops funneled into the killing grounds of Baghdad and al-Anbar Province for at least 18 months. President Bush, perhaps dizzy from the oedipal frenzy created by the emergence of Daddy's best friend James Baker and his Iraq Study Group, seems all too willing to prove his manhood by the size of the surge. According to a stunning front-page piece in the Times last Tuesday, Bush has all but dismissed the advice of his generals, including Centcom Commander John Abizaid, and George Casey, the top U.S. general in Iraq, because they are "more fixated on withdrawal than victory." At a recent Pentagon session, according to General James T. Conway, the commandant of the U.S. Marines, Bush told the assembled brass: "What I want to hear from you now is how we are going to win, not how we are going to leave." As a result, Abizaid and Casey are, it appears, getting the same hurry-up-and-retire treatment that swept away other generals who questioned the wisdom on Iraq transmitted from Planet Neocon. That's scary, if it means that Bush - presumably on the advice of the Neocon-in-Chief, Vice President Dick Cheney - has decided to launch a major push, Kagan-style, for victory in Iraq. Not that such an escalation has a chance of working, but there's no question that, in addition to bankrupting the United States, breaking the army and the Marines, and unleashing all-out political warfare at home, it would kill perhaps tens of thousands more Iraqis. Personally, I'm not convinced that Bush could get away with it politically. Not only is the public dead-set against escalating the war, but there are hints that Congress might not stand for it, and the leadership of the U.S. Armed Forces is opposed. Over the past few days, a swarm of Republican senators has come out against the surge, including at least three Republican senators up for reelection in 2008 in states that make them vulnerable: Gordon Smith of Oregon, whose remarkable speech calling the war "criminal" went far beyond the normal bland rhetoric of discourse in the U.S. capital, along with John Sununu of New Hampshire and Norm Coleman of Minnesota. In addition, Saxby Chambliss of Georgia, less vulnerable but still facing voters in 2008, has questioned the surge idea. And a host of Republican moderates - Chuck Hagel (NE), Dick Lugar (IN), Susan Collins (ME) - have lambasted it. (Hagel told Robert Novak: "It's Alice in Wonderland. I'm absolutely opposed to the idea of sending any more troops to Iraq. It is folly.") Even Sam Brownback, one of the Senate godfathers of the neocon-backed Iraqi National Congress, has expressed skepticism, saying: "We can't impose a military solution." According to Novak, only 12 of the 49 Republican senators are now willing to back Sen. John McCain's blood-curdling cries for sending in more troops. Meanwhile, says Novak, the Democrats would not only criticize the idea of a surge but, led by Senator Joe Biden, chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, might use their crucial power over the purse. "Biden," writes Novak, "will lead the rest of the Democrats not only to oppose a surge but to block it." Reports the Financial Times of London: "Democrats have hinted that they could use their control over the budget process to make life difficult for the Bush administration if it chooses to step up the military presence in Iraq." A Kagan-style surge would require a vast new commitment of funds, and with their ability to scrutinize, put conditions on, and even strike out entire line items in the military budget and the Pentagon's supplemental requests, the Democrats could find ways to stall or halt the "surge," if not the war itself. Indeed, if President Bush opts to Kaganize the war, he will throw down the gauntlet to the Democrats. Unwilling until now to say that they would even consider blocking appropriations for the Iraq War, the Democrats would have little choice but to up the ante if Bush flouts the electoral mandate in such a full-frontal manner. By escalating the war in the face of near-universal opposition from the public, the military, and the political class, the president would force the Democrats to escalate their own - until now fairly mild-mannered - opposition to the war. However, it's possible - just possible - that what the President is planning to announce will be something a bit more Machiavellian than the straightforwardly manly thrust Kagan wants. Perhaps, just perhaps, he will order an increase of something like 20,000 American troops, but put a tight time limit on this surge - say, four months. Perhaps he will announce that he is giving Iraqi Prime Minister Maliki that much time to square the circle in Iraq: crack down on militias and death squads, purge the army and police, develop a plan to fight the Sunni insurgency, find a formula to deal with the Kurds and the explosive, oil-rich city of Kirkuk which they claim as their own, un-de-Baathify Iraq, and create a workable formula for sharing the fracturing country's oil wealth. By surging those 20,000 troops into a hopeless military nowhere-land, Bush will say that he is giving Maliki room to accomplish all that - knowing full well that none of it can, in fact, be accomplished by the weak, sectarian, Shiite-run regime inside Baghdad's fortified Green Zone. So, sometime in the late spring, the United States could begin to un-surge its troops and start the sort of orderly, phased withdrawal that Jim Baker and the Carl Levin Democrats have called for. Levin suggested as much as 2006 ended. "A surge which is not part of an overall program of troop reduction that begins in the next four to six months would be a mistake," said Levin, who will chair the Armed Services Committee. "Even if the president is going to propose to temporarily add troops, he should make that conditional on the Iraqis reaching a political settlement that effectively ends the sectarian violence." That may be too much to ask for a Christian-crusader President, still lodged inside a bubble universe and determined to crush all evil-doers. And it may be too clever by half for an administration that has been as utterly inept as this one. At the same time, it may also be too much to expect that the Democrats will really go to the mat to fight Bush if, Kagan-style, he orders a surge that is "long and large." Maybe they will merely posture and fulminate and threaten to … well, hold hearings. If so, it will be the Iraqis who end the war. It will be the Iraqis who eventually kill enough Americans to break the U.S. political will, and it will be the Iraqis who sweep away the ruins of the Maliki government to replace it with an anti-American, anti-U.S.- occupation government in Iraq. That is basically how the war in Vietnam ended, and it wasn't pretty.

- duplicate post - see #3 below -

An interesting article Douglas. I trust it's not too contentious to point out what must be obvious to intelligent readers of any of Mr Murdoch's newspapers (and Murdoch's newspapers are close to all the 'choice' we have, here in his home base of Australia). Murdoch - and his Empire - are essentially playing on the same team as the Israel Lobby. Therefore one should look at the function of an article such as this. In part, I think it can be seen as getting public opinion ready for the shock of an attack. But also, very sneakily, it makes the case for such an attack. This is achieved by repeating a key lie without question or qualification, in a place in the article where it's slipped in, ancilliary to the main topic at that point. This blatant lie is that "Israelis have become increasingly convinced that a “second holocaust” of the Jews is brewing, stoked by Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the Iranian president and chief Holocaust denier, who has repeatedly called for Israel to be destroyed." Now, it's entirely possible that, in their state of paranoia born of decades of incessant war and non-stop illegal occupation, many Israelis do believe that the Iranian President "has repeatedly called for Israel to be destroyed". And it's likely many in the western world as a whole believe that. After all, reputable organs such as The Sunday Times and the BBC tell us so, regularly. One little problem with this war-justifying lie... it just ain't true. See Lost in translation by Jonathan Steele, for instance. If BBC and Sunday Times journalists don't know that, they are pig igorant. I think it more likely that the authors and commentators in question are deliberate liars.

For those who believe Kennedy was killed because he was willing to stand up to the intelligence agencies/military industrial complex/bankers desire for war, it seems like this passage could be interpreted as a warning from Kennedy regarding that force. To me this seems even more likely in light of the timing of the speech -- shortly after the Bay of Pigs Invasion. Are there alternative interpretations of what Kennedy was talking about here? I've been studying the Kennedy assassination fairly intensively for the past few months, and I don't see this speech mentioned very often. It seems like a speech packed with meaning, but I don't see it discussed much. Simit I have read and re-read this speech, not for the first time. IMO, it's hard to interpret it as a cryptic warning, as some suggest; it really does seem clear from the context that JFK is talking about the 'Communist threat' as he perceived it. Tp sustain any other theory of the 'real' import of the speech requires additional evidence (not simply the hindsight that JFK could not possibly have had at that time). What is most beautiful about the speech - and helps bring home just how much we're missing and how decency in US politics has gone so far backwards over the last 45 years - is JFK's crystal clear and passionate commitment to free speech and open debate.

Scott Ritter has a new book out, "alleging that Jerusalem is pushing the Bush administration into war with Iran, and accusing the pro-Israel lobby of dual loyalty and “outright espionage” (according to this review in The Jewish Daily Forward). Here's a longer extract:

Well Sid it all depends on what you will except as evidence, but how about. ..... The indivdual documentation of the Holocaust. Thousands upon thousands of documents, and punch cards used in IBM tabulating machines. Docments that reveal how the Jews, and other enemies of the Nazi state were locate, their treatment, transportation, and the implementation of the final solution, many from the highest levels of the Nazi leadership urging the camp comendants on to greater efforts of extermination. Documents which betray the beaurocratisation, and beastiality of this particular madness. all of which you must prove false, or forged. And finally, if the Nazis didnt exterminate them, just where did these millions of Jews, Slavs, Communists, Trade Union members, Gypsies, Homosexuals, those suffering from a psychiatric condition and Free-Masons disappear to. Perhaps a multi faith rapture? Steve. Stephen, I've highlighted the part of your post that refers to my challenge. That's what I'm asking for. You suggest there are a lot of these documents (thousands?). How about one? One original, genuine, verifiable document that "reveals... the highest levels of the Nazi leadership urging the camp comendants on to greater efforts of extermination." Just one will do. Two if you have spare time. Thanks in anticipation... Incidentally, I think you'll understand if I request documents that pertain to alleged mass murders carried out inside the concentration camps. You will strike a decisive blow for your cause if the documentation you adduce also refers to (and thus shows German foreknowledge of) homicidal gas chambers. The reason for those limitations is that no-one - as far as I can establish - disputes that a number of Jews were executed by German soldiers and SS during World War Two. To 'prove' the claim you originally made the documentation produce really should relate to mass poisining in concentration camps. As you claim to have a very large amount of documentation from which you may choose, I presume this should not present you with difficulties.

In principle, Stephen, I accept your challenge to discuss the topic of this thread here in this forum, as you suggest. It's not clear to me, though, whether such a discussion is really welcome in the forum. Mark suspects a baited trap. He’s a crafty old fish and may well be right. A clear ruling from the moderators would be helpful. If I understand his position correctly, John Simkin accepts in broad outline the veracity of the official version of the Holocaust. He does not, if I understand correctly, hold the view that debate on the topic should never happen anywhere – but prefers that it isn’t debated extensively on this Forum. I respect John's views and his right to steer the forum in the way he sees fit. That’s why I haven’t initiated threads on the topic. This forum, in my opinion, already serves various useful purposes. The role I find most valuable is that it facilitates informed and occasionally enlightened debate about important contemporary issues and historical topics of the last generation or so. It contains, most notably, voluminous discussion about the murder of JFK. By contrast, this Forum's coverage of World Wars One and Two - or ancient history, for that matter - is quite limited. I feel no need – and have no reason or cause - to push the forum into a relatively new direction. As for Andy, his wishes really aren’t entirely clear to me. Sometimes he seems to prefer the Holocaust isn’t debated. Other times he raises the topic himself. My one request is that if a ruling over permissible topics is forthcoming, it applies to all. Natural justice suggests that either everyone on the forum may refer to 'The Holocaust' and state their opinion about 'The Holocaust' and its historical and contemporary significance - or the topic should not be mentioned by anyone. It wouldn't be conducive to fair and enlightened discussion if some viewpoints enjoy free expression, while others may only be vilified and are denied right of reply. Now, should such a discussion proceed, Stephen, as you have proposed, I believe a most important starting point would be defining terms. Crucially, what exactly is meant by 'the Holocaust'? Are we all using the term in the same way? Is it used consistently to refer to the same set of phenomena, or not? A lot of confusion and potential disagreement may be avoided by defining terms at the outset. While it is doubtless a useful debating tactic for some to claim that there are only two essential possibilities – Holocaust 'acceptance' or Holocaust 'denial' - in reality, many nuances of belief and uncertainty are possible. After all, the term 'Holocaust' was not widely used to describe the events of that time until later, after the events had already occurred. Unlike "the Moon", or "Australia", or "JFK's head", the Holocaust is quite a complex term. It was coined after the event and refers to a plethora of historical phenomena. The veracity of some events typically encompassed by the term is not contentious at all. In other cases, it's highly contentious. This becomes clearer once one begins to look at specifics. In earlier times, closer to the end of World War Two, claims were widespread in Allied and Zionist propaganda that Germans made soap out of fat derived from the bodies of Jewish bodies – and lampshades out of Jewish skin. These claims – it seems – are no longer made by anyone. They are now ‘denied’ by all concerned - ‘Acceptors and ‘Deniers’.alike. Similarly, there is no disagreement (as far as I'm aware) about propositions such as “Hitler held stronng anti-Jewish views” or “the Nazis interned large numbers of Jews in concentration camps” or “conditions in the German-run concentration camps were appalling towards the end of the War” (for the record, they were lousy in Japanese internment camps as well - I presume no-one 'denies' that). Key areas of remaining disagreement include the following: 1/ The existence of homicidal gas chambers. The claim is made – and seems to be central to ‘Holocaust Acceptance’ - that gas chambers were used by German authorities for mass murder of human beings. Do ‘Holocaust Deniers’ deny that the German authorities built, maintained and used gas chambers in the concentration camps? No! (At least, I know of no author who ever claimed that.) Debate surrounds the use – not the existence – of German gas chambers. Everyone - ‘Acceptors’ and ‘Deniers’ alike - agree that some gas chambers were used for delousing ooperations, employing the now-notorious Zylon B. The post-war victors' orthodoxy is that some gas chambers were used for killing humans – especially Jews – by the millions. That is disputed by 'Deniers'. However, even in this case, the ‘orthodox’ position is not truly stable. For example, I understand that is no longer claimed - even by ‘Acceptors’ - that homidal gas chambers on German soil were used to murder internees. So even on this relatively straightforward issue, the orthdox claim has shifted somewhat. In earlier orthodox accounts, there were allegations that homicidal gas chambers were used within Germany. These allegations have been dropped. Contemporary ‘Acceptors’, seem to believe that by far the largest number of homicidal gassings were carried out at Auschwitz. That’s interesting, if for no other reason than what it implies about the uncertainty of the overall estimate of deaths. The official Polish Government estimate of internee deaths at Auschwitz – as portrayed on the official plaque at the entrance to that grizzly tourist attraction - has been revised downwards by several million over the last two decades. 2/ The number of Jewish deaths in German custody. Orthdox scholars such as Hilberg suggest the true number is just over five million. Other commentarors argue for signifiantly higher numbers. Peter Lemkin on this forum, for instance, claimed that seven million is more accurate figure (if I recall correctly, he said he had "no doubt" about that total). Six million Jewish deaths seems to be the estimated total most commonly used by ‘Acceptors’. This total was first cited very close to the events in question. It's use has been remarkably stable over the decades since, despite the previously mentioned sharp downward reductions in certain individual camp mortality estimates. Six million, I understand, is the estimate with which one must concur be in compliance with the law, in jurisdictions where this issue is subject to court determination and free debate is illegal (illegal, that is, except for 'Acceptors' - I'm unaware of moves by the organized Jewish lobby to incarcerate Raul Hilberg in a German or Austrian jail). 3/ The existence of a deliberate plan by the German authorities - sanctioned the Nazi leadership - to carry out mass murder of Jews on a massive scale. Ah yes... this is close to where the most recent spat on this forum began. Now we all KNOW, don't we, that the Nazi leadership and notably Adolf Hitler himself had a comprehensive plan to exterminate European Jewry, using homicidal gas chambers and other means? It's obvious, isn't it? What's more, the existence of this plan PROVES that Hitler - and the Nazis - were uniquely evil. Because of this evil, muderous plan, the Hitler and the Nazis must have been far, far worse than the 'Allies', who (it must be admitted) on occasion ordered wholescale slaughters such as Dresden and Nagasaki. Sure, the Allies had to be tough to win the war - because we were facing the ultimate evil. But we, God bless us, never, ever had a dastardly masterplan to exterminate an entire group people out of spite and irrational, unprovoked hatred. The recent eruption occurred when I made the rather mild comment that I never seen any real evidence that such a 'genocidal' plan existed. It's true that in earlier times, I had little doubt this evidence existed. So many prominent people claimed that Hitler aimed to kill all the Jews under his control. I assumed they had sound evidence for that claim. Now... let's just say I’d like a show of cards, if that's OK? Just to clear the matter up. Stephen Turner implied it's a very easy matter to prove; I asked him to produce evidence. Then Colby & co arrived and a storm in a teacup broke loose... again. Perhaps we shouldn't ask for evidence on this particular matter? Perhaps it's really a matter of (compulsory) religious belief - not historical fact? Perhaps only one kind of belief should be permissible on this matter? If that's the basic proposition, let’s be up front about it. The mods need simply post a pinned note stating that questions should never be asked about The Holocaust because the truth is self-evident - and the only conceivable reason for asking questions and seeking evidence is evil intent. If, however, we agree that the events of the Second World War remain within the domain of history - as opposed to State-enforced religion - my request for evidence stands. Stephen Turner’s alleged that Hitler condemned “millions to death” in “purpose built gas chambers” Where is the evidence for that, Stephen - evidence as opposed to unsupported assertion? As a child, I was often a troublesome brat during Religious Instruction classes (note the term ‘Instruction’ – I imagine/hope the important topic of religion is introduced to schoolchildren in a more enlightened manner these days). Anyway, when we were ‘instructed’ on some of the improbable tenets of orthodox Christinaity, I often made a nuisance of myself by asking the teachers for evidence. It got me into lots of trouble. I’m older and uglier these days, but the essential tiresome brat persists (that, perhaps, we can all agree about). When someone doesn’t or won’t give me a straight answer to a reasonable question, but instead applies heavy psychological pressure and claims “it says so in the Scriptures!” or “it’s a divine mystery!” or “how dare you question that!” or “you don’t need evidence for that – it’s self-evident!” I don’t find them – or their cause – in the least persuasive. It makes me want to quit their Church and seek out free-thinking people, who are bold enough to ask rational questions and expect honest and rational answers, even if the most honest answer, at that time, is “I don’t know” Enough from me for now. When it's clear that free debate on this topic is welcome on this forum – and that we all agree the issue of Jewish suffering during World War Two is historical in nature (as opposed to a matter of religious belief) - I'll be most willing to participate further.

An interesting aside, Bill. Can you say more?

Just when I thought Project Censored was radical and revolutionary, along comes an endorsement from Uncle Walt, who as director of CBS News did everything in his power to endorse the findings of the Warren Commission and as spokesman for the World Federalists, spoke on behalf of WF founder Cord Meyer, head of the CIA's International Organizations Division, Ruth Hyde Paine Young (Michael's mom) and Priscilla Johnson McMillan, erstwhile NANA correspondent. BK Bill - are you suggesting that all WF members were necessarily spooks (or fools)? I didn't know before about Cronkite's asscoiation with the World Federalists. It's interesting. Also, I have little doubt the CIA had inflitrated the organization - probably from within its core. But should it really be taken as an automatic negative that someone supported world federalism? Genuine world federalism - one person, one value, one ultimate jurisdiction, worldwide - makes kinda sense to me. Not far off JFK's agenda either - if one takes Kennedy at his word over the remarkable detailed disarmarment proposals he presented personally, as US President, to the UN General Assembly.