[Peace-discuss] Fwd: [Ufpj-disc] The Lobby. Iran prognosis.

[Brussel Morton K.]

Perhaps folks would be interested in these comments/discussion from  
the UFPJ listserve.
There is a long thread here. Often, I think Walsh is too unbending in  
his strident criticism of UFPJ, but his remark, below in red, resonates.
--mkb

Begin forwarded message:

> From: John Walsh <jvwalshmd at gmail.com>
> Date: March 16, 2009 11:01:11 AM CDT
> To: chris_driscoll2001 at yahoo.com
> Cc: ufpj-disc at lists.mayfirst.org, VotersForPeace at yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [Ufpj-disc] [VotersForPeace] Mullen sketches out 'US  
> strike' on Iran/ Mr. Iran envisions 'major' war in coming months
>
> **Please see footer for list protocol**
>
> Chris Driscoll's analysis is a non-analysis.  You see Israel cannot  
> be determining the policy of the US - because it cannot.  It defies  
> some kind of "vulgar Marxism," as they used to call it.
> It is also acceptable in some "left" circles to be hostile to US  
> Imperialism but ONLY to view Israel as a helpless pawn.
>
> Such "analysis" is missing only one thing - a regard for the facts.   
> But one need no longer rely on Raimondo or Cockburn or others - now  
> we have Mearsheimer and Walt and Jimmy Carter and so many others.
>
> If one looks at the history of empires, including the US Empire, it  
> is not unusual to see a small corner of the empire calling the  
> shots.  The brain, a small organ not weighing as much as a tail, can  
> easily wag the dog.
> jw
>
>
> On Mon, Mar 16, 2009 at 11:17 AM, Chris Driscoll <chris_driscoll2001 at yahoo.com 
> > wrote:
> **Please see footer for list protocol**
>
>
> Kevin, I believe, in assessing Obama's strategy toward Iran, that we  
> need to look at that country the way Obama undoubtedly does, as a  
> key piece in a much larger regional and global puzzle, a puzzle he  
> hopes to control. The current situation is one in which Iran is and  
> has been for 3 decades openly hostile to U.S. imperial interests,  
> openly opposing them and thwarting them where it is able to, and  
> worse, operating totally outside the economic and political system  
> being set up in that region by the United States, often in fact  
> operating in direct opposition to the U.S. system, and helping  
> others in the region who do the same, most notably Syria, Palestine  
> and a significant part of Lebanon. That's a strategic situation  
> Obama cannot and will not abide—he can't afford the results of  
> abiding it—and his motivation is not some puissant lobby of some  
> puissant surrogate in the region like Israel. Israel is a U.S.  
> battleship in the region and it'll fire, or not, on Obama's direct  
> orders.
>
> Obama would undoubtedly prefer the 'diplomatic solution,' but we  
> should seriously consider what a diplomatic solution would be for  
> Obama. For Obama, an acceptable diplomatic solution vis-à-vis Iran  
> would be one in which Iran would back down on its quest for nuclear  
> weapons, which for Iran would mean giving up the chance to ever  
> again operate as an independent nation and a regional power.  
> Further, Iran would have to open its economy up to the type of  
> extreme commercial exploitation the U.S. imposes on all its subject  
> nations and agree to become an obedient and loyal component of the  
> U.S. Hegemony, just as Israel is today. That's the diplomatic  
> victory Obama would be willing to accept. That's his objective,  
> whether it takes war or diplomacy.
>
> The Israeli lobby in the United States is undoubtedly a slight  
> embarrassment to Obama, and I would not be in the least bit  
> surprised to find out that Justin Raimondo was correct, in a sense,  
> in that 'flushing out' the lobby was intentional on Obama's part,  
> and the reason he allowed the public farce of considering and then  
> rejecting Freeman, who of course he never seriously considered in  
> the first place. Now the lobby is weakened, and Obama has a free  
> hand to carry out his war plans on his own timetable, not on  
> Netanyahu's. Netanyahu's military people are undoubtedly being read  
> the riot act and being given their marching orders as we speak.
>
> Raimondo is certainly wrong in his claim that war or diplomacy aimed  
> at subduing Iran under the U.S. thumb is not in the interests of  
> U.S. imperialism. These imperialists don't pursue these big goals  
> because they are in the interests of a third-rate third-world  
> country like Israel, they pursue them because they are in the  
> interests of U.S. Hegemony over the rest of the world, their  
> ultimate goal. To claim that allowing Iran to operate outside the  
> constraints of that hegemony is in any way in the interests of U.S.  
> imperialism is absurd on the face of it, and that's essentially what  
> Riamondo is claiming, and that anybody who sees the source of the  
> war threats as AIPAC is claiming. Of course Riamondo is in fact  
> conflating two very separate interests, those of the American people  
> with those of Obama and his imperialist hegemony.
>
> Will the United States eventually go to war with Iran? Admiral Mike  
> Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, is obviously  
> trepidatious about that possibility, mainly because that particular  
> domino is so precariously placed in relation to other dominos. But  
> obviously he was ready to answer the question about U.S. military  
> readiness because he's been recently asked the question by Obama.  
> Anyone with a basic knowledge of the U.S. military could tell you  
> what Mullen did: the Airforce and Navy are ready, the Army and  
> Marines are stretched. I've predicted before that part of the reason  
> the ruling class chose Obama as their leader is that he would be  
> much better able to institute a draft, which they are going to need  
> to carry out their plans.
>
> Will there be war? There will be if Iran doesn't back down on its  
> nuclear weapons program and if it doesn't agree to pull down the  
> significant barricades it has erected to keep the U.S. hegemony's  
> control out of their economy and government. Obama is holding out  
> carrots, like the opportunity for Iran to become a partner in the  
> pillaging of Afghanistan if it gives into the hegemony. But Iran's  
> entire history as a modern prototype Islamic Republic has been based  
> in large measure on its rejection of that role. At this point, it's  
> difficult to see them backing away from their independence and anti- 
> Americanism. Libya did so after decades of similar defiance of the  
> hegemony, but Iran isn't Libya; Iran has great power on its own. The  
> question is, does Iran have the power to resist the United States  
> military might? I don't think so, not in the end, and especially not  
> if Obama can get a draft passed. I have no doubt that Obama will be  
> able to trick Iran into some desperate military gesture that Obama  
> can use as a pretext for war when the time comes, one that will have  
> the great majority of Americans rallying in support of war. We've  
> seen that scenario played out often enough in the past, and  
> apparently, at least for someone as clever as Obama, it's no big  
> deal to carry off (for a bumbling idiot like Bush, it was apparently  
> more than he could engineer, although he did try.)
>
> Iran may be militarily ready for war, one that they could win if the  
> war were short, but would undoubtedly lose if the war took years, as  
> the Iraq war has. In the air, there's no way Iran could defend  
> itself against an American attack. On the ground, Iran could not  
> simply array millions of troops along a defined battle front as it  
> did against Iraq in the 1980s. The U.S. has the capacity to simply  
> wipe out defined lines of thousand or hundreds of thousands of  
> troops with air and naval power, as it showed us in the first Gulf  
> War, which was why Saddam did not bother to array large forces along  
> defined battle fronts against the U.S. in 2003. The only ground  
> battle tactic that is open to Iran is disbursed forces, not battle  
> lines. Undoubtedly, like the war in Europe for several years during  
> World War II, it will be air and naval war that dominates, ground  
> forces only coming in to mop up at the end, if it ever gets that far.
>
> But I would believe Mullen. It's no mere idle threat. He is serious  
> and knows what he is talking about when he assures you that the  
> United States is militarily ready with forces already in the region  
> for a prolonged air and sea war with Iran, aimed at winning what  
> Obama probably can't win with diplomacy. Take another look at that  
> ring of U.S. air bases and naval taskforces circling Iran. There's a  
> reason the United States has built that up over the last decade.  
> There's no other hostile country in the world that faces such a ring  
> of U.S. air and naval power without nuclear weapons. There's a  
> reason the United States built up that force and they did not build  
> that military ring around Iran simply to defend Israel! They did it  
> because first containing and ultimately subduing Iran is that  
> important to their global strategic interests.
>
> Sincerely, Chris Driscoll
>
> --- On Mon, 3/16/09, Kevin Zeese <kzeese at earthlink.net> wrote:
> From: Kevin Zeese <kzeese at earthlink.net>
> Subject: RE: [VotersForPeace] Mullen sketches out 'US strike' on  
> Iran/ Mr. Iran envisions 'major' war in coming months
> To: VotersForPeace at yahoogroups.com, ufpj-disc at lists.mayfirst.org
> Date: Monday, March 16, 2009, 9:24 AM
>
> I hope Mullen is not serious.  He thinks the U.S. can strike Iran  
> even though he acknowledges that the military is stretched thin.   
> What happens if Iran decides not to just take it -- but strike  
> back?  This guy must just be trying to send a threat to Iran because  
> his comments don't pass the straight face test. Or, maybe let the  
> Israelis hear what they want to hear.  He can't be that stupid --  
> can he?
>
> KZ
>
> From: VotersForPeace@ yahoogroups. com [mailto:VotersForPe  
> ace at yahoogroups. com] On Behalf Of James Morris
> Sent: Monday, March 16, 2009 6:50 AM
> To: traitorsusa@ yahoogroups. com
> Subject: [VotersForPeace] Mullen sketches out 'US strike' on Iran/  
> Mr. Iran envisions 'major' war in coming months
>
> Mullen sketches out 'US strike' on Iran
> Sun, 15 Mar 2009 19:30:43 GMT
>
> http://www.presstv. com/detail. aspx?id=88715&sectionid=351020104
>
> The top US military commander describes how Washington would engage  
> Iran militarily amid simmering talks of war on the country.
>
> In a weekend interview with Charlie Rose, Admiral Mike Mullen,  
> chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said although he is concerned  
> with the 'consequences' of a military action against Iran, the army  
> could rely on a 'very strong strategic reserve'.
>
> "We have the capacity to do it but we are stretched. My ground  
> forces are very stressed, very worn… On the other hand we've got a  
> very strong strategic reserve in our Air Force and in our Navy and  
> in fact that's a part of the world, it's a maritime part of the  
> world, where the emphasis would certainly be on those two forces,"  
> explained Adm. Mullen.
>
> His remarks come as Israeli Chief of Staff Gabi Ashkenazi is  
> currently in the US to discuss "the Iranian threat" with the heads  
> of the defense establishment and the US Secretary of State's special  
> adviser for the Persian Gulf and Southwest Asia, Dennis Ross,  
> according to Israeli media.
>
> The US and Israel accuse Iran, a signatory to the nuclear Non- 
> Proliferation Treaty (NPT), of having military objectives in its  
> pursuit of nuclear technology.
>
> While Israel repeatedly threatens to launch aerial strikes against  
> Iran's nuclear infrastructure, the US -- under the previous  
> administration as well as the current one -- warns that the use of  
> military option remains on the table to retard the country's nuclear  
> program.
>
> As Western doubts linger over the success of any Israeli military  
> plan against Iran as well as Tehran's retaliation warnings, the US  
> is expected to be involved -- voluntarily or forcibly -- in a  
> potential war against Iran.
>
> Adm. Mullen argued that a war against Iran would set off  
> "unintended" outcomes and endanger US interests in the oil-rich  
> region.
>
> "What I worry about in terms of an attack on Iran is in addition to  
> the immediate effect, the effect of the attack, it's the unintended  
> consequences, " Mullen said. "So I worry about the responses and I  
> worry about it escalating in ways that we couldn't predict."
>
> "So that kind of option generates a much higher level of risk in  
> terms of outcomes in the region and it really concerns me," he added.
>
> Earlier reports suggested that Israel's Prime Minister-designate,  
> Benjamin Netanyahu, anticipates being involved in a "major military  
> confrontation in the next few months".
>
> Netanyahu is known as "Mr. Iran" in Israeli circles as he has long  
> pledged to do "everything that is necessary" to stop the progress of  
> Tehran's nuclear program once and for all.
>
> Iran contends that its only goal is to make use of the civilian  
> applications of the nuclear technology and has warned that it would  
> not hesitate to take all necessary measures to defend its national  
> interests.
>
> Meanwhile in the White House, President Barack Obama is believed to  
> be drawing up plans to engage Iran in diplomacy over the disputed  
> nuclear program.
>
> ------------ --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- ---
>
> Mr. Iran envisions 'major' war in coming months
> Sat, 14 Mar 2009 16:10:40 GMT
>
> http://www.presstv. com/detail. aspx?id=88605&sectionid=351020104
>
> Amid lingering talks of war on Iran, Israel's prime minister- 
> designate raises the alarm about a major military conflict in the  
> coming months.
>
> The soon-to-be prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu believes that "a  
> national emergency" such as Israel's involvement in a major war  
> would help him in his frantic attempts to form a new ruling coalition.
>
> Following the inconclusive February 20 elections, Benjamin "Bibi"  
> Netanyahu, the hawkish leader of Likud, was tasked with piecing  
> together a new Israeli government.
>
> Netanyahu, who is known as "Mr. Iran" in Israeli circles, has so far  
> failed to gain the trust and support of opposition parties of Kadima  
> and Labor.
>
> According to a report carried by Debka, which is believed to have  
> close links to the Israeli intelligence service Mossad, Bibi is  
> planning to settle for a provisional administration before calling  
> for another early election in six months.
>
> "His main consideration is that Israel expects to be embroiled in a  
> major military confrontation in the next few months with Iran, Hamas  
> or Hezbollah -- or all three at once," read the Debka report.
>
> "A national emergency" would then compel Israeli rivals to join  
> Bibi's government, unnamed political sources were quoted as saying.
>
> The military conflict prediction by the Israeli prime minister- 
> designate comes as earlier on February 16, an annual defense work  
> plan presented to Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak and IDF Chief  
> of Staff Lieutenant-General Gabi Ashkenazi for the year 2009  
> described Iran as "the No.1 threat the IDF is now preparing for."
>
> The report tasked the Israeli Defense Force (IDF) with reinforcing  
> its strategic aerial capabilities, while zooming in on the  
> development of "remote-piloted vehicles and unmanned aerial  
> vehicles", as well as "infrastructural investments in intelligence  
> and communications devices."
>
> Israel, believed to be the only possessor of a nuclear arsenal in  
> the Middle East, describes Iran's nuclear activities as a threat to  
> its existence.
>
> Israeli officials claim that considering the pace at which Iran is  
> moving ahead with its nuclear program it would become a nuclear  
> power by the end of 2009 and argue that a military attack is a  
> legitimate option for taking out the country's nuclear infrastructure.
>
> As a response to long-standing Israeli war rhetoric, Iran has moved  
> to upgrade its defenses and has reportedly opted to clinch a deal  
> with Russia to acquire a sophisticated air defense system -- the  
> S-300.
>
> Earlier on Tuesday, however, a report revealed that Moscow might  
> take a step and shelve the delivery of the controversial air defense  
> system to Iran as Russia is currently seeking to turn a "new page"  
> in its ties with the US.
>
> "Such a possibility is not excluded. The question [of S-300  
> delivery] must be decided at a political level, especially as the  
> contract was worked out on a purely commercial basis," Russia's  
> Interfax news agency quoted an unnamed source as saying.
>
> The freeze in the delivery of the Russian S-300 surface-to-air  
> missile is expected to help ensure the success of an Israeli  
> airstrike on Iranian nuclear sites.
>
> Western military experts have estimated that the controversial  
> system would rule out the possibility of any such strike on Iranian  
> facilities.
>
> "If Tehran obtained the S-300, it would be a game-changer in  
> military thinking for tackling Iran," says long-time Pentagon  
> advisor Dan Goure.
>
>
> --- On Sun, 3/15/09, James Morris <justicequest2000@ yahoo.com> wrote:
> From: James Morris <justicequest2000@ yahoo.com>
> Subject: Freeman's Demise as Prelude to War on Iran
> To: traitorsusa@ yahoogroups. com
> Date: Sunday, March 15, 2009, 7:02 PM
>
> Just received the following from Dr. Stephen Sniegoski (author of  
> 'The Transparent Cabal' about the JINSA/PNAC/AEI Neocons who pushed  
> US into the Iraq quagmire for Israel):
>
> http://home. comcast.net/ ~transparentcaba l/
>
>
> Freeman's Demise as Prelude to War on Iran
>
> Sunday, March 15, 2009 2:29 PM
>
> From: "Stephen Sniegoski"
>
> Friends,
>
>
>
> Freemans Demise as Prelude to War on Iran
>
>
> On Thursday, I was somewhat happy that the Freeman affair showed the  
> existence of stauncher opposition to the Israel Lobby than I would  
> have expected in the US intelligence agencies; now, after devoting  
> more thought to the matter, it also seems likely that the failure of  
> Freemans appointment could be a step toward a US attack on Iran.
>
> The first article I include is Justin Raimondos Charles Freeman's  
> Victory.
>
> Raimondos central point is that the demise of Chas Freemans  
> appointment is actually a defeat for Israel. He writes: The nixing  
> of Charles "Chas" Freeman from a post as head of the National  
> Intelligence Council is not, as is commonly averred, a victory for  
> the Israel lobby. It is, instead, a Pyrrhic victory that is, a  
> victory so costly that it really amounts to a defeat for them. Sure,  
> they managed to keep out a trenchant critic of their Israel-centric  
> and grossly distorted view of a proper American foreign policy, and,  
> yes, they managed to smear him and put others on notice that someone  
> with his views is radioactive, as far as a high-level job in the  
> foreign policy establishment is concerned. And yet and yet .
>
> They the Lobby have now been forced out in the open. A lobby, says  
> Steve Rosen, the ringleader of the "get Freeman" lynch mob, is like  
> a night flower: it thrives in the dark and dies in the sun.
>
> In the middle parts of his article, Raimondo acknowledges that it  
> was absolutely essential for the Israel Lobby to prevent Freeman  
> from getting the key intelligence position in order to attain their  
> next goal: a US attack on Iran. Raimondo writes that The Lobby was  
> desperate to keep Freeman out of the NIC because it's an agency that  
> provides key intelligence for the President and Congress. If you'll  
> recall, that's how the War Party lured us into fighting an  
> unnecessary war against Iraq by manipulating the intelligence, and  
> even resorting to forgery to achieve their ends. With Freeman at the  
> helm of the intelligence- gathering machinery, they'd never be able  
> to pull if off again. [See also Edmund Connelly, The Appointment of  
> Charles Freeman and the Coming War with Iran, http://www.theoccid  
> entalobserver. net/authors/ Connelly- Freeman.html# Iran]
>
> Raimondo concludes his article by writing that The Freeman affair  
> has exposed the Israel lobby for precisely what they are: it has  
> flushed them out of the woodwork, and brought them in from the  
> shadows. That in itself is a great victory, one that means much more  
> in the longterm than anyone presently imagines.
>
> Now if without Freeman, the Israel Lobby is able to drive the US  
> into an attack on Iran, one wonders how valuable any longterm  
> effects of recognizing its power will be. As economist John Maynard  
> Keynes quipped: In the long run we are all dead. And many people  
> will be literally dead if the Israel Lobby is able to achieve its  
> goal of war on Iran. Moreover, if the US becomes involved in a  
> terrible conflagration in the Middle East, war propaganda and  
> censorship would likely drown out any voices who would dare to point  
> out the real cause of the war.
>
> In the other article, Peter Lee in Counterpunch like Raimondo sees  
> the Freeman affair as being related to the Israel Lobbys plans for  
> Iran, though he presents the Lobbys position to be more defensive.  
> Lee writes The real significance of the fight against  
> Freeman . . . . has everything to do with trying to disrupt Obamas  
> initiative to engage with Iran.
>
> Lee points out that rapprochement with Iran would be highly  
> beneficial to United States interests in a number of significant  
> ways. Beyond helping keep the lid on in Iraq by moderating the  
> behavior of the majority Shia against the Sunni, Lee writes that an  
> active Iranian role in Afghanistan could do the United States a  
> world of good, especially in opening some kind of second front  
> against the Taliban in the opium heartland of western Afghanistan  
> and providing an alternative to the risky Pakistan route for U.S.  
> and NATO supplies into Afghanistan
>
> Lee maintains that Israel and its American supporters will do  
> everything they can to prevent any improvement in American/Iranian  
> relations, which they believe will be harmful to Israels interests.  
> Lee holds that Israels claim to unstinting U.S. support is enhanced  
> rather than damaged if it occupies an isolated position at the  
> center of a dysfunctional Middle East filled with Muslim nations  
> hostile both to it and the United States. (As I point out in my book  
> The Transparent Cabal, the Israeli Likudniks seek a fragmented  
> Middle East in order to enhance Israeli security interests http:// 
> home. comcast.net/ ~transparentcaba l/)
>
> Lee writes that I anticipate unending efforts by Israels supporters  
> in the U.S. Congress, media, and think tank commentariat to make the  
> political cost of dealing with Iran unsupportable for the Obama  
> administration. And with the economy stuck in a mile-deep rut,  
> President Obama may in fact decide not to pick a fight over Iran and  
> do little more than prolong the bloody standoffs in Iraq and  
> Afghanistan.
>
> However, Lee adds that the economy might compel the Obama  
> administration to seek better relations with Iran and overall  
> stability in the Middle East. He writes:
>
> In order to pull the world out of recession, its better to have  
> functioning states and economies in the Middle East and South Asia  
> and working relationships with global and regional powers--not  
> billion-dollar sinkholes for destabilizing security spending and  
> defiant antagonism to Russia, China, and Iran.
>
> That means the U.S. needs concerted multi-lateral efforts to ratchet  
> down the existential crises looming in Afghanistan, Pakistan, and,  
> potentially, Iraq. The world system is in shaky shape and today we  
> may not be able to afford the domestic political division,  
> confrontation- and-conflict based foreign policy, and international  
> instability that indulging the Israel lobby traditionally brings.
>
> So, in short, Lee sees Obama on the horns of a perilous dilemma.  
> There would be grave political costs if he tried to move away from  
> the Israeli-oriented confrontational approach in the Middle East.  
> However, the American economy, and the world economic system, are in  
> such terrible shape that the continued instability in Middle East  
> cannot be tolerated.
>
> While Lee depicts the situation quite clearly, he neglects to  
> mention the political value of one other approacha US war on Iran.  
> Undoubtedly this would dramatically worsen Americas economic  
> situation. However, if the economy should continue to sink and  
> begins to cause Obamas popularity to plummet, war would be a way of  
> diverting public attention from the economy and could concomitantly  
> improve his public support dramatically as a great war leader in  
> line with Obamas presidential heroesLincoln and Franklin Roosevelt.  
> Wars make the general populace far more willing to endure hardship  
> than is the case during peacetime. Moreover, the war would create  
> the political climate to allow for extreme deficit financing (by  
> money creation) that could mitigate the economic hardship in the  
> short-termpostponin g greater economic suffering for the future.  
> Republican criticism would virtually cease, especially because the  
> Republicans are likely to be the most hawkish on the Iranian issue.  
> And having the full support of the Israel Lobby would certainly  
> bolster Obamas media image. Furthermore, Obamas close pro-Zionist  
> advisors, Rahm Emanuel and David Axelrod would likely be urging him  
> to move in a war direction, contending that it would boost his  
> political image. It would require a strong, independent,  
> knowledgeable statesman to resist such a temptation and to sacrifice  
> individual interest for the good of the country, especially when  
> Obamas key advisors would be urging war for the good of the United  
> States.
>
> If, as Raimondo maintains, the Israel Lobby intends to use the bogus  
> intelligence to drive the US to war, the blocking of Freemans  
> appointment might be a significant step to the purging, or  
> intimidating into silence, of the critics of Israel/neocon war  
> policy in the American intelligence services. Daniel Luban and Jim  
> Lobe write that Adm. Dennis Blair, who went to the Senate and  
> strongly defended his appointee, may be the next target for  
> Freeman's antagonists as they push for alarmist intelligence on  
> Iran. http://www.antiwar. com/ips/lubanlob e.php?articleid= 14400 It  
> should be noted that Freeman affair not only brought the Israel  
> Lobby out into the open but it also revealed its critics in the  
> national security apparatus. It has thus facilitated a possible purge.
>
> Moreover, some leading officials in the national security apparatus  
> are already in line with the Israel Lobby war agenda. New CIA  
> director Leon Panetta and head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Mike  
> Mullen have recently been talking about the alleged Iranian nuclear  
> threat. http://informationc learinghouse. info/article2217 6.htm
>
> Once American intelligence agencies become unified in disseminating  
> false intelligence, which would be trumpeted by the US media, the  
> stage could be set for a war on Iran.
>
> .Most members of Congress were quite willing to sign on for the Iraq  
> war because of political pressure. What reason is there to think  
> that Obama would be any different, especially if his own experts  
> presented him with information illustrating the alleged danger posed  
> by Iran? Of course, if the career professionals in the intelligence  
> services are so opposed to a Middle East war, and if they have the  
> courage to suffer career-wise, their staunch resistance might be  
> able to thwart this development. Maybe the traditional foreign  
> policy establishment and various financial interests will perceive a  
> war on Iran to be so devastating that they will go all out to  
> prevent this from occurring. However, if they dont start reacting  
> soon it could be too late when the Israel Lobby has gained control  
> of the levers of power in national security.
>
>
>
> An improved version of my previous message on the Freeman affair is  
> at: Chas Freeman and the imaginary Lobby, The Last Ditch, March 15,  
> 2009 http://www.thornwal ker.com/ditch/ sniegoski_ freeman_03_ 09.htm
>
>
>
> ____________ _________ _________ _________ _________ _________  
> _________ _____
>
>
>
>
>
> http://antiwar. com/justin/ ?articleid= 14394
>
> March 13, 2009
>
> Charles Freeman's Victory
>
> Forced to withdraw, he took the Israel lobby down with him
>
> by Justin Raimondo
>
> The nixing of Charles "Chas" Freeman from a post as head of the  
> National Intelligence Council is not, as is commonly averred, a  
> victory for the Israel lobby. It is, instead, a Pyrrhic victory that  
> is, a victory so costly that it really amounts to a defeat for them.  
> Sure, they managed to keep out a trenchant critic of their Israel- 
> centric and grossly distorted view of a proper American foreign  
> policy, and, yes, they managed to smear him and put others on notice  
> that someone with his views is radioactive, as far as a high-level  
> job in the foreign policy establishment is concerned. And yet and  
> yet .
>
> They the Lobby have now been forced out in the open. "A lobby," says  
> Steve Rosen, the ringleader of the "get Freeman" lynch mob, "is like  
> a night flower: it thrives in the dark and dies in the sun." If so,  
> then the Israel lobby is slated for oblivion, because as  
> frenetically and pathetically as they tried to mask the centrality  
> of their involvement, and as much as they tried to make this about  
> other issues (his alleged ties to Saudi Arabia, his supposed views  
> on China), everybody knows it was really all about Israel and  
> Freeman's contemptuous view of the "special relationship" which  
> requires us giving Tel Aviv a blank check, moral as well as  
> monetary. As a foreign policy realist, he thinks we ought to put our  
> own interests first, in the Middle East and elsewhere, not those of  
> a foreign country, no matter how much political clout and campaign  
> cash its American fifth column can muster.
>
> This, in the current atmosphere in Washington, is "extremism," a  
> charge that hung over Freeman's appointment from the get-go.  
> Jonathan Chait, writing in the Washington Post, went so far as to  
> call Freeman a "fanatic." A charge which seems counterintuitive,  
> considering that we're talking about an adherent of a foreign policy  
> perspective that coldly calculates American interests in what the  
> righteous would disdain as shockingly amoral terms. Oh, says Chait,  
> he's not like those neocons, with their "simplistic" division of the  
> world into "good guys" and "bad guys." No, instead, Freeman doesn't  
> recognize any "good guys" he's the sort who opposed our bombing of  
> the former Yugoslavia and our support to the narco-Mafioso "Kosovo  
> Liberation Army," the precursor to Ahmed Chalabi's Iraqi National  
> Congress, which, likewise, lured us into a foreign war under false  
> pretenses. But the Kosovo war "halted mass slaughter," says Chait:  
> apparently the death of hundreds of Serbians at American hands is a  
> slaughter not considered "mass" enough to merit mention. Yet the  
> alleged "genocide" the Serbs were supposedly committing turned out,  
> in the end, to inhabit the same nonexistent country as Saddam's  
> "weapons of mass destruction. " It was, in short, war propaganda, of  
> the sort we have become all too familiar with of late.
>
> To be sure, Chait says: "Realism has some useful insights. For  
> instance, realists accurately predicted that Iraqis would respond to  
> a U.S. invasion with less than unadulterated joy."
>
> This is a lot more than Chait managed to do: to this day, he defends  
> his forceful support for the biggest strategic blunder in American  
> military history. "I don't think you can argue that a regime change  
> in Iraq won't demonstrably and almost immediately improve the living  
> conditions of the Iraqi people," Chait said on television as our  
> troops massed for the attack. No one would think of uttering such  
> nonsense today at least with a straight face. Oh, but don't forget,  
> it's those nasty realist ideologues not the neocons or their liberal  
> interventionist allies who are the real danger.
>
> As the Iraq disaster unfolded, the magazine of which Chait is  
> employed as a senior editor declared "the central assumption  
> underlying this magazine's strategic rationale for war now appears  
> to have been wrong," and yet "if our strategic rationale for war has  
> collapsed, our moral one has not." Two years later, however, Chait  
> and his fellow editors issued a shamefaced apology: "The New  
> Republic deeply regrets its early support for this war."
>
> The "liberal" interventionism that Chait invoked in support of the  
> war actually flew the flag of "humanitarianism. " One million Iraqi  
> deaths later, such a claim has a rather sinister ring to it. He also  
> invoked the principle of "international law" this, in support of a  
> lawless occupation and an unprovoked attack on a people who had no  
> ability to strike back. "Multilateralism" was another "principle"  
> invoked by Chait, the great liberal and yet who else but a genuine  
> fanatic would make such an argument about a war that had little to  
> no support from our allies?
>
> Chait is unconcerned about the actual fanatics who have done so much  
> damage with his help to the country and its interests abroad. Forget  
> the neocons, his erstwhile allies, and let's concentrate on the real  
> danger, the enemies of the Israel lobby:
>
> "Taken to extremes, realism's blindness to morality can lead it  
> wildly astray. Stephen Walt and John Mearsheimer, both staunch  
> realists, wrote The Israel Lobby,' a hyperbolic attack on Zionist  
> political influence. The central error of their thesis was that,  
> since America's alliance with Israel does not advance American  
> interests, it could be explained only by sinister lobbying  
> influence. They seemed unable to grasp even the possibility that  
> Americans, rightly or wrongly, have an affinity for a fellow  
> democracy surrounded by hostile dictatorships. Consider, perhaps, if  
> eunuchs tried to explain the way teenage boys act around girls."
>
> Putting Israel first is as natural as heterosexuality but only if  
> you work for Marty Peretz.
>
> Why Chait and his confreres continue their denialism when it comes  
> to the demonstrable power of the Israel lobby which, after all, has  
> succeeded in blocking Freeman, and many others from positions of  
> influence is beyond me. AIPAC went out of its way to deny any hand  
> in the lynch mob that went after Freeman, and yet, as Glenn  
> Greenwald and Andrew Sullivan point out, this is just a subterfuge:  
> their top media relations guy has his fingerprints all over this hit  
> job, and a very effective job it was.
>
> Effective, yet oddly forced and unconvincing: for example, it seems  
> curious to argue that Freeman is afflicted by a "blindness to  
> morality" when it is precisely a sense of justice that gives rise to  
> Freeman's apparent sympathy [.pdf] for the plight of Palestinians  
> who chafe under the constraints of life in the occupied territories.  
> It is precisely a sense of offended morality that drives the vast  
> Arab anger at Israel, and causes realists like Freeman to question  
> our unbending fealty to the inhumane and unsustainable policies of  
> the Israeli government toward their Palestinian helots. If anyone is  
> afflicted with moral blindness, when it comes to this question, it  
> is Chait and the editors of the magazine for which he works.
>
> Chait then cites Freeman's by now infamous remarks on the Tiananmen  
> Square incident, and yet this China trope was never really all that  
> convincing. To begin with, even in the truncated quote served up as  
> evidence of his supposed pro-crackdown views, it is clear that  
> Freeman was not expressing his personal view, but rather that of the  
> average Chinese, as perceived through his own eyes:
>
> "[T]he truly unforgivable mistake of the Chinese authorities was the  
> failure to intervene on a timely basis to nip the demonstrations in  
> the bud, rather than as would have been both wise and efficacious to  
> intervene with force when all other measures had failed to restore  
> domestic tranquility to Beijing and other major urban centers in  
> China. In this optic, the Politburo's response to the mob scene at  
> 'Tian'anmen' stands as a monument to overly cautious behavior on the  
> part of the leadership, not as an example of rash action." [Emphasis  
> added]
>
> The phrase "in this optic" indicates to any literate person that the  
> author is not speaking in his own voice, but in what he imagines to  
> be the voice of the Chinese people. Does Chait imagine we're too  
> stupid to see this? I'm afraid he and the Washington crowd he  
> epitomizes believe precisely that. But they'd better watch it: if  
> they get too careless, someone may call them out on it and then  
> they'd have to admit that Freeman's alleged "links" to China had  
> nothing to do with the real objections of his detractors. So, he  
> served on the advisory board of a Chinese company so what? If  
> everyone with a commercial connection to China had to drop out of  
> consideration for government work, a large proportion of those  
> currently working in Washington would be missing.
>
> The complete disingenuousness with which Chait made his argument is  
> so transparent that it makes me wonder if, perhaps, the Israel lobby  
> has abandoned all attempts at subtlety, and is now working on the  
> assumption that it doesn't matter any more if they come out in the  
> open. The nightflower has been exposed to the light of day, and,  
> rather than wilt, perhaps its nurturers have decided that it's  
> better to brave the sun. That's why the Mearsheimer- Walt book has  
> become such a target, to the point that anyone who praises it, as  
> Freeman has done, is deemed unfit for office in Washington. This  
> explains why former AIPAC top lobbyist Steve Rosen, the indicted spy  
> who stole classified information on behalf of Israel, openly led the  
> anti-Freeman movement (see this timeline) and didn't even try to  
> hide his key role in the affair.
>
> The Lobby was desperate to keep Freeman out of the NIC because it's  
> an agency that provides key intelligence for the President and  
> Congress. If you'll recall, that's how the War Party lured us into  
> fighting an unnecessary war against Iraq by manipulating the  
> intelligence, and even resorting to forgery to achieve their ends.  
> With Freeman at the helm of the intelligence- gathering machinery,  
> they'd never be able to pull if off again. In his absence well, they  
> just might. That's just what they're getting ready to do in the case  
> of Iran, which, we are told, is gathering "weapons of mass  
> destruction. " Part of the NIC's job is to prepare the daily  
> presidential briefings, and with such access to the President,  
> Freeman would have been in a good position to block the War Party's  
> machinations. Which is why Chait's parting salvo is such an outrage:
>
> "This is the portrait of a mind so deep in the grip of realist  
> ideology that it follows the premises straight through to their  
> reductio ad absurdum. Maybe you suppose the National Intelligence  
> Council job is so technocratic that Freeman's rigid ideology won't  
> have any serious consequences. But think back to the neocon  
> ideologues whom Bush appointed to such positions. That didn't work  
> out very well, did it?"
>
> The neocons uphold a set of beliefs, they have an ideology: so too  
> do the realists believe in a comprehensive worldview. However, the  
> question is: what do they believe? Chait only mentions two realist  
> principles: the pursuit of American interests abroad, and hostility  
> to those who would put the interests of "a fellow imperfect  
> democracy" above the realists' "cold analysis." Yet rational  
> analysis, however "cold" its temperature may be, seems a necessary  
> antidote to the hysteria that followed in the wake of 9/11. And as  
> for that "imperfect democracy" of Israel what will Chait and his  
> fellow "liberals" do when Avigdor Lieberman becomes its public as  
> well as its private face?
>
> Freeman himself said it best in his statement explaining his  
> withdrawal:
>
> "The libels on me and their easily traceable email trails show  
> conclusively that there is a powerful lobby determined to prevent  
> any view other than its own from being aired, still less to factor  
> in American understanding of trends and events in the Middle East.  
> The tactics of the Israel Lobby plumb the depths of dishonor and  
> indecency and include character assassination, selective  
> misquotation, the willful distortion of the record, the fabrication  
> of falsehoods, and an utter disregard for the truth. The aim of this  
> Lobby is control of the policy process through the exercise of a  
> veto over the appointment of people who dispute the wisdom of its  
> views, the substitution of political correctness for analysis, and  
> the exclusion of any and all options for decision by Americans and  
> our government other than those that it favors."
>
> The real fanatics are the Israel-firsters, who have used every  
> subterfuge, no matter how low, to maintain their parasitic grip on  
> the American policymaking process. The really dangerous ideologues  
> are the Likudniks and their American amen corner who willfully  
> distort and deform American policy into a means to empower and  
> succor a militaristic settler colony that is increasingly anti- 
> democratic and aggressive. The Freeman affair has exposed the Israel  
> lobby for precisely what they are: it has flushed them out of the  
> woodwork, and brought them in from the shadows. That in itself is a  
> great victory, one that means much more in the longterm than anyone  
> presently imagines.
>
> ~ Justin Raimondo
>
>
>
>
>
> Find this article at:
>
> http://www.antiwar. com/justin
>
> ------------ --------- --------- --------- --------- ---------  
> --------- --------- --------- --------- ---------
>
>
> http://www.counterp unch.com/ lee03132009. html
>
> AIPAC Takes Another Scalp
>
> What the Chas Freeman Fight Was Really About
>
> March 13 / 15, 2009
>
>
>
> By PETER LEE
>
> The possibility that Chas Freeman was brought down by an ad hoc  
> operation run on a shoestring by a rogue ex-AIPAC official, Steven  
> Rosen, awaiting trial on espionage charges, working the political  
> and media pipe organ like the neo-conservatives did in the run-up to  
> the Iraq war, is an indication that the guns are in place, the mines  
> are laid, andmore disturbinglythat the Obama administration wandered  
> into the battlefield bereft of a plan, arms, or allies close at hand  
> and got its hat handed to it.
>
> Theres understandable handwringing on thoughtful foreign policy  
> blogs that hoped Freeman taking over something called the National  
> Intelligence Council would lead to a more sensible, less reflexively  
> pro-Israel stance on Middle East issues.
>
> Of course, AIPAC has not endeared itself or its patron to the Obama  
> administration by spearheading a nasty, humiliating, and successful  
> battle to bar a high-level and qualified nominee from a significant  
> post. Take for example the blog post by the Israel Policy Forums M.J  
> Rosenberg:
>
> The campaign to defeat Chas Freeman may come at a cost. The  
> perception, almost universally held, that he was brought down  
> because he is a strong and vocal opponent of Israel's West Bank and  
> settlement policies is, not good for the Jewish community and the  
> pro-Israel community in particular. What does it all mean? [An]  
> insider I spoke to last night said: "This was a real pyrrhic  
> victory. One, the administration is pissed off. And, two, Obama is  
> going to be more determined than ever to take a strong stand on  
> settlements, Gaza relief, and negotiations. They shot their wad on  
> Freeman. They will not think that was so smart a few months from now."
>
> Let me tell you what it all means, MJ. As far as Israels lobbying  
> position in Washington, zip.
>
> Israels access to buckets of U.S. money and shiploads of arms is  
> secure as long as the grass grows and the rivers run, no matter what  
> it does with settlements on the West Bank or to the people of Gaza.
>
> The real significance of the fight against Freeman takes us away  
> from the traditional need to affirm the right of Israel to exist,  
> enjoy Americas commitment to its continued survival, and consume its  
> yearly entitlement from the U.S. budget. It has everything to do  
> with trying to disrupt Obamas initiative to engage with Iran an  
> initiative that has the active encouragement of Russia, probably  
> tacit support from China, and the active interest of Iran itself.
>
> Iran has an interesting battery of carrots to offer the United  
> States. Beyond helping keep the lid on in Iraq by moderating the  
> behavior of the majority Shia against the Sunni, an active Iranian  
> role in Afghanistan could do the United States a world of good,  
> especially in opening some kind of second front against the Taliban  
> in the opium heartland of western Afghanistan and providing an  
> alternative to the risky Pakistan route for U.S. and NATO supplies  
> into Afghanistan.
>
> But rapprochement with Iran is anathema to the Israeli government,  
> since it would replace the current situationwhere it is assumed that  
> the interests of Tel Aviv and Washington are identical and, if there  
> is a conflict, Israeli priorities should prevail because it has the  
> most at stake to a more complicated arrangement in which Israels  
> position might be downgraded to that of just another stakeholder,  
> whose interests might be compromised by Washington for the sake of  
> its geopolitical objectives and bilateral dealings with Iran.
>
> Back on February 6, concerning the signs of U.S.-Iranian  
> rapprochement, I wrote oh-so-presciently (my crystal ball was  
> polished to a brilliant sheen for this one):
>
> Direct U.S. dealmaking with Iran (in effect, giving a higher  
> priority to Americas own strategic interests a la Walt-Mearsheimer  
> at the expense of unequivocal support of Israels priorities and  
> preferences) is Israels greatest fear, so any thawing of relations  
> between Washington and Tehran will have to run the multiple  
> gauntlets of opposition, resistance, provocation, and sabotage  
> thrown down by the Israeli government (soon, apparently, to be run  
> by the hard-right Benjamin Netanyahu) and its allies in the United  
> States.
>
> So, consider laffaire Freeman the first conspicuous salvo in the  
> effort to sabotage the Obama administrations outreach to Tehran.
>
> Under the Bush administration, when the identity of U.S. and Israeli  
> priorities was pretty much a given, regional confrontation was a  
> welcome opportunity to advance Full Spectrum Dominance, and the idea  
> of fighting two billion-dollar wars (plus for good measure a Global  
> War on Terror) was considered to play to Americas economic and  
> military strengths, AIPACs trashing of Middle East realists was not  
> such a big deal.
>
> But now we are in classic Walt-Mearsheimer territory, where the  
> Obama administrations intense desire to disengage from Iraq and fix  
> Afghanistan requires at the very least a divergence from Israeli  
> priorities and at worst (from Tel Avivs point of view) bilateral  
> engagement with Iran.
>
> Provocation, obstruction and even the active sabotage of U.S. Iran  
> initiatives inflicts few costs on Israel. Israels political position  
> in Washington is secure, and its claim to unstinting U.S. support is  
> enhanced rather than damaged if it occupies an isolated position at  
> the center of a dysfunctional Middle East filled with Muslim nations  
> hostile both to it and the United States.
>
> For the United States, its different. The Obama administration is  
> trying to unwind from overextended positions in Iraq and  
> Afghanistan. It needs the help of regional powers that have real  
> reach and positive interests inside Iraq and Afghanistan to avoid a  
> catastrophic mess that would damage U.S. interests and cripple the  
> Obama presidency.
>
> That means Iran. And Syria.
>
> Not Israel.
>
> I anticipate unending efforts by Israels supporters in the U.S.  
> Congress, media, and think tank commentariat to make the political  
> cost of dealing with Iran unsupportable for the Obama  
> administration. And with the economy stuck in a mile-deep rut,  
> President Obama may in fact decide not to pick a fight over Iran and  
> do little more than prolong the bloody standoffs in Iraq and  
> Afghanistan.
>
> However, while the Schumers and Liebermans of this world celebrate  
> Freemans withdrawal and engage in their enthusiastic osculation of  
> AIPACs obliging hindquarters, they should consider that continued  
> confrontation in the Middle East and drift in U.S. policy will have  
> real costs for American interests and the world.
>
> In order to pull the world out of recession, its better to have  
> functioning states and economies in the Middle East and South Asia  
> and working relationships with global and regional powers--not  
> billion-dollar sinkholes for destabilizing security spending and  
> defiant antagonism to Russia, China, and Iran.
>
> That means the U.S. needs concerted multi-lateral efforts to ratchet  
> down the existential crises looming in Afghanistan, Pakistan, and,  
> potentially, Iraq. The world system is in shaky shape and today we  
> may not be able to afford the domestic political division,  
> confrontation- and-conflict based foreign policy, and international  
> instability that indulging the Israel lobby traditionally brings.
>
> Peter Lee is a business man who has spent thirty years observing,  
> analyzing, and writing on Asian affairs. Lee can be reached at  
> peterrlee-2000@ yahoo.com
>
> Additional at the following URL:
>
> Chas Freeman forced by Israel Lobies to withdraw from NIC
>
> http://www.itszone. co.uk/zone0/ viewtopic. php?t=104675
>
>
>
> --- On Sat, 3/14/09, James Morris <justicequest2000@ yahoo.com> wrote:
> From: James Morris <justicequest2000@ yahoo.com>
> Subject: The American Rome Is Burning - So Let's Attack Iran
> To: justicequest2000@ yahoo.com
> Date: Saturday, March 14, 2009, 4:17 AM
>
> The American Rome Is Burning - So Let's Attack Iran (by Eric  
> Margolis):
>
> http://www.huffingt onpost.com/ eric-margolis/the-american- rome-is- 
> burn_ b_174074. html
>
>
> Remember what Israel did to the USS Liberty and what our government  
> did to us (Eric Margolis responds to USS Liberty survivor Phil  
> Tourney on C-SPAN's 'Washington Journal'):
>
> http://www.youtube. com/watch?v=bH- 
> oZHBzOe8&feature=PlayList&p=0E678441B38AFD95&index=0&playnext=1
>
>
>
> The Neocons Strike Back:
>
>
> http://www.consorti umnews.com/ 2009/031109.html
>
>
> Additional at the following URL:
>
> Chas Freeman forced by Israel Lobies to withdraw from NIC
>
> http://www.itszone. co.uk/zone0/ viewtopic. php?t=104675
>
>
> --- On Sat, 3/14/09, James Morris <justicequest2000@ yahoo.com> wrote:
> From: James Morris <justicequest2000@ yahoo.com>
> Subject: The American Rome Is Burning - So Let's Attack Iran (by  
> Eric Margolis): http://www.huffingt onpost.com/ eric-margolis/ the- 
> american- rome-is-burn_ b_174074. html Remember what Israel did to  
> the USS Liberty and what our government did to us (Eric Margolis  
> responds to USS Liberty survivor Phil Tourney on C-SPAN's  
> 'Washington Journal'):
> To: traitorsusa@ yahoogroups. com
> Date: Saturday, March 14, 2009, 4:23 AM
>
> The American Rome Is Burning - So Let's Attack Iran (by Eric  
> Margolis):
>
> http://www.huffingt onpost.com/ eric-margolis/the-american- rome-is- 
> burn_ b_174074. html
>
>
> Remember what Israel did to the USS Liberty and what our government  
> did to us (Eric Margolis responds to USS Liberty survivor Phil  
> Tourney on C-SPAN's 'Washington Journal'):
>
> http://www.youtube. com/watch?v=bH- 
> oZHBzOe8&feature=PlayList&p=0E678441B38AFD95&index=0&playnext=1
>
>
>
> The Neocons Strike Back:
>
>
> http://www.consorti umnews.com/ 2009/031109.html
>
>
> Additional at the following URL:
>
> Chas Freeman forced by Israel Lobies to withdraw from NIC
>
> http://www.itszone. co.uk/zone0/ viewtopic. php?t=104675
>
>
> --- On Fri, 3/13/09, James Morris <justicequest2000@ yahoo.com> wrote:
> From: James Morris <justicequest2000@ yahoo.com>
> Subject: The Freeman Brouhaha
> To: traitorsusa@ yahoogroups. com
> Date: Friday, March 13, 2009, 3:54 PM
>
> Council for the National Interest
>
> The Freeman Brouhaha
>
>
> The scurrilous campaign against the leading American diplomat on  
> China and the Middle East, leading to the voluntary withdrawal of  
> his name, may have been a blunder of strategic proportions for  
> Israel and her lobby in the United States.
>
> We have been witnessing the awesome exchanges between supporters for  
> Ambassador Chas Freeman and AIPAC legmen for the past few days. Our  
> judgment is that the great American desire to be fair and morally  
> balanced is winning out as usual.
>
> All across the country David Broder's article is saying, "Blair  
> [Director of National Intelligence] said that the White House told  
> him that if he wanted Freeman, he'd have to fight for him himself.  
> When I asked the White House on Tuesday if Obama supported Freeman,  
> a National Security Council spokesman said he would check, but he  
> never got back to me. Freeman vanished without a squawk from Obama."
>
> We at the Council for the National Interest predict that there will  
> be a long and continuing backlash by the American, as well as  
> European, Chinese and Arabian Intelligence Services over this  
> incident. The question is can American Intelligence estimates on  
> Israel and her neighbors ever be trusted again? The Freeman incident  
> is far worse than the incident involving Valerie Plame and her  
> husband Ambassador Joe Wilson in the run up to the Iraq war in 2003.  
> We know now that Israeli intelligence in all probability worked with  
> Italian intelligence to mislead America, the world and Secretary  
> Colin Powell regarding yellow cake uranium from Niger.
>
> The Freeman incident will have a much broader effect than how  
> America went to war on behalf of Israel in Iraq with no exit  
> strategy and little thought to the consequences. How can the Obama  
> intelligence estimates so far as the Middle East is concerned, ever  
> be trusted?
>
>
> Harvard Professor Stephen Walt, co-author of The Israel Lobby wrote  
> about the Freeman incident this week in Foreign Policy, "It is one  
> thing to pander to various special interest groups while you're  
> running for office -- everyone expects that sort of thing -- but  
> it's another thing to let a group of bullies push you around in the  
> first fifty days of your administration. "
> Ambassador Freeman himself, has cited Shelly's Prometheus Unbound:
> "To suffer woes which Hope thinks infinite;
> To forgive wrongs darker than death or night;
> To defy Power, which seems omnipotent;
> To love and bear; to hope till Hope creates
> From its own wreck the thing it contemplates;
> Neither to change, nor falter, nor repent;
> This, like thy glory, Titan, is to be
> Good, great and joyous, beautiful, and free;
> This is alone Life, Joy, Empire, and Victory."
>
> Israel and her lobby may have won a pyrrhic victory but the real  
> loser is America, Israel and final Middle East peace process that we  
> all so desperately need. This is not the end of this incident. It  
> uncovered the deep fissures in American Middle East policymaking.
>
>
>
>
> Gene Bird
> President, Council for the National Interest
>
>
> P.S. A related matter is the obvious defeat the Israel lobby took on  
> the three amendments, SA 629, SA 630 and SA 631 by Senator Jon Kyl  
> (R-AZ) regarding Gaza and Egypt.
> Click here to make a tax-deductible donation:
>
> https://secure. groundspring. org/dn/index. php?aid=2836Coun  
> cilfortheNationa lInterest Foundation
> 1250 4th Street SW, Suite WG-1 Washington, DC 20024
> 800.296.6958 202.863.2951 Fax: 202.863.2952
> http://cnifoundatio n.org/
>
> ------------ --------- --------- --------- --------- ----
>
> Additional at the following URL:
>
> http://www.itszone. co.uk/zone0/ viewtopic. php?t=104675
>
>
> --- On Fri, 3/13/09, James Morris <justicequest2000@ yahoo.com> wrote:
> From: James Morris <justicequest2000@ yahoo.com>
> Subject: Charles Freeman’s disloyalty allegations
> To: traitorsusa@ yahoogroups. com
> Date: Friday, March 13, 2009, 8:55 AM
>
> Charles Freeman’s disloyalty allegations
>
> http://www.theoccid entalobserver. net/articles/ MacDonald-  
> Freeman.html
>
> Additional at the following URLs:
>
> http://www.itszone. co.uk/zone0/ viewtopic. php?t=104675
>
> http://NEOCONZIONIS TTHREAT.COM
>
>
> --- On Thu, 3/12/09, James Morris <justicequest2000@ yahoo.com> wrote:
> From: James Morris <justicequest2000@ yahoo.com>
> Subject: Intelligence Pick Blames 'Israel Lobby' For Withdrawal:
> To: traitorsusa@ yahoogroups. com
> Date: Thursday, March 12, 2009, 6:13 AM
>
> Intelligence Pick Blames 'Israel Lobby' For Withdrawal:
>
> http://www.washingt onpost.com/ wp-dyn/content/ article/2009/ 03/11/ 
> AR20090311 04308.html? wpisrc=newslette r
>
>
> http://tinyurl. com/amxopy
>
> --- On Thu, 3/12/09, James Morris <justicequest2000@ yahoo.com> wrote:
> From: James Morris <justicequest2000@ yahoo.com>
> Subject: "Steer clear of attack on Iran."
> To: traitorsusa@ yahoogroups. com
> Date: Thursday, March 12, 2009, 4:07 AM
>
> "Steer clear
> of attack on Iran."
>
> http://www.miamiher ald.com/opinion/ other-views/ story/943518. html
>
>
> U.S. official: Obama won't cut military aid to Israel as US states  
> go broke:
>
> http://www.haaretz. com/hasen/ spages/1070318. html
>
>
> Cheney supervised 'assassination ring'?
>
>
> http://www.presstv. com/detail. aspx?id=88339&sectionid=3510203
>
>
>
>
> --- On Wed, 3/11/09, James Morris <justicequest2000@ yahoo.com> wrote:
> From: James Morris <justicequest2000@ yahoo.com>
> Subject: Stephen Walt On Chas Freeman's withdrawal:
> To: traitorsusa@ yahoogroups. com
> Date: Wednesday, March 11, 2009, 1:22 PM
>
> Stephen Walt On Chas Freeman's withdrawal:
>
> http://walt. foreignpolicy. com/posts/ 2009/03/11/ on_chas_freemans  
> _withdrawal
>
>
> Charles Freeman fails the loyalty test
>
> (Updated below - Update II - Update III - Update IV - Update V)
>
> http://www.salon. com/opinion/ greenwald/ 2009/03/10/ freeman/index.  
> html
>
>
> AIPAC espionage case defendant Steve Rosen & AIPAC operative Rahm  
> Emanuel got Freeman removed from NIC:
>
> http://tinyurl. com/b88sl6
>
>
>
> Additional at the following URL:
>
>
> http://www.itszone. co.uk/zone0/ viewtopic. php?t=104675
>
> --- On Wed, 3/11/09, James Morris <justicequest2000@ yahoo.com> wrote:
> From: James Morris <justicequest2000@ yahoo.com>
> Subject: AIPAC espionage case defendant Steve Rosen & AIPAC  
> operative Rahm Emanuel got Freeman removed from NIC:
> To: traitorsusa@ yahoogroups. com
> Date: Wednesday, March 11, 2009, 6:04 AM
>
> AIPAC espionage case defendant Steve Rosen & AIPAC operative Rahm  
> Emanuel got Freeman removed from NIC:
>
> http://tinyurl. com/b88sl6
>
> Additional at the following URL:
>
>
> http://www.itszone. co.uk/zone0/ viewtopic. php?t=104675
>
>
> --- On Wed, 3/11/09, James Morris <justicequest2000@ yahoo.com> wrote:
> From: James Morris <justicequest2000@ yahoo.com>
> Subject: Chas Freeman speaks: By vetoing U.S. appointments, the  
> Israel lobby is enforcing adherence to a foreign government
> To: traitorsusa@ yahoogroups. com
> Date: Wednesday, March 11, 2009, 3:45 AM
>
> Chas Freeman speaks: By vetoing U.S. appointments, the Israel lobby  
> is enforcing adherence to a foreign government
>
> http://www.philipwe iss.org/mondowei ss/2009/03/ freeman-the-  
> powerful- israel-lobby- is-determined- to-prevent- any-view- other- 
> than- its-own-from- being-ai. html
>
>
> Exiting, Chas Freeman Attacks Israel Lobby:
>
> http://blogs. abcnews.com/ politicalpunch/ 2009/03/exiting- chas- 
> fr.html
>
> Tom Murphy (of www.representativep ress.org) writes (about what Jake  
> Tapper conveys via the above ABC News blog entry):
>
> I see Jake Tapper is "perplexed". He claims that Freeman says "a  
> foreign power was lurking nefariously somehow behind it all" when as  
> another reader noticed, Freeman was talking about the influnce of  
> the lobby. Some guy Donals from Hawaii calss him on it. "Excuse me,  
> Jake Tapper, but Chas Freeman specifically targeted the pro-Israel  
> lobby in D.C. as source of his difficulties. Nowhere in his  
> statement does he directly implicate the intrigues of a foreign  
> power, Israel. Please don't deliberately twist Freeman's prose into  
> a verbal pretzel in order to either conflate the pro-Israel lobby  
> with the State of Israel itself, or to mock the man as some sort of  
> pro-Arab radical lunatic for having the nerve to say something with  
> which you might personally disagree -- lest you desire that some of  
> us come to question YOUR own motives for doing so."
>
>
> ------------ --------- --------- --------- --------- ---------  
> --------- --------- -
>
>
> Additional at the following URL:
>
> Chas Freeman forced by Israel Lobies to withdraw from NIC
>
> http://www.itszone. co.uk/zone0/ viewtopic. php?t=104675
>
> --- On Tue, 3/10/09, James Morris <justicequest2000@ yahoo.com> wrote:
> From: James Morris <justicequest2000@ yahoo.com>
> Subject: Chas Freeman forced by Israel Lobies to withdraw from NIC  
> Chairmanship
> To: traitorsusa@ yahoogroups. com
> Date: Tuesday, March 10, 2009, 6:29 PM
>
> PBS 'Newshour' conveyed that Freeman was pressured to resign by  
> Israel supporters for conveying that US support for Israel was  
> PRIMARY MOTIVATION for 9/11:
>
> http://tinyurl. com/2plhas
> Chas Freeman forced by Israel Lobies to withdraw from NIC Chairmanship
>
>
> http://www.juancole .com/2009/ 03/chas-freeman- forced-by- israel- 
> lobies- to.html
>
> Mr. President, Yes, You Could
>
> An open letter to President Obama
>
> http://informationc learinghouse.info/article2 2188.htm
>
>
> ------------ --------- --------- --------- --------- ---------  
> --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- --
>
> DE BORCHGRAVE: Freeman's unpardonable 'sin'
>
> Arnaud de Borchgrave
> COMMENTARY:
>
>
>
> http://www.washingt ontimes.com/ news/2009/ mar/06/intellige nce- 
> analyst- in-chief/
>
>
>
> A rarity in Washington , the secret was well kept until the  
> announcement by Director of National Intelligence Dennis C. Blair.  
> His deputy as chairman of the National Intelligence Council (NIC) is  
> Charles "Chas" Freeman, a Chinese-speaking iconoclast with a  
> brilliant analytical mind that is anathema to the Israel lobby and  
> the neocons.
>
>
>
> Lucky for former Ambassador Freeman that Judaism, in contrast to  
> Christianity, does not believe in mortal sins. But his sin is beyond  
> redemption in Washington . Mr. Freeman is convinced that U.S. and  
> Israeli strategic interests are not necessarily one and the same.
>
>
>
> This triggered a cascade of epithets from "Saudi puppet" to "Chas of  
> Arabia linked to Saudi cash" to " China-coddling , Israel -basher,"  
> and a major campaign to derail the nomination. Leading the charge  
> was Steve Rosen, former foreign policy director at the American  
> Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC).
>
>
>
> Mr. Rosen, long one of AIPAC's most influential officials on Capitol  
> Hill, is under federal indictment since Aug. 4, 2005, for alleged  
> violations of the Espionage Act while carrying out the lobby's work.  
> With co-defendant Keith Wiessman, he faces a frequently postponed  
> trial, now scheduled to begin April 29. Currently with the Middle  
> East Forum (MEF), Mr. Rosen won't have much trouble establishing  
> policy planning documents routinely made their way between friends  
> from the Pentagon to the Israeli Embassy.
>
>
>
> Mr. Freeman's new job as analyst-in-chief for the IC (intelligence  
> community) is to produce midterm and long-term strategic thinking,  
> compiled from the best thinking of 16 intelligence agencies that  
> employ 100,000 (almost half of them analysts) at a cost to the  
> taxpayer of $50 billion a year.
>
>
>
> In a speech to the Pacific Council on International Policy in 2007,  
> Mr. Freeman said, "We embraced Israel 's enemies as our own; they  
> responded by equating Americans with Israelis as their enemies."
>
>
>
> Former ambassador to Saudi Arabia (during Gulf war I), Mr. Freeman's  
> new job is "to provide policymakers with the best information:  
> unvarnished, unbiased and without regard to whether the analytic  
> judgments conform to current U.S. policy." NIC's quadrennial piece  
> de resistance is the Global Briefing. Timed for release between  
> Election Day and Inauguration Day, it "assesses critical drivers and  
> scenarios for future global outcomes approximately 15 years out."  
> From time to time, the Global Briefing, like all forecasts, makes  
> astrology look respectable.
>
>
>
> This latest, titled "Global Trends 2025: A Transformed World," was  
> briefed to Congress by Director of National Intelligence Dennis C.  
> Blair. He called the global economic and financial crisis "our  
> greatest threat," creating as it does millions more desperate  
> people, many of them drawn to angry acts, also "regime-threatening  
> instability, " the kind of chaos that plays into al Qaeda's  
> terrorist agenda.
>
>
>
> Mr. Freeman incurred the wrath of AIPAC when he said in 2007, "  
> Israel no longer even pretends to seek peace with the Palestinians;  
> it strives instead to pacify them." Ha'aretz, the New York Times of  
> Israel, frequently makes the same point, most recently with a secret  
> defense document that established the creeping annexation of  
> Palestinian land in the West Bank .
>
>
>
> Another conclusion, guaranteed to raise Israeli hackles, is Mr.  
> Freeman's long-held belief that the terrorism the United States  
> confronts is due largely to "the brutal oppression of the  
> Palestinians by an Israeli occupation that has lasted over 40 years  
> and shows no signs of ending." Accurate or not, this same refrain is  
> heard from scholars to politicians to journalists in Arab and other  
> Muslim capitals the world over. Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip  
> Erdogan called Gaza "an open-air prison." And now this week's  
> Newsweek cover blares in Arabic script "Radical Islam is a fact of  
> life." Fareed Zakaria explains "How to live with it": "We don't have  
> to accept the stoning of criminals, but it's time to stop treating  
> all Islamists as potential terrorists."
>
>
>
> Radical Islam has gained a powerful foothold in the Muslim  
> imagination, says Mr. Zakaria, and television reporting on the death  
> and destruction caused by Israeli bombs in the recent 22-day air and  
> ground campaign in Gaza only strengthens the ranks of extremists.
>
>
>
> Mr. Freeman also says Israeli contingency plans to bomb Iran 's  
> nuclear installations would trigger Iran 's formidable asymmetrical  
> retaliatory capabilities up and down the Persian Gulf and throughout  
> the Middle East , where it can mobilize such surrogates as Hezbollah  
> and Hamas. Neoconservative conventional wisdom, recently expressed  
> publicly by former Defense Policy Board Chairman Richard Perle, is  
> that Iran is bluffing.
>
>
>
> Three years ago, Mr. Perle told this reporter two B2B bombers, each  
> with 17 independently targetable weapons systems, could set Iran 's  
> nuclear program back a few years. Now Mr. Perle says the  
> neoconservative movement is a figment of its detractors'  
> imagination. Neocons, he adds, played no role in persuading  
> President George W. Bush 43 to invade Iraq .
>
>
>
> They will have a tough time trying to persuade Mr. Obama to bomb  
> Iran 's nuclear weapons installations. In fact, according to  
> Ha'aretz, the United States has already turned down Israeli requests  
> for military hardware to help it prepare for an aerial attack  
> against Iran 's nuclear facilities.
>
>
>
> Mercifully for Mr. Freeman, the NIC job is not subject to Senate  
> confirmation. Had it been, Mr. Freeman would have been axed with a  
> nod from AIPAC. But Mr. Blair made clear where he stood. His  
> statement said Mr. Freeman will be responsible for overseeing the  
> production of National Intelligence Estimates (NIE) and other  
> Intelligence Community analytical products, providing substantive  
> counsel to the DNI and senior policymakers on issues of top national  
> security importance." NIEs are key factors in shaping foreign  
> policy, particularly in wartime.
>
>
>
> Mr. Freeman, 64, first joined the Foreign Service in 1965, served in  
> India and Taiwan before his Chinese language abilities landed him  
> the assignment of principal interpreter during President Nixon's  
> breakthrough visit to China and his historic meeting with Mao Tse- 
> tung in 1972. Mr. Freeman later become deputy chief of mission in  
> Beijing and his aptitude for languages took him to various Asian  
> posts before he became deputy Africa chief at the State Department,  
> and later ambassador in Saudi Arabia (1989-92). He also served at  
> the Pentagon as assistant secretary for international security  
> affairs during the Clinton administration. And in 1997, Mr. Freeman  
> succeeded George McGovern to become president of the Middle East  
> Policy Council, which "strives to ensure that a full range of U.S.  
> interests and views are considered by policymakers. "
>
>
>
> Or the flip side of Washington 's pro-Israel think tanks.
>
>
>
> Arnaud de Borchgrave is editor at large of The Washington Times and  
> of United Press International.
>
> ------------ --------- --------- --------- --------- ---------  
> --------- -
>
>
>
> The Appointment of Charles Freeman and the Coming War with Iran:
>
>
>
>
>
> http://www.theoccid entalobserver. net/authors/ Connelly-  
> Freeman.html# Iran
>
>
>
> Chas. Freeman appointed Intel chief despite opposition:
>
>
>
> http://news. muckety.com/ 2009/02/27/ despite-oppositi on-by-jewish-  
> groups-chas- freeman-appointe d-intel-chief/ 12241#jump
>
>
>
> Additional at the following message thread (URL):
>
>
>
>
>
> http://www.itszone. co.uk/zone0/ viewtopic. php?t=104348
>
> --- On Tue, 3/10/09, James Morris <justicequest2000@ yahoo.com> wrote:
> From: James Morris <justicequest2000@ yahoo.com>
> Subject: Re: AIPAC Universal Hilton Protest March 8:
> To: traitorsusa@ yahoogroups. com
> Date: Tuesday, March 10, 2009, 5:52 PM
>
> AIPAC EVENT / UNIVERSAL HILTON / PHOTO SLIDE SHOW W/MUSIC:
>
> http://www.youtube. com/watch?v=gkKKEo0WBjc
>
>
> AIPAC PROTEST: March 8-Israeli Style Checkpoint-Los Angeles:
>
> http://www.youtube. com/watch?v=pDII2Yw9ytA&feature=related
>
> --- On Tue, 3/10/09, James Morris <justicequest2000@ yahoo.com> wrote:
> From: James Morris <justicequest2000@ yahoo.com>
> Subject: AIPAC Universal Hilton Protest March 8:
> To: traitorsusa@ yahoogroups. com
> Date: Tuesday, March 10, 2009, 12:36 PM
>
> AIPAC Universal Hilton Protest March 8:
>
> http://www.youtube. com/watch? v=IkqkOhYHR6Y
>
>
> --- On Tue, 3/10/09, James Morris <justicequest2000@ yahoo.com> wrote:
> From: James Morris <justicequest2000@ yahoo.com>
> Subject: FW: Book: Guilt by Association, by Jeff Gates
> To: traitorsusa@ yahoogroups. com
> Date: Tuesday, March 10, 2009, 6:00 AM
>
> FW: Book: Guilt by Association, by Jeff Gates
>
>
> Saturday, March 7, 2009 5:56 AM
>
> From: "Stephen Sniegoski" (author of 'The Transparent Cabal'):
>
>
> Book by Jeff Gates, Guilt by Association, that deals with Zionist  
> control of
> the US. (Chomsky endorses the book but he doesn't mention the  
> importance of American Zionists):
>
>
> ------------ --------- --------- --------- --------- ---------  
> --------- --------- ----
>
> WASHINGTON, D.C.) In an explosive new book, a former counsel to the  
> U.S.
> Senate explains how America lost control of its foreign policy to
> pro-Israeli elites and extremists.
>
> In an account covering presidencies from Woodrow Wilson to George W.  
> Bush,
> the author chronicles the influence wielded by pro-Israeli agents  
> operating
> inside administrations over the past century regardless of party.
>
> Harry Truman, a political product of organized crime from the 1920s,
> recognized Israel in 1948 over the strenuous objections of Secretary  
> of
> State George Marshall and the entire U.S. foreign policy and  
> intelligence
> establishment. Like Bush, Truman was a Zionist Christian predisposed  
> to
> favor the agenda of the Zionist state. Like Truman, Bush was advised  
> by a
> cadre of pro-Israeli advisers who favored Tel Avivs expansionist  
> goals.
>
> With this game-changing analysis, Guilt By Association shows how the  
> U.S.
> became a casualty of those skilled at waging war by way of  
> deception. In the
> Information Age, war is waged by what Defense Secretary Robert Gates  
> calls
> the people in between.
>
> Between the facts and a misinformed public, asserts author Jeff  
> Gates, are
> those such as CNN announcer Wolf Blitzer and New York Times reporter  
> Judith
> Miller who displaced the real facts about Iraqi WMD with what people  
> could
> be deceived to believe.
>
> The scope, scale and duration of this duplicity, Gates documents,  
> exerted
> virtual control over serial presidencies. Even more disturbing, Guilt
> details how pro-Israeli candidates are screened, prepped, positioned  
> and
> funded for public office by a transnational network aligned around  
> shared
> goals. What Guilt documents is less an overt conspiracy than non- 
> transparent
> ideological alignment around values inconsistent with democracys  
> commitment
> to transparency and informed choice.
>
> This provocative account documents how the 2008 elections offer only  
> the
> latest presidential field in which both candidates are the product of
> pro-Israeli networks whose goals conflict with Americas interests.
>
> A widely acclaimed author, attorney, investment banker, political  
> advisor
> and consultant to government, corporate and union leaders worldwide,  
> Jeff
> Gates previous books include Democracy at Risk: Rescuing Main Street  
> From
> Wall Street and The Ownership Solution: Toward a Shared Capitalism  
> for the
> 21st Century. Endorsers for these books include CEOs, heads of state,
> legislators, educators, commentators and Nobel laureates.
>
>
>
> This book is available now. For more information or to order, go to
> www.criminalstate. com.
>
> Guilt by Association: How Deception and Self-Deceit Took America to  
> War is
> poised to become the first in a best-selling Criminal State series.  
> (ISBN:
> 978-0-9821315- 0-3; $27.95; 320 pages; 5 x 8; perfect bound soft  
> cover;
> State Street Publications) .
>
>
> http://www.huffingt onpost.com/ jeff-gates/ rahm-emanuel- barack- 
> obama_ b_142837. html
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
>
> Subject: Book: Guilt by Association, by Jeff Gates
>
>
> Jeff Gates, author of Guilt by Association, is a former counsel of the
> Senate Finnance Committee. He exposes "rampant deceit, corruption and
> treason infecting the American body politic for many decades. His  
> account of
> Israel's 1967 two-hour attack on the USS Liberty that killed 34  
> sailors and
> wounded 172 and the cancellation of the Navy's rescue of the ship by
> President Johnson while the ship was under attack will shock every  
> American.
> "
>
> Amazon is sold out but is re-stockihng.
> V.
>
> ____________ _________ _________ __
>
>
>
> http://u2r2h- documents. blogspot. com/2008/ 10/guilt- by- 
> association- by-jeff-gates- full.html
>
> Guilt by Association: How Deception and Self-Deceit Took America to  
> War
> (Perfect Paperback)
>
> by Jeff Gates (Author)
>
> AMAZON -- Temporarily out of stock ORDER NOW
> <http://www.amazon. com/rc3389- 20/dp/098213150X> !!!
>
> ISBN: 978-0-9821315- 0-3; $27.95; 320 pages
>
> Noam Chomsky says: Breathless Just Reading It
>
> Guilt by Association makes treason transparent The corruption that  
> plagues
> American politics is traced to an alliance with elites and  
> extremists loyal
> to the Land of Israel. Unable to rid politics of campaign finance
> corruption, the U.S. finds its security imperiled by those skilled at
> deceiving America into waging wars for the Zionist state. Tracing this
> corruption to criminal syndicates from the 1920s, Guilt by Association
> reveals how those skilled at displacing facts with beliefs wield  
> clout from
> the shadows. Both deception and self-deceit play critical roles in  
> enabling
> this criminality to expand its reach on a global scale. Guilt by  
> Association
> documents howby operating in the realms of politics, media,  
> academia, think
> tanks and popular culturecorruption came to dominate politics, as  
> shown by
> presidential candidates John McCain and Barack Obama. Chronicling  
> systemic
> corruption that predates these candidates by decades, the book  
> explains how
> organized crime expanded worldwide while the U.S. discredited itself  
> in the
> eyes of a global public astounded that Americans would tolerate such
> corruption to their own detriment. Featuring sophisticated analysis
> presented in laymans language, Guilt by Association will transform
> political debate in the U.S. and beyond. Author, educator, attorney  
> and
> adviser on financial policy to thirty-five countries, Jeff Gates  
> served
> seven years as counsel to the U.S. Senate Committee on Finance  
> (1980-87).
> His earlier books include The Ownership Solution and Democracy at  
> Risk.
>
> Thursday, October 30, 2008
>
> Contact Information
> Jeff Gates
> STATE STREET PUBLICATIONS
>
>
> (WASHINGTON, D.C.) A startling new book from a Washington insider is  
> setting
> academic and diplomatic worlds afire. Stunningly provocative claims a
> former U.S. Ambassador to Qatar. Explosively revelatory says a former
> deputy director of the Cabinet Task Force on Terrorism.
>
> Not since the Watergate era has a book offered more insights per  
> page than
> Guilt By Association, a blockbuster from a former Senate counsel and  
> adviser
> to 35 governments worldwide. Former Congressman Paul Findley  
> describes the
> book as magnificent, timely and persuasive in revealing how stealth,
> deceit and cunning helped create todays perilous situation in the  
> Middle
> East.
>
> Jeff Gates
>
> <http://4.bp. blogspot. com/__r_wnCDvOno /SQocqvEN- HI/AAAAAAAAAxE/  
> MMPOVp17FLQ/ s
> 1600-h/Jeff_ Gates---u2r2h- documents. blogspot. com.jpg>
>
> Written with a precision certain to catch the attention of U.S.  
> Attorneys
> nationwide, the author presents the facts that make treason  
> transparent. A
> fan of neither political party, author Jeff Gates reveals how  
> foreign agents
> came to dominate U.S. foreign policy and manipulate the electoral  
> process
> through the multi-decade corruption of both parties.
>
> This chronicle of duplicity and trans-generational manipulation  
> describes
> how dysfunctional personalities are identified and then positioned for
> elective office. Chronicling systemic corruption that predates the  
> current
> presidential candidates by decades, Guilt By Association describes how
> organized crime expanded worldwide in plain view yet with legal  
> impunity.
>
> A sophisticated analysis presented in laymans language, Guilt  
> details how
> the U.S. discredited itself in the eyes of a global public that  
> remains
> astounded that Americans would tolerate such corruption to their own
> detriment. Stunned at the facts uncovered over 5-1/2 years of  
> research,
> Gates proposes Congressional hearings to make this systemic  
> criminality
> apparent to a long-deceived American public.
>
> A widely acclaimed author, attorney, educator and consultant to  
> government,
> corporate and union leaders worldwide, Jeff Gates previous books  
> include
> Democracy at Risk: Rescuing Main Street From Wall Street and The  
> Ownership
> Solution: Toward a Shared Capitalism for the 21st Century. Endorsers  
> for
> these books include CEOs, heads of state, legislators, educators,
> commentators and Nobel laureates.
>
> This book is available now. For more information or to order, go to
> www.criminalstate. com.
>
> Guilt by Association: How Deception and Self-Deceit Took America to  
> War is
> poised to become the first in a best-selling Criminal State series.  
> (ISBN:
> 978-0-9821315- 0-3; $27.95; 320 pages; 5 x 8; perfect bound soft  
> cover;
> State Street Publications) .
>
> read CHAPTER ONE
> <http://u2r2h- documents. blogspot. com/2008/ 10/game-theory- and- 
> mass- murder-of-
> 911.html>
>
> read CHAPTER FOUR
> <http://u2r2h- documents. blogspot. com/2008/ 10/john-mccain- sr-uss- 
> liberty- trea
> son-and.html>
>
> read CHAPTER SEVEN
> <http://u2r2h- documents. blogspot. com/2008/ 10/chapter- 7-of- 
> guilt- by-associati
> on-how.html>
>
> In Guilt by Association: How Deception and Self-Deceit Took America  
> to War,
> a former counsel to the U.S. Senate chronicles a long tradition of
> corruption and treason at the hands of foreign agents committed to  
> advancing
> the Zionist cause through well timed crises.
>
> Americas credibility on the world stage has deteriorated due to a  
> small
> group of elites and extremists who pledge allegiance to Israel, says  
> author
> Jeff Gates. And our entangled alliance with Israelwith its known  
> history
> of stealth, deceit and espionageled this nation to war.
>
> In his provocative new book, Mr. Gates documents how Israeli agents  
> and
> their assets in the U.S. manipulated policy-makers to wage war in  
> Iraq and
> now seek to expand that war to Iran. He also chronicles a long  
> history of
> pro-Israeli operatives behind an ongoing transnational criminal  
> syndicate
> with roots in Russia and other countries.
>
> The depth of corruption and treason that the author chronicles  
> inside the
> U.S. government is the result of decades of neglect and complicity by
> national security and federal law enforcement. The author explains,  
> This
> book reveals how treason advances in plain sight by those skilled at
> displacing facts with beliefs to wield political clout from the  
> shadows.
>
> Endorsed by Ambassador Edward L. Peck, Congressman Paul Findley and  
> M.I.T.
> professor Noam Chomsky, Guilt exposes how this transnational criminal
> syndicate operates through politics, media, academia, think tanks and
> popular culture.
>
> Mr. Gates documents how even the selection of the 2008 presidential
> candidates was influenced by the Zionist state, fueled by the  
> continued
> corruption of campaign finance.
>
> An acclaimed author, lawyer, investment banker, educator and  
> consultant to
> government, corporate and union leaders worldwide, Jeff Gates is  
> also former
> counsel to the U.S. Senate Committee on Finance. His previous works  
> include
> Democracy at Risk: Rescuing Main Street From Wall Street and The  
> Ownership
> Solution: Toward a Shared Capitalism for the 21st Century. Endorsers  
> for
> these books include CEOs, heads of state, legislators, commentators,
> educators and Nobel laureates.
>
> Guilt by Association: How Deception and Self-Deceit Took America to  
> War is
> poised to become the first in a best-selling ser
>
> ***************************************
> This is a list for member groups of United for Peace and Justice to  
> discuss organizing plans and the work of this coalition.
>
> List guidelines:
>
> This list is open to any member of a UFPJ member group for the  
> discussion of UFPJ's work, including proposals for action, future  
> strategies, etc. It is NOT intended for general, wide-open political  
> discussion. Please sign your postings with your name and the name of  
> the group to which you belong.
>
> Please refrain from off-topic posts. News articles belong on the ufpj-news at yahoogroups.com 
>  list.  If you wish to engage others in discussion around a  
> particular news item, campaign, or concept, please write a brief  
> intro above the item you forward that can serve to focus  
> discussion.  This will ensure that the list is a useful tool for  
> communication and debate between UFPJ member groups.
>
> We want to encourage full and vigorous conversation, but also want  
> people to be attentive to overposting.  A good guideline is to limit  
> your posts to one per day, except in unusual circumstances.   
> Personal attacks and racist, sexist, or homophobic language will not  
> be tolerated.
>
> Moderation will be exercised at the discretion of the list  
> administrators, in order to provide a useful platform for discussion  
> that makes space for a diversity of voices.
> _______________________________________________
> Ufpj-disc mailing list
>
> Post: Ufpj-disc at lists.mayfirst.org
> List info: https://lists.mayfirst.org/mailman/listinfo/ufpj-disc
>
> To Unsubscribe
>        Send email to:  Ufpj-disc-unsubscribe at lists.mayfirst.org
>        Or visit: https://lists.mayfirst.org/mailman/options/ufpj-disc/jvwalshmd%40gmail.com
>
> You are subscribed as: jvwalshmd at gmail.com
>
> ***************************************
> This is a list for member groups of United for Peace and Justice to  
> discuss organizing plans and the work of this coalition.
>
> List guidelines:
>
> This list is open to any member of a UFPJ member group for the  
> discussion of UFPJ's work, including proposals for action, future  
> strategies, etc. It is NOT intended for general, wide-open political  
> discussion. Please sign your postings with your name and the name of  
> the group to which you belong.
>
> Please refrain from off-topic posts. News articles belong on the ufpj-news at yahoogroups.com 
>  list.  If you wish to engage others in discussion around a  
> particular news item, campaign, or concept, please write a brief  
> intro above the item you forward that can serve to focus  
> discussion.  This will ensure that the list is a useful tool for  
> communication and debate between UFPJ member groups.
>
> We want to encourage full and vigorous conversation, but also want  
> people to be attentive to overposting.  A good guideline is to limit  
> your posts to one per day, except in unusual circumstances.   
> Personal attacks and racist, sexist, or homophobic language will not  
> be tolerated.
>
> Moderation will be exercised at the discretion of the list  
> administrators, in order to provide a useful platform for discussion  
> that makes space for a diversity of voices.
> _______________________________________________
> Ufpj-disc mailing list
>
> Post: Ufpj-disc at lists.mayfirst.org
> List info: https://lists.mayfirst.org/mailman/listinfo/ufpj-disc
>
> To Unsubscribe
> 	Send email to:  Ufpj-disc-unsubscribe at lists.mayfirst.org
> 	Or visit: https://lists.mayfirst.org/mailman/options/ufpj-disc/mkbrussel%40comcast.net
>
> You are subscribed as: mkbrussel at comcast.net

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/archive/peace-discuss/attachments/20090316/b9d02bfa/attachment.htm