APARTHEID ISRAEL :NOT KERRY BARAK FIRST

EHUD BARAK MOST DECORATED MAN IN ISRAELI HISTORY FIRST TO WARN ISRAEL MAY BE APARTHEID STATE

"As long as in this territory, west of the Jordan River, there is only one political entity called Israel. It is going to be either non-Jewish or non-Democratic. If this block of millions of Palestinians cannot vote that will be an apartheid state.”  Prime Minister Ehud Barak (as Minister of Defense) at National Security Conference, Feb 2, 2010 in Herzilya, Israel. 

Secretary of State John Kerry, who was probably only expressing his disappointment at the failure of peace talks and concern for Israel's future when he warned Israelis and used the "A" word. Kerry faced a withering storm of vituperation after his speech in which he warned that if the Netanyahu government does not follow through on peace negotiations leading to a two state solution the result may be an apartheid state.   Kerry's words caused a great stir in the pro-Israel US press, with knee jerk  Republicans, cowardly Democrats and with the far right.  Poor Mr. Kerry had to bend his tall angular frame down in abject obeisance  and beg forgiveness as the Republican press, right wing radio and other attack machines went into full swing.  The American Israeli Public Affairs Committee called the remarks "deeply troubling".  "Any suggestion that Israel is, or is at risk of becoming, an apartheid state is offensive and inappropriate," they stated, also adding, "The Jewish state is a shining light for freedom and opportunity in a region plagued by terror, hate and oppression."  While Abe Foxman of the ADA, called Kerry's remarks "startling" and "repugnant language". 

A little bit of research regarding the term "apartheid" turned up the fact that Secretary Kerry was not the first to use the "A" which suggests the worrisome concept ( for the Israeli's) that they are morphing into South Africa and like that nation might be forced to the bargaining table where they would have to make unwanted compromises with the Palestinians as a result of unfavorable international public opinion.  The first was Ehud Barak a distinguished Israeli decorated war hero,  and former Prime Minister. 

Prime Minister Ehud Barak is no shrinking violet, he has had a distinguished military career. He joined the military in 1959 and served in the IDF for 35 years rising to position Lt. General and Chief of General Staff. He was awarded  many medals and decorations for his heroic service as a commando and military officer in the too numerous battles and conflicts of his nation. He is  frequently noted as the most highly decorated military man in Israeli history.  He served as Prime Minister and again as Defense Minister.  If  war hero and former Prime Minister Ehud Barak can use the "A" word to point out the dangers of the present policy of the Netanyahu government for Israeli future and claim that Israel may become an "apartheid state" in that future, certainly others who are equally concerned about the Israel and peace in the Middle East can too. 

CIA's TOUGH GUY MICHAEL HAYDEN, CALLS FEINSTEIN "EMOTIONAL"

Appearing on Chris Wallace's Fox News last Sunday (April 6,2014) , where he was surrounded by other Fox tough guys who like to swagger behind their desks and heel-click their patent leather shoes as they support sending other people's kids to war, little Micky Haden (former CIA director under George Bush and Dick Cheney) characterized Senator Dianne Feinstein as "emotional" and her CIA torture report non-objective, though he had not even read the summary of the report.  

“That sense that the motivation for the report may show deep emotional feeling on the part of (Sen. Dianne Feinstein), but I don’t think it leads you to an objective report,” Hayden said on "Fox News Sunday."

Hayden, used the "emotional female" card against Feinstein, suggesting that she could not be "objective" about torture. The catty, ad hominem attack by Hayden to Wallace's question left little Micky look  looking  "emotional" as he squirmed with obvious anxiety concerned that his own culpability in the torture revelations of the CIA will be exposed.

I image Haden labors under the  "tough-guy-behind-the-desk" opinion that you are only a "real man", when you can order six big guys to tie down a scared, struggling individual to a gurney, then stub out cigarette butts on his bare chest, or pour water down his mouth and nose, or stick the handle of plunger up his anus, or  tie electric cables to his testicles, then be able to laugh about it when he screams in agony.   Yeah, maybe Diane Feinstein can't countenance such behavior, but a "real man" like little Micky Haden can do it. 

OBAMA LEADS FROM BEHIND ON SENATE CIA REPORT, LETS CIA DECIDE

Obama Leads from Behind, Lets CIA Torture Advocates Decide What to Release of Senate (Torture) Report.

Today (April 11, 2014) we learn of another example of President Obama taking the lead by turning on his heel and doing a one-eighty. It was revealed today in the guardian.com, (see:“CIA and White House under pressure after Senate torture report leaks”) that Mr. Obama will let the CIA decide what portions of the Senate report (devastatingly critical of the CIA) will be revealed to the public.

The Senate Intelligence Committee under the leadership of Senator Dianne Feinstein spent years and $40 million dollars of taxpayers money to prepare the now infamous Senate report on CIA operations, misinformation policies and efficacy of torture during the Bush Years. Recent revelations by Ms. Feinstein on the floor of the Senate and leaks to the press indicate the report is highly critical of the CIA. That organization has been understandably fighting tooth and nail to suppress the report. Feinstein claims that organization has spied on, threatened and blocked her committee staffers. Admittedly those years were a time that perhaps many Americans now wish had never happened. (Though many in the USA urged the CIA on, others quietly let them get away with clearly illegal and immoral policies..Ms Feinstein among them..and the rest did not have the fortitude to stand up to voice their objections.). Somehow after 9-11 some elements in our government seem to have morphed into the very “evil doers” our uncles and fathers fought and died fighting against during the Second World War. I'm glad my uncles, one of whom was tortured by the Japanese, did not survive to to this day and have to contemplate these sad revelations. I can only imagine what he would have said.)

Senator Feinstein has urged the President to release the findings of her hard working, courageous committee expeditiously and with few redactions so that this awful “experiment with torture” could be seen for what it was---an utter failure and a moral lapse. But Mr. Obama, who too often seems to have the capacities and determination of TV characters Jerry Seinfeld and George Costanza, was not up to the task. As in the Seinfeld “Cheever Letters” episode, George states (on the ease of building a log cabin) “We could do it.”; Jerry’s response: “Well maybe not us, but two men could.”

So as a result, with a President who can’t stand up to the CIA himself, but might let ”two men from the CIA do it”, it seems the public will learn next to nothing about how the CIA misled the Congress, while it tortured, renditioned and snatched unknown numbers of people off the streets of their native lands and into “black sites” around the world during the Bush war years. Obama might as well have had Mr.Brennan and his torturing co-conspirators write the report in the beginning. It would have saved the Nation $40 million dollars and the embarrassment and revelations about the shameful inner workings of the American government of the early 21st Century.

SUPREMES GIVE RIGHTS TO POLLUTERS IN MCCUTCHEON DECISION

Clearing the smoke from the Recent Supreme Court Decision (Or how the supremes give the right to pollute the airways.)

The Roberts Supreme Court has misinterpreted the First Amendment to favor the fat cats... again. First there was “Citizens United” which gave the big corporations the status of individual voters. Now they have treated us to the recent McCutcheon decision which removed the caps on how much any one donor can legally give to a candidate.

The way we see things in the clear cold air from the tops of the still snowy Greens here in Vermont resolves into two basic issues. One, can money corrupt the democratic process? And two, does permitting one small elite minority (perhaps less than a thousand individuals) the ability to disperse unlimited funds into elections have the effect of drowning meaningful discourse and the voices and will of the vast majority of the the electorate?

The answer to the first question is easy. Can anyone imagine that the “quid pro quo” effect is not in operation when one donor gives millions of dollars to one party or one gang of candidates of the same party? Anyone who doubts that has only to recall how the Republican 2016 presidential “hopeful candidates” showed up at the Sheldon Adelson “primary" in Las Vegas last month, arriving on bended knees to swear allegiance to Adelson’s view of Israel, his green backs and Sheldon’s persona. That event underscored with finality how money “talks” and controls. There is no question that there is a quid pro quo and the more money involved the more powerful the effect.

The second question is analogous to the old and discredited “right” to pollute question. In my old home town of Riverhead, the original settlers raised ducks on the banks tidal rivers. The tide came in twice a day to remove the duck wastes and carry them down stream. The awful stench and suffocating pollution which made vast areas downstream, smelly, lifeless toxic zones was the problem of the poor fool who chose to live down stream of a duck farm. The wealthy and powerful old duck farmers thought it was their “right” to use “their” river as they saw fit. In like manner does the right to smoke an expensive cigar after dinner in a posh restaurant take precedence over those of other diners who would rather breathe fresh air and smell the aroma of their fragrant foods rather than that of smouldering tobacco? In this McCutcheon decision the conservative majority of the Supreme Court, in effect, awarded the paramount right to the water polluters and smokers. After McCutcheon, the rights of those who would “pollute” the election atmosphere with cash and the repetition “ad nauseum” of their opinions on the airways, drowning out opposing views and eliminating the possibility of legitimate discourse, now take precedence over the rights of those in the vast majority who may not agree or have an opposing view. To the Robert’s Court the “rights” of perhaps less than one thousand elites beats the rights of 300 million Americans to have meaningful political,discourse. Its that simple. And these men are the so-called “conservatives” who make me laugh when they tout their putative adherence to the “original intentions” of the founders. The founders would cringe at this decision.

Cash corrupts and introducing more cash corrupts more fully and effectively. The supremes of the Roberts Court have brought us back into the bad old days of the 19th and early 20 centuries when the robber barons dumped their pollution into the air and drinking water of the nation, owned and controlled the local newspaper (and the later radio stations), and openly bought their Congressman and Senator.....and who were convinced it was their God given right to do so.